TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

whereistheproof Archive

View 0 posts and 85 comments by whereistheproof on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

citation?
/r/MensRights23/04/12 10:31 PM
1

Hm. Then I guess there is really no point in arguing then, as our definitions of the term differ.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 04:12 PM
1

If you're trying to piss people off, why would you tell them you're just trying to mess with them? The trollface does not mean "just trying to mess with them" though. I means that you are engaging in an act just to piss people off. Okay, look at me, I'm going to post an example of trolling: "you smell". Now, I did not just troll you. Even though I said I would, we've been arguing, and the comment was offensive, it is not trolling. Edoit: Forgot the > That was not trolling (at least I don't think…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 10:48 PM
2

Sorry, missed that part. It seems men do have an physical advantage over women. Interesting.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 10:12 PM
0

I see, is the differences in how much men produce over women enough to say they have a definitive advantage? I mean, if men only produce like 1% more, that's not really an advantage.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:52 PM
1

I see. Why is testosterone a "male" hormone, is it only found in men? Do men just naturally produce more of it?
/r/MensRights15/04/12 09:40 PM
1

I know it is not contested in the slightest, and that irks me. The world record for the 100m sprint for men is 9.58s, and for women it's 10.49s (a much bigger difference than it looks). The world record for the Clean & Jerk (69kg weight category, since it exists for both men and women) for men is 196 kg, and for women is 158 kg. Keep in mind that at this level, all serious competitors are also on steroids, usually male hormones, which takes away some of the men's advantage. For athletes not at t…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 05:10 PM
-1

Yes, men have a physical fitness advantage. I keep hearing this, but I have never seen evidence that supports this assertion.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 04:50 PM
0

You may feel inclined to "drop it" but the trollface is part of my evidance that othomson is a troll. Trollface is a face that is meant to portray the expression someone makes while trolling. This, along with with my previous argument that the joke itself was vulgar, the context the joke was made in was offensive, it was derailing and added nothing to the topic at hand, and the poster has a history of animosity and hatred towards the feminist movement show that this comment was a blatant act of …
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:55 PM
1

So? The movement is still ideological in nature. Give it time, though. That was how feminism was at the beginning as well.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:49 PM
0

I think you are confused, there are two different assertions being made here. Mine is that othomson is a troll, yours, made in the prosses of debating weathor or or not othomson is a troll, is that the troll-face means "haha just kidding". That is a positive assertion, so you have the onus of proving that the troll-face means "haha just kidding". I have the onus of proving othomson is a troll. This is true. But you also have the onus of proving that the troll-face means "haha just kidding".
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:39 PM
0

It is true that the onus is one me to prove that othomsom iis troll. But I have done so. I have provided a piece of evidance to support this. The particular claim I am referring to, however, is yours. That the troll-face means "haha just kidding". It is a positive assertion, and you made it, thus, the onus is on you.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:27 PM
1

"Support gender equality by fighting for the rights of men"
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:16 PM
0

The point was I'm not going to present any, because in order to do so I would have to wade through old logs, and fuck that. If you can not present any evidence to support your claim that the troll-face means "haha just kidding" then your premise is deemed false. "No evidence? Why should I believe you then?" basically. Trollface. No matter what you think it means, it's pretty clearly saying that they aren't being serious. Like I just said, you did not provide any proof that troll face-means "haha…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 07:10 AM
0

Go wade through /b/ logs a few years ago, or /a/ logs in the past couple of years. Maybe I'm just not down with how f7u12 has decided to repurpose it. I am not going to find your evidence for you. The onus is on you in this case. Uh.. "trollface". I am going to mentally put this aside, because we have yet to daterman if the troll face means what you say it means. Actually, that's implicit, but I meant pretty directly said it rather than hinting. When did he say it directly? Proof? The joke itsel…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 06:06 AM
0

Because that's how it's used. Prove it. I have never seen it used in a "haha just kidding" way. by everybody. If that where true, we would not be having this discussion. He explicitly stated he wasn't being serious Where? And, even if he did, just because he wans't being serious does not mean he wasnt being a troll. Even if it was "lol I'm making a joke" the intent was still to piss off the people in the thread.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 05:03 AM
0

"trollface" in that context was basically "haha, just kidding!" That is debatable, given the context of the joke, and his history with R/feminism and his animosity if not outright hatred towards feminists. and besids, I don't get your leap from "trollface" to "haha just kidding". What makes you say that? The trollface is used to indicate trollish behavior, and, as we have discussed, trollish behaviour is when you desire to elicit negaitve emotinal responses. And who is WorstPossibleAnswer? On se…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:58 AM
1

Both movements are ideology based, it is just that MRM has more concrete issues, as opposed to the feminists more abstract ones.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:44 AM
1

Again, the premise is what I was talking about. How two of you go about your business is why I said "in many ways" as opposed to "completely". and talking both moments as a whole, not just the Reddit ones, I would say they are practically mirror images of each other. Although that is just an impression.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:31 AM
0

Please do not make the assumption that I am a dude. It's only trolling if you're trying to trick somebody into believing you're for real. We must have different definitions of trolling, then. The way I understood it, you are trolling when the goal of what you are doing is to elicit negative emotions from the people you are talking to. Get them angry offended etc etc. Now, often trolls will attempt to disguise their trolling as sincerity, and indeed this might even be more common, but the goal of…
/r/MensRights15/04/12 03:18 AM
0

It was a joke made with the express intent of offending, as evidenced by the location of the joke, the trollface, and the nature of the joke itself. Trying to piss people off is an big part of what makes a troll a troll. Just because its a joke, does not mean its not trolling.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:43 AM
0

When you frequently engage in the act of trolling, you are a troll. Changing subreddits, or focusing your trolling to one subreddit, does not change his status as a troll. Does not mean his contributions are invalid, though. Being a troll does not necessarily mean you are always trolling.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 02:19 AM
1

Not just animals, the drive to procreate is part of how we define "life" last I checked.
/r/MensRights15/04/12 01:23 AM
0

I am a skeptic. Also, have you READ his posts? Most of the posts he makes in R/feminism are derailing, and he makes occasionally makes staments for the sole purpose of making an offensive joke, thought these are less frequent then the derailing.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 11:49 PM
0

The most obvious example, more to come if you want it. Depends on how you wipe Trollface
/r/MensRights14/04/12 11:35 PM
0

It was both.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 11:20 PM
1

Citation? I have heard that men naturally have more mussel mass, but I have never seen this claim substantiated.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 02:52 PM
0

Have you read his post history? Fine, I will do so when I have the time to make a giant list.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 02:42 PM
-2

Your movements are in many ways synonymous. The premises are nearly identical. "support gender equality by fighting for the rights of (wo)men" The differences in how the two of you go about your business is why I said "in many ways" as opposed to "completely"
/r/MensRights14/04/12 05:39 AM
-5

Yes.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 05:28 AM
3

I hope it isn't. Anyone should be able to joke about anything. Where is this illegal? What law is it? And why is should it be illegal? Because its cowardly and abusive? Sinse when is an act being cowardly and abusive a good premise for legislation?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 05:16 AM
0

You don't need mens rights for any of these things. Jepers this whole "why we need X" bull is stupid no matter who uses it.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 05:02 AM
-8

You are hurting your cause by painting a cause that is in many ways synonymous to yours in a negative light. Just saying.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:51 AM
5

Women could probably physically handle former, but very few women are physically strong enough to handle the latter. What makes you say that?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:37 AM
-6

...you? Calling troll? This made me giggle.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 04:06 AM
1

You examples are not men who are biologically tied to the child, not will be on the hook for child support. The parents who are against her having the kid are biologically tied to the child. In fact, let us substitute pro-life coworkers with pro-life parents. See, I don't see why being biologically tied to the child has to do with the women making a choice about her life. It is, after all, her life. Not the fathers, not her parents, it is hers. And hers alone. Because, the father is seen as suff…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 04:17 AM
1

Ah, but you cant "turn the tables", at least, not in this case. The biological roles that men and women play in a pregnancy are not equatable in the slightest. The women choosing to end her pregnancy infringes on the will of father if he wants her to keep it, but it also infringes on the will of all those pro-lifer friends she has at work. If the women chooses to keep the baby when the dad wants her to abort, she is infringing on his will, but she is also* infringing on the will of her parents, …
/r/MensRights06/04/12 03:20 AM
1

And how is his will relevant to her decision?
/r/MensRights06/04/12 12:16 AM
1

The choices we are discussing is a women ending her pregnancy, yes? How is a women ending her pregnancy superseding the will of another person?
/r/MensRights05/04/12 11:02 PM
1

You have had that as a recurring theme, I think, that more choice means more responsibility. But I do not understand your logic behind this. If, for example, there are 5 forks in the road as a posed to two, would that make you have more responsibly in making a sound choice? I don't see the connection between choice and responsibility, is what I am saying.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 10:02 PM
1

You make good sense, I concede the point.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 08:05 AM
1

It's good to highlight that not everything they want to believe is a man's fault is in fact not a man's fault. So? Even if we were to say that that where a part of the article (it is not) then that would still not make it about mens rights. Maybe in some anti feminist movement, but not mens rights. Which, while perhaps having been formed as a counterpart to feminism, still does not directly oppose feminism or even the "patriarchy". And then there is the all too important fact that none of what y…
/r/MensRights05/04/12 07:52 AM
1

No where in the article did anyone start blaming men for these problems, though.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 07:32 AM
3

You... you know you stuff. Have you had statistical training? Or does your job involve gathering data? It seems like the only people who actually take the time and learn about how studies work are the people who make studies or work with stats for a living. This sucks, because if you want to interpret studies, you should have at least a basic understanding of the math behind them.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:41 PM
1

If the study is correct (which I don't think it is, because there was no link to the actual study, and I do not trust the site enough to know if they are interpreting the data correctly, or if the data is even correct to begin with) what does it have to do with "mens rights"? This seems like more of a feminist issue.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 08:31 PM
1

That seems to be the consensus. The thinking seems to be that if a woman has the right to opt out of being financially obligated, why cant men?
/r/MensRights03/04/12 06:55 AM
7

Hm, I don't know, I don't think that is the reason there are more homeless men then women.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 04:18 AM
0

What is with people attacking me, or arguing against me, as opposed to attacking or arguing against what I am saying? The weird part is that you arn't even doing a very good job of attacking me. Oh, you said I am not a genuine poster, my feelings are so hurt. What is a genuine poster anyways? I was under the impression that a genuine poster was someone who posted what they where genuinely feeling or thinking. As I have done nothing but that, I do not see how you can think I am not a genuine post…
/r/MensRights01/04/12 01:54 PM
0

No evidence? I gave you a couple of paragraphs outlining the logic behind my claim! If you don't think that is evidence, great! Point out where I made a misstep, where I was wrong, a flaw in my reasoning, anything really, so I can correct myself! And of course I show no interest out side anything beyond my methodology, that's what we are currently discussing! do you want me to start talking about cheese burgers in middle of a discussion about assertions and evidence? And you are in no way "bound…
/r/MensRights01/04/12 10:09 AM
1

Not a lot no. Which part did not make sense? You shouldn't assume you're the first person to be skeptical. I never did. Heck, the majority of this is based off of other ideas that came from skeptics in my life. Try bothering the mods Why the heck would I talk to the moderators of R/mensrights about burden of proof and positive vs negative assertions? they'd be happier to debate your lack of knowledge with you. I doubt it, firstly because they are moderating R/mensrights, not R/philosophy or R/sk…
/r/MensRights01/04/12 07:24 AM
1

OF course there is, by nature of the assertion "you are not reasonable" being a negative assertion. I am not saying that I am reasonable, however, but that my questions are.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 09:17 PM
0

Well it depends on the assertion. A positive assertion (an assertion that claims something to be true) I assume false, and a negative assertion (an assertion that claims something to be false) I assume to be true. Now, I know that is not how most people think, but I hope to change that, somehow... There are very good reasons why I make the assumption that positive assertions are false. First, it is statistically impossible that a positive assertion is correct, given the literally infinite number…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 09:00 PM
1

...you did? EDIT: I m sleepy I address u in moring when brain no stupid non moear.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 05:20 AM
1

And that, is exactly my point... I think? Blarg, need more sleep...
/r/MensRights30/03/12 09:38 PM
2

I see, if it is true then that would be problematic.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 09:07 PM
1

When you prosecute someone, you are making the assertion that the defendant did something illegal. IE, making a positive assertion. When you are claiming someone is innocent, you are asserting that they did not do something illegal, IE, a Negative assertion.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:56 PM
1

It isn't proof for any specific claim, but it is proof that evidence is needed for positive assertions, and that none is needed for negative. Actually, its more of an "the only evidence a negative assertion needs is that the positive assertion has none" type deal. See, its based off of the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Idea. Positive assertions, by nature of the them being positive, are extraordinary claims. as one must also consider whether one's perceptions are an a…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:42 PM
1

I am questioning claims that have not been substantiated. If that is not intelligent, I do not know what is.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:29 PM
0

Such a claim is easily proven, a broken into car + missing ipod that was in car=stolen ipod. You would have to prove the car was broken into, and that you had your iPod in your car when it was broken into, but those are easily proven as well. As to what I will accept as evidence, well, good logic, well conducted experiments, well conducted studies, repeatable observations etc etc. Basically, if it shows that something is true, I consider it evidence.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:17 PM
1

Actually, this idea originally came to when my father (used to be a defense lawyer) was explaining how burden of proof worked. The whole idea is based off of the burden of proof system used in courts. Innocent until proven guilty, false until proven true. My dad would always tell me that the defense did not have to prove that their client was innocent, only that the prosecution was talking out of their ass, to paraphrase. He won a lot of cases by simply pointing out how the prosecution was wrong…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:05 PM
-1

I was drawing parallels between you and believers in gods and ghosts who refused to provide evidence to back up their claims, claiming that it was "obvious". It was an apt comparison. As to whether or not I am "cut out for discussions of this type", I am pointing out flaws in your argument. Of course you would try and discredit my ability to participate in these types of arguments. Instead of arguing against me via ad hominem, how about arguing with what I am saying like a grown up?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:35 PM
1

Well yes, two things actually, the idea that there is an exception to every rule (which is more a family motto then anything else), and the idea that all ideas must first be proven before being accepted as true. Of course, this meant that I had to prove to myself that every idea must first be proven true before being accepted as true, which was tricky. But I figured that the probability of anything being true is really, really small. So small, in fact, that it is mathematically impossible (If I …
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:24 PM
1

And why would you think that? See, now I am just trolling you.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:12 PM
1

Not if you look at it from a "all positive assertions are false until proven otherwise" perspective. Whether or not it is disprovable is irrelevant. Uber-Skepticism is sorta my thing.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:00 PM
-1

Really? Like what?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:53 PM
0

No, its me informing you that if you cant figure out how to explain your reasoning or give evidence, then their is no point in us talking. Sometimes I feel Like I am the only person alive that can be called a troll by both the MRA's* and the feminists. I refuse to believe someone could be this pig-ignorant. You refuse to believe that someone would dare question your beliefs? I get that alot. EDIT: MRA's not MBA's
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:52 PM
0

Because it is true. Its obvious. If you cant see that then, well, I dont know what to say. You have no idea how often I hear this about patriarchy, male privilege, hell privilege in general, god, ghosts, the earth is hollow, the whole stupid shebang. If the only way you can think to try and convince someone that what you say is true is "because it is true, its obvious." you need to seriously start reevaluating your beliefs. And probably spend a bit more time at the library reading books.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:47 PM
-1

What is with people and ninja edits on this subeditor? I started typing and I look at my comments and you have added two whole new paragraphs. The thing is, all I should have to do to persuade people antifeminismedia is wrong is point out he/she has no proof. All the evidence I need is that he/she has none. Further if you say it is impossible to prove whether someone does something from their own volition or is forced by others to do it It is not impossible to prove, it is difficult, but not imp…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:39 PM
1

If a statement has no evidence or reasoning to back it up, there is absolutely no reason to think the statement is true. That is not a demand, that is just a statement of fact. You have no evidence? I see no reason why anyone should take you seriously. As for your interesting article, it is an interesting take on how socialization affects the genders, and I will look into it more, but I do not see what that has to do with sexual objectification.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:31 PM
-2

I wonder how many times you edited that post? You need to start substantiating your claims. How do you know that any of what you have just said is true?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:24 PM
0

Because thats the way men and women are, at the biological level. Again, you know this how? We look at other peoples faces/bodies to get an idea of their genetic health in regard to reproduction. Even if this is true (and I don't think it is), it is not objectification (the reducing of a person to the status of an object), that is just an assessment of characteristics. Well of course they will, because that's what we're all interested in. That implies that media is responding to humanities inter…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:21 PM
-1

Prove it, aaaand prove it. Cant? Then why should I beilive you?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:02 PM
-3

What makes you say that there is an objectification of everyone at a basic level? And what makes you say that when you start deliberately sexually objectifying yourself, the media will respond? I mean, what made you reach those conclusions?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:57 AM
3

Thats sorta the point. Its almost impossible to prove, so why the hell should I beilive it? AntiFeministMedia would have to prove that women started sexual objectifying themselves before mass media started objectify women, and then prove that media objectifying women was directly or at least tangentially caused by women objectifying themselves, and then prove that these practeses are continuing to this day. Sound like it can't be done? well, he could research advertisements and see how far they …
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:52 AM
1

If its so obvious, you should have no problem finding evidence then! Now, is the sign for sarcasim /s or s/, I can never remember. Just because you think something is obvious does not mean you get to avoid substantiating your claims. I get enough of that crap from feminists.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:32 AM
-3

The issue is that feminists have a serious problem with objectification of women (note, they consider pretty much anything where sexual attractiveness is relevant objectification) I have yet to meet a feminist outside the blogosphere that thinks objectification is a bad thing (as long as its, you know, their choice to objectify themselves) and women themselves have no problem with furthering it. So? That does not invalidate the argument that feminists are making. Which, by the way, is usually no…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:12 AM
2

They are sort of mutually exclusive. It does not matter what an individual does, or what the media does. What choices a person makes are their own choices. If she is objectifying herself, it is not the medias fault, it is on her. in the same token, just because women are choosing to sexual objectifies themselves, does not mean that "men and the media" are not sexually objectifying women in the media. Simply stated, the idea that women are sexually objectifying themselves can't be used as evidenc…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:05 AM
-6

The are sexually objectifying themselves of their own free will. Nothing wrong with that. And in the same token, I would say it is not women who are being sexually objectified, it is people who are being sexually objectified. People like sexy.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:52 AM
0

So?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:34 AM
2

First, feminism is not about wanting your gender to be treated like human beings. Second, how do you know MRA's are lonely virgins? Either cite your source or stop making unsubstantiated claims.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 02:35 AM
7

Your claim that real men don't fear women who voice their own opinions is fallacious.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 02:34 AM
-5

they already have the govt behind their disgusting policies guess thats not enough for the constant whiners. No they dont.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 02:31 AM
4

Cite your sources. What makes you think that the vast majority of feminists are the women who have shitty genes? Have you read about a study that tested the DNA of feminists? Have you met the vast majority of feminists? Or are you just talking out of your ass? I am inclined to think the latter.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 02:29 AM
1

No, some of the posts on this subreddit have value. Really, when I say no value I mean no value intellectually. This post is the sort of thing that belongs in some subreddit devoted to lols or something, and thus has no value here.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 12:36 AM
3

This is anything but "a good look at how ridiculous some sexual harassment accusations are". Its just a joke. No sources, no logic, no value.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 07:33 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter