TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

zer0t3ch Archive

View 0 posts and 421 comments by zer0t3ch 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)
10

Not to mention: money is a pretty simple thing. You can gain it or lose it and it's quantifiable. Every dollar (missing or added) is worth the same amount. Rejection is a significant 10sec and the other 38k seconds are relatively insignificant, most days.
/r/seduction20/01/18 11:19 AM
15

Welfare support that the state is suing the father to pay for. Like I said, fuck the state.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 04:29 PM
45

state doesn't want to foot the bill This is the biggest fucking issue. With such a clear cut case, there's no reason the system shouldn't be footing the bill.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 11:30 AM
1

Thanks man, only just started and on seasons 3 at the moment.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 12:14 AM
2

There's no such thing as a "trade" in legal responsibilities and privileges. There's no direct correlation between the right to vote and any responsibilities.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 03:44 AM
1

It has been, I agree.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 10:17 PM
2

Try telling that to most men. Even as a man, 8 realize most men believe they deserve respect despite doing naught to earn it.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 09:40 PM
2

An inability to vote is not a disadvantage?
/r/MensRights19/05/16 08:28 PM
4

Depressingly true.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 12:19 AM
5

The goal used to be equality, you'd be remiss to think otherwise. There was a day that females were greatly looked down upon, with few rights and less respect. Feminism was needed for the sake of equality. Now that they have equality (and quite a bit of advantages) Feminism is now pointless and no longer about equality.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 09:09 PM
-1

I think the idea is that it would also show that men can be the "issue" on some matters, while otherwise still fitting in with the rest of the statistics. (I don't necessarily agree with this, and my wording was definitely poor, but I think I conveyed my point)
/r/MensRights15/05/16 02:00 AM
-1

Isn't not voting a felony, and being a convicted felon makes it impossible to vote?
/r/MensRights13/05/16 08:00 AM
1

Sounds like you had a well-meaning mother who got caught up in the "wrong crowd". So sorry about that situation with Cilla. How old were you at the time, if you don't mind me asking?
/r/MensRights13/05/16 07:59 AM
1

In a perfect world, you would be right. The sad truth is that today, in the real world, people are being publicly shamed regardless of evidence or conviction. These four students had to deal with it at her hand, her knowing that they would face "trial by public perception", and it's only fair she should have a taste of her own medicine.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 08:02 AM
19

In all fairness, they often don't "obsess" over celebrities, they just provide content for people who do. There was a demand, so they decided to be a supply, doesn't mean that anyone there actually gives a shit about the celebs. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if their company would thrive better if they only hired people that don't give a shit about celebs.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:43 PM
19

OP please call the police One of the image descriptions literally said "called 911" and another was "convinced him into pressing charges"
/r/MensRights01/05/16 04:21 PM
1

Easy, they'll say "anecdotal evidence, doesn't affect muh statistics".
/r/MensRights29/04/16 09:40 AM
1

I agree, but that's a very political way of looking at it. Aren't there different levels of standard assault anyway?
/r/MensRights24/04/16 06:07 AM
4

A pussy pass is a pass obtained on the grounds of having a pussy. Put simply, we don't know why he didn't try to pursue charges, so maybe it's a pussy pass, maybe not.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 10:15 PM
3

In fairness though, ignoring laws, (they're often very stupid) what is sexual about a knee in the groin? It's a sex-organ, yes, but that just seems like plain assault to me.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 10:13 PM
7

Exactly what I was thinking. A knee in the groin isn't sexual in any way, it's just assault.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 10:12 PM
1

STOP FUCKING TAKING WHAT I SAID WRONG BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FUCKING READ! Poe's law Stop getting bent out of shape just because not everyone know's how to interpret the hidden meanings of what you type.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 02:46 AM
-5

Because it's a relationship and he doesn't have unilateral control over her?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/04/16 03:19 AM
10

All he said was "assuming this is true". That's just a normal thing to say, he's not questioning anything.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/04/16 03:12 AM
11

Remove everything after the "because" and yes.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 05:41 AM
0

If I have to use Urban Dictionary to look something up, it's not valid in a practical conversation. That said, he wasn't exactly conversing or being practical.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 11:08 PM
2

Concern trolling? Jesus Christ, you're just as bad as the feminists, making up your own damn terms.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 03:58 AM
3

If you're trying to determine a "good" sentence, then yes. In terms of a fair sentence, then comparison to males is fair.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 11:26 PM
45

I think it's just an IRL meme. They're not actually difficult. In fact, I think the joke may have started because of how easy they are.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 12:59 PM
1

So now, instead of adding qualifiers, you're just going to say that the sentence was never real in the first place? This is absolutely cute, now.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:08 AM
1

It wasn't a real example Was it a woman? Yes. Did she apply for parole? Yes. Was it denied? Yes. What makes it invalid? Your original comment said absolutely nothing about time served, you simply made an irrational and clearly incorrect statement which you are now trying to defend by adding qualifiers after-the-fact.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 01:48 AM
1

My argument about the bowl is valid. The fact that it doesn't have a closed top does not mean that anything above it is in it. Liquid better demonstrates how much you can fill an object. Can you fill a bowl with water over 100%? And, again, interpret whatever you want with what I provided. That single example is enough to disprove your statement of over 100%. It was a woman who was denied parole, therefor you're wrong.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 12:46 AM
1

How about a case where a woman served a reasonable portion of a sentence? If that is really the best you can come up with... No. You said 110% of the time. Bringing that down to a rational 100%, you effectively stated that no woman's parole request has ever been denied. I just showed you that you were wrong, case and point. I am not going to debate if it's high or low, but it's not 100%. I've proved that. It's not the best I can come up with, but it's all I need to prove you wrong. As for the ma…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:42 PM
1

Not wrong. In your example, the bowl is still only holding 100%, (or less, due to the airgap between the M&Ms) everything else is resting atop the bowl and its contents. http://www.kltv.com/story/23213132/parole-denied-for-woman-involved-in-shoals-murder Citation granted. Or would you like a scientific journal? I'm sure I could find numerous sources if I tried for more than the 20 seconds it took me to find that.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:32 PM
4

am I right in assuming women make parole 110% of the time? No, no you are not right. Both because that percentage is impossible due to the laws of mathematics in the real world, and the fact that not all women make parole.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 11:11 PM
1

Just like the rest of the world.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/16 05:02 PM
-18

I get that. It's still not fair to judge them for it though.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/03/16 04:57 AM
-12

Everyone's got a narrative. I'm sure I could find a montage for white-trash fights.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/03/16 03:36 AM
6

A fun weekend.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 09:42 AM
6

Eh, you underestimate how kinky I am.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 06:36 AM
4

She looks shocked because she had no intention of actually paying Or she looked shocked because after he put out his card, she was expecting him to pay, so she withdrew her hand, and the cashier yanked it out of her hand. This isn't a sex thing, I would be fucking shocked too. I've had it both ways when me and my male friends try to pay, most of the time, first one to retract isn't paying, but one time a cashier yanked the card out of my friends (retracted) hand. It was fucking weird and shockin…
/r/PussyPassDenied23/03/16 11:40 PM
1

Mine too, buddy. Mine too.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/03/16 11:37 PM
2

le all gurls are completely evil psychopaths lol
/r/PussyPassDenied23/03/16 10:38 PM
1

LORDE LORDE LORDE, I AM LORDE, LA LA LA
/r/MensRights23/03/16 04:22 PM
3

proved his innocence with a voice recording app he was using in his taxi because his CCTV was broken Does that mean that if she had accused any other cab driver, it would have been instantly disprovable? Or is CCTV not the standard?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/16 12:32 AM
14

why did she try to destroy his life? My guess is racist.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/16 12:31 AM
3

Eh, it was at the very least a semi-valid takedown. The first picture in the album made it very easy to find her
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/16 02:32 AM
-1

I commented on a page I had loaded from the day before, so I didn't see the up to date edit.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/16 08:53 PM
0

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Better than the other people downvoting me without explanation.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/16 07:21 PM
-2

She was on the ground and he was going in for more hits. I don't know anything about what this exercise is, but that looks excessive, like A boxer beating his opponent further after a tap-out. Male or female, that looked like a reasonable reactions.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/16 04:15 AM
3

Shit, I apologize, I'll admit I did forget about that.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 03:18 AM
1

It is absolutely legal for jurors to use their power to protest both bad laws and bad systems I mean.... no it's not. It's literally illegal. That said, it's hard to prove/prosecute.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 02:22 AM
11

return not guilty out of principle, no matter what no matter what NO MATTER WHAT Speak intelligently the first time so that you don't need to contradict yourself.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:40 AM
9

return not guilty out of principle, no matter what ... even if he did it. What. You are literally retarded. By your own admission, if a 47 y/o man was being tried for raping an 11 y/o boy, AND THERE WAS A VIDEO, CLEARLY SHOWING GUILT, you would vote not-guilty.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:12 AM
-3

The point that I think /u/mwobuddy was trying to make is that as the initiator of a contact, your "consent" is implied/irrelevant. As the receiver of contact, your consent is not implied it must be given, and being underage makes it impossible to give consent.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:10 AM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:51 PM
-2

No, your point is semantics. Legally, by definition, he has been found not guilty, and by extension, innocent. That is semantics. In the real world? Maybe he did take advantage of that girl, maybe he didn't. I'm not one to judge others based on something I know nothing about, but I can recognize that a courtroom is not the end-all be-all for the facts of the universe. There was a day that American courts would convict homosexuals for nothing more than their sexuality. (Not saying the laws should…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:59 PM
2

Innocent for the purposes of due process Yes, but that's it. "For the purposes of due process". That doesn't mean truly innocent.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:21 PM
2

Exactly. In the courtroom, he was found, specifically "not guilty". That said, going along with the "innocent until proven guilty", being found "not guilty" in a courtroom does imply "innocent". (In the eyes of the law) That said, you could, for example, witness a murder, but unless the prosecution finds enough evidence to convict the the murderer, he is "innocent". But that doesn't mean he was actually innocent.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 03:55 PM
1

The trial isn't between guilty or not guilty Yes, because that's only EXACTLY HOW IT'S STATED IN THE COURTROOM. A trial is between guilty and not-guilty. That said, with the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing", not-guilty does imply innocent. TL;DR: You're wrong but you're not wrong.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 03:52 PM
-2

what the jesus fuck Thank you. That was my thought as well.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/03/16 11:11 PM
2

While I agree with the sentiment, I doubt you can sue a government entity. (Successfully, at least)
/r/MensRights15/03/16 12:42 AM
13

its not the courts duty to get involved in every little aspect of our lives Fuck, that's exactly what a lot of them do!
/r/MensRights15/03/16 12:42 AM
1

You choose how controversial it is. While I understand why there's a debate, baby is not a technical term at all, and is therefor an "elastic" term. If he used the term "infant" then the difference would matter.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 06:32 AM
1

You seem to draw a fine line between "correct" and "incorrect" when in reality, the line is not only blurry, but there are points that are simply in-between. (Like I wouldn't be wrong to call a pair of hiking boots "shoes", though calling them "boots" would be more right, though still not the most correct)
/r/MensRights11/03/16 05:46 AM
1

I'm technically correct as well, and happen to also be OCD, but I'm not so socially inept that I can't differentiate between times that it's appropriate and times that it's not. Kind of like how hugging family is normal, but hugging strangers is weird. It's not my fault you can't tell the difference.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 05:08 AM
1

It's important to be technically correct, in all areas, at all times. Thank god the parties I go to don't follow your rules.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 04:48 AM
2

No, it was talked about over a span of time, and seeing as abortions can fail, calling it a "baby" in day-to-day conversation is acceptable. The distinction is important, yes. Like talking to a doctor, or writing laws, but not in Reddit posts.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 01:09 AM
6

Someone has to win, and in divorce, who else would it be?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/16 01:00 AM
1

"what are you going to name the baby" Case and point.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 11:44 PM
5

On principal, you're right. In the real world, this is an idiotic standard that can only serve to hurt you. (a la missed opportunities due to lack of clout)
/r/MensRights10/03/16 10:40 PM
13

That's pedantic and idiotic, especially in this context. OP said "either way" referring to two situations across a range of time: one where the baby is born and one where it is not. Saying fetus is illogical because in one of them it's still born, baby makes more sense because even in the abortion situation, the baby does lose by never being given a chance to exist as a baby.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 10:37 PM
1

After I read it, I could've sworn I was in /r/nottheonion
/r/MensRights09/03/16 08:11 PM
-1

leaving many women with no support What are you not understanding? The woman is never left with a child that she doesn't want to care for, she always has the choice. (Until the third trimester, I guess) Yes, men would be leaving women, but it's not like those women are trapped with the children. Even if they choose to go through with birth on either moral/religious obligations, they can still put the child up for adoption, or simply leave it at a fire-station. This is not meant as a "world ran o…
/r/MensRights07/03/16 07:52 AM
7

The problem is, the dad doesn't have the final say on whether or not the child is born, the woman does. Personally, I believe fathers should be allowed to void all of their parental rights and obligations at least until the second trimester, similarly to the range that women are allowed to abort in many countries.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 06:01 AM
-1

I think you're being downvoted because of "if she asks me, she pays" which I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't disagree either.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 07:29 PM
12

To expand on the other guy, the book/film is largely based on a black man who is accused of rape by a white woman who got caught trying to screw him. (back when racism was still largely accepted, and interracial activities were lynching material)
/r/PussyPassDenied28/02/16 05:32 AM
1

I get that. The majority of the human populous is retarded in some way.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 07:06 PM
2

I'm not saying he is guilty, I'm just saying that we're not certain enough that he's innocent to lash out against his accuser. All we know is there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, there's also not enough evidence to convict her of lying. But it's cool if you just wanna fling shit at me for being a reasonable human being.
/r/MensRights20/02/16 07:05 PM
8

Exactly this. Too many people don't realize that acquitted does not always equal innocent.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 11:11 PM
1

No, but it is evidence of a double standard. No one would update a dude writing something like that.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 02:21 AM
5

I'm all for calling out a good pussy pass, but this is not one, there are literally numerous reasons that he got a heavier sentence. It was supposedly his idea, and he coerced her into her doing it with him. No, this has nothing to do with gender, people who where coerced into something by others often get lighter sentences. She plead guilty in exchange for a lesser punishment, he did not. In his trial, not only did he represent himself, but he did little to defend against the accusations, inste…
/r/PussyPass17/02/16 07:55 PM
1

"I might." might
/r/MensRights17/02/16 01:20 AM
2

It looks iced to me.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/16 08:01 PM
6

Depends on the job, men aren't better at everything.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/02/16 02:41 PM
3

So she's against equality, right?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/02/16 12:53 AM
4

Whoa there, Satan.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:28 AM
0

Hostile is hostile. It may be weak on the scale of hostility, but it sure wasn't friendly.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/02/16 02:43 AM
0

No, you were being a can't by getting hostile at me for explaining someone else's comment.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/02/16 02:11 AM
1

My point is, when you measure "crime in an area" it depends on if you're actually counting where the crimes take place or where the perpetrators reside. IE there's probably just as much robbery in rich neighborhoods as there are poor neighborhoods, but the perpetrators are likely not the residents of the wealthy communities. (More often than not)
/r/PussyPassDenied02/02/16 02:04 AM
-1

No need to be a cunt. That's not what I personally believe, I was just trying to explain what I thought /u/every_other_moday was trying to say.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/02/16 02:01 AM
3

I'm gonna need a source for that....... On a sidenote, if you're counting "getting robbed" as crime in the area, it's reasonable that any rich community might have more crime.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/02/16 09:56 PM
0

I think /u/every_other_monday was referring to white privilege more than male privilege.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/02/16 09:55 PM
7

In all fairness, the economy has been both better and worse. Working hard used to be enough to at least get by, now that's not always true. Also, we don't really know that kids weren't acting like that "back in the day" because there was no widespread media covering every little thing that happened. That said, I do think "black culture" definitely isn't helping anything.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/02/16 09:52 PM
1

There are differences, yes. I never said there weren't. I said that your broadly generalizing statement was inherently incorrect. You seem to have edited it, but I recall you saying something along the lines of "men think logically, women think emotionally". That's a blanket statement that is too broad to be true. I know some men that think emotionally, and some women that are very logical. Yes, there are genetic differences, but no where in the world of genetics will you find something so black…
/r/MensRights01/02/16 07:04 AM
1

I'm a dude, by the way. Thanks for the assumption, though.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:02 PM
1

And that's just a sweeping generalization with no basis. Don't stoop to their level.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:02 PM
23

And that's blatant sexism. (your comment)
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:54 AM
0

Totally, but not ugly. Not super hot, but not ugly, either. (IMHO)
/r/PussyPassDenied29/01/16 10:21 PM
1

Okay, fair enough. I was just talking about a possible change, not how it does/should work.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:06 PM
1

I'm curious how this takes into account gay relationships.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:25 AM
1

Cyber bullying probably fits, similarly to how middle and high school kids sometimes create websites to bash unpopular people. Even if no one is saying it to their face or showing it to them, it's still out there to hurt them.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 07:22 PM
1

AFAIK, nobody signing has had any direct contact with him. Nobody has infringed upon his rights. They (the signers) are exercising their right to free speech without harassing him. If I start a petition to ban you from Reddit, am I infringing upon any of your rights? No. Am I harassing you? Maybe. Does anyone that signs it infringe upon your rights? No. Are any signers harassing you? Definitely not. If Reddit bans you as a result of my petition, are they infringing upon your rights? Maybe. (Redd…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 06:59 PM
1

At best, the person who started the petition is, yes. The rest just clicked a button.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 04:47 PM
1

Court records are public for a reason. There's a sex-offender registry for a reason. As far as I can tell, falsely accusing someone (ie lying) is a crime that is often committed by repeat offenders. (Unlike crimes like murder that are often accidental or done in passion, ie, one time things) There is a precedent for those names to be public for a reason. Yes, there are radicals, but that doesn't seem to cause any widespread issues with the sex offender registry.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 03:51 AM
1

He's probably being assumed guilty because he's male, yeah, but also maybe not. Definitely hard to prove in court, and definitely irrelevant. The only way it would be true was if the petition was to prevent all males from entering. The petition is still only about someone who is being assumed guilty, simple as that.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 03:49 AM
0

they're attempting to force the college to deny him his right to pursue happiness So far, no one has physically stood in front of him, preventing him to enter, they are simply petitioning the school to do that.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 02:38 AM
1

I doubt the DA would be willing to do that, but on the other hand, he might be able to convince him/her to charge anyone who tells him about it or presents it to him.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 02:36 AM
1

authorities having a record that the person has made false allegations in the past is enough It definitely helps, but not completely. It's clear that even an accusation is enough to ruin someones life, so by the general populous not having an admitted liars name hurts on two levels: (if the offender does it again) Intelligent people who would rather stray away from someone like a false-accuser cannot make that choice The media and bystanders are more prone to spread the second accusation
/r/MensRights25/01/16 02:34 AM
1

tl;dr we should call this petition what it is - hate speech. Sadly, it's not, under the law. "Accused but not convicted" is not a protected class. Hate speech applies only to groups. (Like race, gender, and sometimes sexual orientation)
/r/MensRights25/01/16 02:31 AM
1

I don't know about this case, but there are some cases where the accuser either admits that they were lying or were found to be lying without a reasonable doubt. What about those cases?
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:48 PM
26

Actually a not guilty verdict should be the same as saying he definitely didn't do FUCK NO There are two options, guilty and not guilty. Guilty is reserved for those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that "not guilty" is reserved for even a reasonable doubt. This is the best system, do not misinterpret or try to change it. All that said, it wouldn't hurt to have a third option "innocent" meaning "innocent beyond a reasonable doubt". (Possibly for if the accuser recanted)
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:42 PM
3

The officers did nothing. Be should do that with the judge's family members and CC the judge on all the emails or something.
/r/PussyPass24/01/16 02:56 AM
4

are only targetting women and children, implying criminals are only men That's an invalid correlation. For example, on a small scale, a serial killer might target women and children. Is there any reason for us to assume that the killer is a man? No, it was in no way implied.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 04:52 PM
7

I think he's actually right though. Civilians don't press criminal charges, the DA does. The thing is though. If you say "I don't want to press charges" you're effectively saying you're not going to cooperate via giving a testimony and whatnot. Basically, they're not going to press charges because they have no backing for a case. In the situation of a murder, clearly the victim can't testify, but the DA can still go forward with a case if they feel they have enough evidence to convict.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/16 09:05 AM
2

Oh, OK. I didn't see anything specified about the restrictions of the suspension, so I assumed that it was just a bit different. (plus I'm in a different country)
/r/MensRights20/01/16 06:36 PM
-3

Both. She was sentenced to 18 months, but it was suspended, meaning she doesn't actually have to enter a cell until 2 years after the sentencing. So, she gets to walk free for the next 2 years, but after than she has to go to jail for 18 months. Source: I know someone who was sentenced to 90 days stayed/suspended unless he commits the crime again (harassment) at which point he has violated the order and it is no longer stayed. (Straight to jail)
/r/MensRights19/01/16 10:21 PM
2

Yes, and self defense is a valid legal defense, but you can still be brought up on charges.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 06:13 AM
1

You can use deadly force when defending yourself, you just can't go straight for the jugular because someone drew a knife.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 04:02 AM
2

It's not that you can't defend yourself, but you're not supposed to aim to kill. You get them off you and run for the nearest police station.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 03:39 AM
-2

I'm in America, and every state is different.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 02:46 AM
0

That kind of generalizing statement cannot possibly be true because those kinds of laws vary between States. It might be legal in your state, but not all States are like that.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 02:46 AM
4

I mean, yeah, if you're okay with going to jail.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 01:48 AM
2

Yet, naturally, the rational people of /r/MensRights are down voting my level-headed thinking.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:20 PM
2

This what you're thinking of?
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:38 AM
-6

literally all I feel like this might be an invalid statement without any backing.....
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:33 AM
20

I wonder if their mom had done other crazy shit or if they simply believed in the proper punishment for a murderer.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:32 AM
7

TFA The fucking article?
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:32 AM
5

Well physical abuse isn't a valid defense for premeditated murder, but if in the heat of the moment while defending yourself, your abuser hits their head and dies, it would totally be a valid defense. Anything not pre-meditated would basically use the physical abuse as grounds for self-defense.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 06:31 AM
0

Yeah. He's a bit of an idealist and he seems to speak his mind for the most part. I don't expect all of his ideas to come to fruition, but at least his ideas are good.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 10:57 PM
1

Some are, some aren't. Both blanket statements are false.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 10:56 PM
1

To clarify, I don't personally believe that using the word "man" to reference "mankind" is referring to every single man. But, given how it was used in /u/Bortasz's comment, it seemed to me like he believes that. I'm not trying to debate the actual meaning of the term or what it usually specifies, I'm simply talking about /u/Bortasz's use of it.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:40 AM
1

Yeah, it's absurd. So are the members of Scientology, or the Westboro Baptist Church. Hell, as an atheist who views the belief in any greater power as absurd, so is every single fucking religion. He's no more crazy than someone who prays to God every night. There are a lot of people that absurd out there. Also, "man" is used in one of two main ways, "that man" (a single person) or "man is capable of greater thought than other animals". (a shortening of "mankind", or, all of them) Given the conte…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:35 PM
2

No, I believe with the amount of detail that he went into, he was actually being literal, or it appeared that way to me. I'm not being "deliberately obtuse" and such insults are entirely unnecessary.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 03:04 AM
5

The guy he was replying to disputed it. there is zero chance
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:34 AM
3

Or blacks /s
/r/PussyPassDenied11/01/16 12:03 AM
25

In any situation where a parent is unfit to contact their child, the other parent can obtain an order of protection. (restraining order)
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:15 PM
4

There's a ton of possible scenarios that would justify jailtime Okay, fair enough.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 04:29 AM
6

Personally, I don't think she does deserve jail time. That said, while the father's original point is not completely valid, his "line" still raises some questions. Why was someone stealing food stamps given jail time? It's not like you can use them like money, they're literally just for food.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 03:12 AM
1

Eugenics doesn't require proactive removal of people from the gene pool. Your idea, limiting certain types of reproduction to people with favorable genetics, is eugenics, by definition. In all fairness, it wouldn't hurt to distinguish between "active" or "passive" eugenics. The difference being passively preventing undesired births (such as having a small whitelist of non-acceptable sperm/eggs) versus actively removing living people from the gene pool.
/r/MensRights30/12/15 09:07 AM
1

I've found that in the long term it doesn't really have any affect on me, but it can most certainly be borderline debilitating in the short-term. (Being unable to focus on anything productive)
/r/MensRights30/12/15 08:37 AM
1

above or below you You're a power-bottom
/r/MensRights30/12/15 08:08 AM
1

My original statement was not a blanket all women do x statement Well that's great, glad none of the stuff after that was clearly blanket statements No, all women use the tools given to them to get what they want, tears happen to be a useful tool at times woman are professional victims and will always push if you think that's a generalization, English must not be your primary language Girls at a very early age learn to manipulate via tears again, without a quantifier in front of it, girls means …
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 02:32 PM
1

For context, my engaging in this discussion is the exact opposite of choosing to stay delusional. I'm being involved here because I recognize the possibility that I might be incorrect and I welcome you to "show me the light" if that is the case. On the flipside, I also recognize the possibility that you are incorrect and would like to show you the way I see things.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 02:07 PM
1

I see you are choosing to stay dillusional No, I choose to continue a friendly discussion as my mind has yet to be changed. There's no need for such insults. Now, it seems to me like your viewpoint on this is stemming from a misunderstanding of what deviation is, or a misunderstanding of what an absolute is. To recap, you made an "absolute" statement about ALL women. The thing is, one deviation is all that it takes to make an ABSOLUTE incorrect. For example, if I say "all women are weaker than m…
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 02:05 PM
1

You're correct, one must deviate for you to be incorrect. The problem is, in this world, there is always at least one deviant. Consequently, any absolute and generalizing statement is inherently wrong. This applies to anything. "All women x", or "all black people x". Neither can be true because the world contains at least one deviant, making said statement false. Even at "9 months old" I guarantee that this world contains at least one deviant. And even if you assume that there aren't any newborn…
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 01:32 PM
1

Every single animal is capable of deviating from instinct. An easy example would be a fireman that sees a building that is clearly moments away from collapsing, a death sentence, but also hears a child screaming inside. The instinct of self-preservation dictates that no one would charge into that building, yet many fireman would choose otherwise.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 12:19 PM
1

You truly are the last honest man.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 05:13 AM
1

That's what I'm saying, there is no "thing". You said you wanted something, I said the thing you wanted was implausible. Simple as that.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 04:00 AM
1

I have no clue what you're talking about Mythbusters, I don't watch that. Nonetheless, all I'm saying was that my comment was valid at the time it was made. Now that there are sources to the contrary, I wouldn't make that same comment again.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 03:38 AM
1

Care to find an article that existed when I made that comment 3 months ago?
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 03:09 AM
2

Non-technical doesn't need to be precise, it's the all-encompassing tern that applies until the more precise "technical" takes over.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 02:35 AM
1

You can call whoever you want a bear, I'm just saying it won't be a TECHNICAL term for anything other than large black/brown/polar mammals.
/r/PussyPass28/12/15 02:25 AM
2

Her comment is inherently incorrect as women could penetrate a male with toys.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 10:45 PM
2

no one I'm just stating that sweeping generalizations are inherently flawed and by nature incorrect. You might be right that most women are like this, but saying that all women are like this or that nobody cares about men's tears, you are inherently flawed because it only takes one deviant to make you wrong. Right off the bat, I care about men's tears, making your "No one cares for men's tears" statement incorrect. I am one, and that's all that it takes to disprove you. Again, I'm not trying to …
/r/PussyPass27/12/15 09:40 PM
0

You are inherently wrong. You cannot make such a sweeping generalization of any group of people and still be correct. That's a fact. If even one woman in the world is not a "professional victim" then you are immediately wrong. You are welcome to restate with the term "most women" and you might be wrong, might be right, but your statement about all women is inherently incorrect and impossible.
/r/PussyPass27/12/15 09:09 PM
2

I agree except for "technical". It's already a technical term for a female dog. You seem to want it to be an acceptable non-technical term, which would be nice.
/r/PussyPass27/12/15 12:07 PM
0

women are professional victims And this sweeping generalization destroyed any credibility that you had.
/r/PussyPass27/12/15 12:04 PM
2

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt to file a report with the local police. I don't think there's anything they can charge her with, but if there's a record of false accusations coming from her, you could not only potentially save yourself in the future, but also possibly some other poor lad that she might accuse.
/r/MensRights20/12/15 11:01 PM
10

If she was at all physical with him, he has a chance.
/r/MensRights20/12/15 10:46 PM
3

Never thought I would live to see the day that someone referred to a bow as "premature"
/r/MensRights19/12/15 05:48 AM
11

In all fairness: this. Someone I know invested in Apple right before they "exploded" and basically got rich. Retired in his mid-thirties and lives happily single. Not saying any of what she got was fair, but if she's making a living from investing, there's no reason for her to get a job. (Though if she's making a living without a job, there's no reason for her to be getting child support anyway)
/r/PussyPassDenied16/12/15 11:13 PM
3

weirdos Eh, even as an MRA I could see how someone could see it as offensive. It's definitely nowhere near as bad as the other one, but it's closer to insulting than it is to nice.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:26 PM
32

It kind of is. Or rather, the fact that she did what she did doesn't indicate any kind of shift, but the community reaction to it does. The media publicized it and ignored the fact that it was all basically fake, the school allowed her to patronize her victim, both in day-to-day school as well as at their mutual graduation. All of these are clear indicators that society has shifted to accepting these despicable acts.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:15 PM
27

Mattresses, for starters.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:03 PM
15

It's too late, Arnold's name is out.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 08:58 AM
1

Allegations are only important in a court of law. If you punch me, I will act in self-defense, I'm not going to wait for a conviction to raise my arms in defense.
/r/PussyPass10/12/15 11:52 PM
1

Ah, ok. Thanks.
/r/PussyPass06/12/15 06:26 PM
2

On the subject of haircuts, you can get religious exemptions while on base, but they cut it regardless if you deploy. (because things like gasmasks won't be effective with too much facial/head hair) ** I've never been in the military. This is all secondhand knowledge, and I might be totally wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 06:26 PM
2

I have a friend who recently left graduated[?] from Benning. Why are Benning and Knox okay?
/r/PussyPass06/12/15 07:17 AM
-9

First of all, there is no law against murdering homosexuals, only against murder as a whole. Laws only override religious freedom when necessary to protect the freedoms of others. Again, with your example of divorce, not granting it would restrict his wife's rights. I am a bit too young to remember the draft, and I've seen conflicting information from conflicting sources, but I believe people were able to get out of the draft on a religious basis.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 02:22 AM
-7

I'd be happy to see you name one. I legitimately can't think of any. From what I understand, even Muslims are required to be able to do their prayer if in prison.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/12/15 01:34 AM
0

If someone gropes you, a single punch is a viable response. Any court of law would consider it self-defense. Any legitimate reasons not to believe her?
/r/PussyPass06/12/15 01:32 AM
3

My point is merely that the women wouldn't complain any significant amount more than the men.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 11:46 PM
1

Yes, people complain. What I'm saying is that the women wouldn't complain any more than the men.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 10:18 PM
8

But there's no laws requiring loans to charge interest, or forcing people to accept loans. A law requiring people to breach their recognized religious beliefs would be super illegal.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 09:50 PM
1

I haven't met any new people in either of those categories lately, but I know quite a few. Most women I know that are already capable of combat, or at least capable of combat training aren't whiney or SJWs or anything like that. All the whiney girls are either way too fucking skinny to be practical soldiers or way too large.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 09:40 PM
12

Pretty sure most combat-capable women aren't the same women complaining about frivolous shit.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 09:07 PM
6

Super illegal, as contraceptives goes against many recognized religions.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/12/15 09:04 PM
5

And do you have any legitimate reason to believe otherwise?
/r/PussyPass05/12/15 06:27 PM
-5

He makes a mildly fair point. I'm not saying he shouldn't have asked, seeing as she looked close to illegal, but if you're underage and about to consent (regardless of your legal ability to consent) to sexual acts that you clearly have an understanding of (ie, not a 10y/o) you should be expected to speak up. I'm not saying in any way that she should be held legally responsible for not speaking up, but it was definitely shitty of her not to.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 09:18 AM
1

?
/r/MensRights04/12/15 11:28 PM
3

I'm not going to debate what women are or aren't because they're not all the same, I'm merely saying the generalizations need to stop, on both sides, men and women alike.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 11:09 PM
-2

Holy shit, someone trying to have a reasonable discussion? Better insult him in every comment, very few of which actually add to the discussion.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 07:41 PM
7

You called women "animals" and "not smart enough", and this is the kind of speech that we do not need. Generalizations like these are just as bad as the ones that they make, and it makes us look like nothing more than a bunch of men angry at women.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 07:28 PM
1

Yes. It's one right being infringed. They have to deal with many.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 09:45 PM
7

I'm not saying the unjust or (comparatively) excessive punishment of men isn't a problem, I'm merely saying that it pales in comparison to literally not having rights, the genders are irrelevant factors in this comparison.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 12:26 PM
16

the rights of girls in places like India...maybe they should look at boys in their own back yard In fairness, these are not at all alike. Excessive or unbalanced punishments do not equal a lack of rights.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 11:31 AM
2

Possible something happened at the bar before she was shitfaced and trespassing.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/11/15 11:48 PM
1

would you ask No, I wouldn't ask them to their face, but it would cross my mind, and I would ask if there was anything wrong. I couldn't ask this lady any questions, and the possibility of abuse did cross my mind, so I decided to mention it as a potential for the sake of discussion. Thank you for not being an abusive dickhead like many others in this thread. Sadly, people like you are few and far between.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 01:33 AM
1

My outbursts didn't start until hours after the onslaught of harassment began. And I (mostly) did step away for a breather for a bit. I've refrained from replying to quite a few of the more recent ones. Exaggerated isn't the word for it, but I'm not sure drama queen is either. An idiom, maybe? Nonetheless, you are right. The freakouts probably didn't help, but I'm not sure that a lack of them would've decreased the abuse by any significant amount. One guy went so far as to go into my comment his…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 03:03 AM
1

had you presented a hypothetical where both genders here might have been violent towards each other than you wouldn't have stones slung at you I didn't need to present a hypothetical for a violent woman because the woman in this story is already being violent. (or at least aggressive in some form) "blow my fucking brains out" over what? A disagreement? May have exaggerated a bit, obviously. Though, it's more than just a disagreement. Right now, me and you are partaking in a relatively "friendly"…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 02:16 AM
0

If you want to have a conversation, that's great. I'd love to have a conversation. Problem is, people keep replying with shit like this, and they don't actually want to converse, they want to insult me from their moral highground. Fuck that. You want me to be more mature and maybe a bit more intelligent for the future? Post a non-insulting reply and build a fucking conversation from it. Show me where I went wrong rather than repeatedly telling me I did something wrong like every other SJW here w…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 12:21 AM
-1

I'm done replying to same bullshit being repeatedly asked, from now on this shit gets a copypasta from me: Fuck you Learn the English language. I posited a possibility, I did not assume, conclude, imply, or otherwise accuse the father of anything. Fuck you all Fuck you all a little bit more Go learn English some more Go back to circlejerking each-other off. You people don't actually want me to answer, you just want to make yourself feel like a better person. If you truly mean well and actually w…
/r/MensRights23/11/15 12:02 AM
-7

People are bent out of shape Yep.........
/r/MensRights22/11/15 07:35 PM
-2

Wear the downvotes with some pride http://i.imgur.com/S7hgcYp.png People, including me, were moved to express their positions. That's a win. Seriously though, thank you. I'm like a lot sleep deprived right now, but the number of blatantly insulting replies I'm getting is just depressing. I thought we were supposed to be better than /r/feminism and the tumblrinas, but I've found we just have our own different kind of SJWs, just like the rest of the groups.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 07:09 PM
-7

I'll be honest: I can't continue on about this subject any longer. I've spent at least the past 3 hours constantly defending myself against personal and uncalled for attacks. I'm happy you came in to have a level-headed discussion. I didn't want to just not reply. (I consider that a bit of a dick move) Thanks for being a rational and kind human being. I'm gonna go try to remember that people are better than what I saw today. On a mildly hilarious sidenote: RIP my karma. I lost so much in this co…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 06:24 PM
-3

Okay? Honestly, that's fine. I don't much care. Thanks for letting me know instead of just not replying, which is annoying as fuck.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 06:09 PM
-6

I didn't jump to any conclusions. I posited one possible scenario in the hopes that people would be willing to have philosophical discussion. Thanks for the insult though, you dimwitted fuck.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 05:50 PM
-2

Maturity and age do not have a clear linear correlation. If I had to self-evaluate, I think I've got the maturity of a 25-30 y/o. That said, maturity aside, I am old enough to vote, so no matter how little, what I think affects others now. Put simply, would you rather me stay inexperienced and unknowing so that I can make poor choices that could potentially effect others, or would you rather have a friendly conversation that could lead to my further enlightenment and better future choice-making?…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 05:25 PM
-5

hypothetical irrelevant when it comes to current reality Exactly. This was the whole point. I wanted to have a philosophical discussion relating to this class of issue, but not directly in reference to this happening. A discussion of hypothetical morals rather than specific legal matters.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 04:55 PM
-2

As I'm doing here, I was merely having a discussion over there. Though, for the sake of argument, what does my age or my interests have to do with having a reasonable conversation? Perhaps you don't want to respond because there's nothing left to refute?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 04:44 PM
-9

I noticed you didnt say "Maybe the mother was abusive." An astute observation. The reason being, my hypothetical example was posited to provide something that could potentially alter the current hive-mind's position. The mother being abusive wouldn't sway them, it would solidify them, which is not what I desired for an open-minded discussion. If there was abuse, the mother should have pursued that to the end before adoption It's entirely plausible that she is pursuing it and it simply hasn't bee…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 04:17 PM
-6

Let people come up with their own conclusions if new facts emerge. We're not a jury. Comments are allowed on posts for a reason: discussion about said post. The post is made, and then we discuss. Some people attempt to sway others, some people (like me) just want to hear what others think and converse on those thoughts in a calm manner. (without the aggression)
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:52 PM
-3

speculation the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence Here is where the misconception is. My hypothetical served only the purpose of a scenario for philosophical debate. It was not a theory or conjecture about this reality, but rather an "example" reality which we would have more information in. (for the sake of conversation) in an attempt to convince people that the guy is an asshole who made the woman do it For like the 80<sup>th</sup> time tonight, if you read my comments, n…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:50 PM
-8

First of all: fucking thank you From my very first comment in this thread, all I was trying to do was encourage reasonable and levelheaded discussion as opposed to hivemindedly grabbing pitchforks. Thank you for indulging that desire. Anyhow, onto an actual reply: Legally however, she could not keep her kids from her husband without initiating legal action- I.E. involving the police, and providing evidence of battery I get this, which is part of why I was trying to cool people on this situation.…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:45 PM
-12

I haven't attempted to rationalize a single thing. I've been attempting to have a philosophical discussion including the use of hypothetical scenarios for the purpose of persuading others to keep their minds open to all potential viewpoints of the given scenario, rather than jumping for the pitchforks and condemning the actions of something that we know very little about. This has nothing to do with genders, at all. I would've posted the same type of comment in a post about a gay couple or a les…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:29 PM
-13

This is where the misconception is seeming to lie: Everyone who's replying to me seems to be under the impression that either I was assuming he was an abuser, or my only purpose in positing my hypothetical was to excuse the mother. In fact, I posed the hypothetical to open the idea that she might have an excuse. That's all. I'm not trying to defend her, I just don't like when people unnecessarily jump for the pitchforks. This is still relatively new and new information could come out.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:22 PM
-10

Exactly, now you got it! My point remains: there are unknowns and grabbing the pitchforks before we have all the facts is a bad idea. That's all I was trying to say.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:04 PM
-11

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on battered women's shelters? In the HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO that I posited (in which a newborns father is abusive) how is putting the newborn up for adoption any different than leaving your spouse and taking your kids with you? (to a battered women's shelter) Also, to reclarify again: I don't think what she did is okay. Obviously some laws need to change. My original comment was literally nothing more than a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of philosoph…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 03:03 PM
-10

Did you even read the comment that you're replying to?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:58 PM
-6

could've Since I'm tired of re-typing it, here are my recent and relevant comments on the matter: One, two, three TL;DR - A hypothetical situation posited for the purpose of a philosophical discussion is not a conclusion pertaining to this reality, nor any form of assumption or accusation.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:57 PM
-9

For all we know This is an example of a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. I did not conclude that he abused her, I merely offered up the possibility that there could be extenuating circumstances that we are not yet aware of.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:54 PM
-10

Would you have suggested the same thing if they were a hetero couple, with positions reversed? Because that's really the crux of the matter. Literally, and I shit you not: yes. I was not accusing anyone of anything, I merely wanted to provide an example of a worst-case scenario that could influence people's opinions on the matter.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:52 PM
-26

Sure it is. What, should we wait until she eats a baby or something? No, we should wait until she's convicted of a crime. I don't really see how the topic of abuse is relevant here though, which is the problem. Why did you suggest it? "To prove a point"? The abuse scenario that I originally posited was a "worst-case" scenario used as an example of something that could be true, that we would have no way of knowing. (And would ultimately affect our views on the situation) The point it was used for…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:50 PM
-11

Okay, here is me being as non-evasive as I can be. His entire comment broken down with replies: You're the one jumping to conclusions by saying he could have abused her when you have no evidence for that. It was not a conclusion. At no point in my mind did I ever think he was an abuser. I posited a possible scenario as an example for the sake of comparison contributing to conversation. Yeah maybe she was abusive. Maybe they're both repitilian aliens from the planet Zenon. This is the stuff I lik…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:43 PM
-9

Okay, here is me being as non-evasive as I can be. His entire comment broken down with replies: You're the one jumping to conclusions by saying he could have abused her when you have no evidence for that. It was not a conclusion. At no point in my mind did I ever think he was an abuser. I posited a possible scenario as an example for the sake of comparison contributing to conversation. Yeah maybe she was abusive. Maybe they're both repitilian aliens from the planet Zenon. This is the stuff I lik…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:43 PM
-11

Haha. If you look a little closer, I never requested. Absolutely no desire to actually see r34 for the little girl. I was simply stirring up a debate because people were being illogical and I could. On a sidenote, thanks for at least giving it a shot. I comment a lot in various places, but if you find any of the fervent conversations that I get involved in (like this one) I always do my best to remain neutral, objective, and relatively friendly. (Often encouraging others to keep an open mind, wh…
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:35 PM
-9

What conclusion did I jump to?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:33 PM
-17

know -snip- because she couldn't be bothered looking after it This is the type of stuff that my original comment was about. We don't know this. You're inferring from a very limited amount of information and we have no clue what her motives were. That's all I've been trying to say, but everyone is making me out to be a monster.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:32 PM
-9

I agree that what she did was shitty and simply not right To quote myself, yet again, since everyone seems to have glossed over it. I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU. WHAT SHE DID WAS BAD. I then posited one possible scenario (which had nothing to do with anyone's gender) which was intended only to make my point. (My point being that we might not have the full story)
/r/MensRights22/11/15 02:29 PM
-18

I agree that what she did was shitty and simply not right Was your comment here to serve a purpose or just to agree with me?
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:37 PM
-19

I said "for all we know". I was using it as a borderline worst-case scenario to get the point across. (the point being: we don't know everything) I never said it was likely. I never implied it was likely. I never believed it was likely. Also, my mention of the possibility of abuse had nothing to do with gender. I would've proposed the exact same thing in a thread about a lesbian couple.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:25 PM
-40

might Exactly. Maybe he was. Maybe she was. Maybe she's fucking crazy. My point is, we don't know them. All we know is she made a bad decision to keep a child from its father, and that is not enough to crucify her.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:22 PM
-26

could have Literally the opposite of a conclusion.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 01:21 PM
-49

What's prejudiced? That she's allowed to do this? Yes, it is. I was merely saying that we shouldn't jump to she's the bad person" because the possibility of other factors exist. And, if anyone is considering accusing me of a double standard or putting women on a pedestal or anything like that, you can take a gander at my comment history. This is my mentality for every situation.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 12:08 PM
-78

I agree that what she did was shitty and simply not right, but don't forget, all three of those people are part of the "family", and it's entirely possible she thought she was doing it in the kids best interest. For all we know, the father could've abused her in the past. TL;DR: Don't jump to conclusions. We don't know everything.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 11:53 AM
7

Female is the correct anatomical term, what's your problem with its usage?
/r/PussyPassDenied22/11/15 12:32 AM
1

Ah ok. I assume people wouldn't praise her (if genders were reversed) but they likely wouldn't shun her either.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 04:03 AM
0

Do you remember the full story being posted? Because all I'm going on is the snippet that /u/Primer81 posted, and it says nothing about boss.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 03:41 AM
0

boss Huh?
/r/MensRights21/11/15 02:29 AM
1

Oh ok. You didn't actually mean to replace the symbol of a period (".") but rather to replace the word. Makes a bit more sense, still sounds a bit funny to me though.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 11:05 PM
1

Well I know what "full stop" means, but I've never heard it used outside of very specific contexts, such as dictating to a typist or a telegraph reader. (in movies)
/r/MensRights20/11/15 10:29 PM
2

What's with the "full stop" in that quote?
/r/MensRights20/11/15 10:02 PM
1

I have a relative who goes by "Sissy" that sounds similar to you. Do you live in Iowa?
/r/MensRights20/11/15 10:01 PM
19

Holy shit. Part of me agrees that some people simply need to be removed from the world, but I can't in good conscience be okay with that, primarily because people lie. I would never kill someone for a crime I didn't see them commit with my own eyes.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 09:58 PM
4

On the bright side, if she does something like this again (especially while she's not even supposed to be near young boys) she'll likely get what's coming to her. Not saying any part of this is okay, just looking at a small silver lining
/r/MensRights20/11/15 09:54 PM
2

But I had a glass of wine before I came over! We're still fucked, even with bodycams. Society itself needs to change, we there's nothing to protect ourselves in this state of affairs.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 06:22 AM
1

any object you control Objectively, she was not in direct control of the mans penis. She didn't cut it off and shove it in. She told him to. Just because people like you have got facts wrong does NOT alter facts I don't think any of us have the facts wrong, nor am I attempting to alter any facts. I'm simply talking about my observation in relation to legal ramifications, and there's no need to insult me because my observations differ from yours.
/r/MensRights14/11/15 08:20 PM
0

Getting someone else to murder someone in your behalf is still murder That's my point, this isn't true. Getting someone to murder on your behalf is not murder. (At least in the eyes of the law) IIRC, it falls under something similar to "Conspiracy to commit murder".
/r/MensRights14/11/15 05:21 AM
0

if objects other than the assailant's genitals were used on the victim's This is actually a great comparison. I believe it's generally just "sexual assault" in a situation like this, as apposed to "rape".
/r/MensRights13/11/15 11:18 PM
5

She was not a participant though, her sex organs were not involved. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to kill your mother (and you do) it is true in a sense that "I killed her" but not that I should be charged with murder. (Something even worse, actually) TL;DR: The fact of the matter is that her sex organs were not involved, she should not be charged with rape. That said, she should be charged with something even worse.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:52 PM
1

The whole point of charging someone with rape is that they were consenting and the other party wasn't. A situation where neither active participant is consenting confuses things.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:39 PM
2

hiring someone else to do a murder still makes you a murderer I believe there is actually something special for this. "Conspiracy to commit murder" or something like that.
/r/MensRights13/11/15 09:37 PM
1

Can I get a TLDR on that?
/r/MensRights10/11/15 01:10 AM
2

her dream is to have a big beautiful Catholic wedding, to celebrate her love for you with all her friends and family. Are you going to say no? I would give her a big beautiful wedding. Church, priest, rings, and all. I'm just not going to sign a marriage license. And if this imaginary girl actually knows and love me, she will understand. I see your point, but it really comes down to this: I don't like how this country handles marriage (or divorce) and have no interest in participating in it. You…
/r/MensRights10/11/15 12:14 AM
7

I'm not op, I'm merely telling you what I got out of this post. But, to answer your question, if your sister wants to avoid relationships with men, that's her prerogative. I saw my mom take my dad for every penny for no reason and I personally plan on avoiding marriage. (though not necessarily intimate relationships as a whole; I'm 18 now)
/r/MensRights09/11/15 11:52 PM
26

All I read is: OP: You've shown me what the worst that can happen to a man is, and I'm not willing to risk it.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 11:02 PM
1

Ok, well the person I was replying to asked a specific question, I provided a specific example for that question, only mildly related to overbearing topic.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:50 PM
0

You should try reading the rediquette.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:41 PM
1

Ah ok. I thought he was listing all the other categories of men that went to war.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:43 PM
1

it's just being contrary Not only do I believe that reddit comments exist for the purpose of discussion, I believe discussion cannot exist without someone providing opposing viewpoints. You'll notice I haven't deleted any of my comments, and have even continued to reply, despite the onslaught of downvotes. It's not because I believe in what I'm saying, but because I believe in the discussion. Saying that women are somehow the primary victim of war is akin to saying the wife of a man who got murd…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:42 PM
0

There is a significant difference there that is relevant to the original quote: First off, my original comment was merely trying to be devil's advocate, so my views are not in question here, Clinton's are. I do not agree with it myself. That said, Clinton is a religious person. She believes in the afterlife. In war, the men go off, they die, and they go somewhere better. The women stay in this hell hole and weep for the dead. It's viable for her to consider women to be the greater victims. Now t…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:36 PM
0

IIRC, a lot of fathers were in the draft as well. Nonetheless, no one said they didn't count. I was merely trying to be devil's advocate for an opposing viewpoint.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:30 PM
0

Care to provide a point, or a counter opinion, or anything like that? Oh, this is just here to insult me? Oh ok, thanks. You really added to the discussion.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:28 PM
-2

You asked if dying is better than living. I merely gave you one such example where it is.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:24 PM
-2

IF you are someone who believes in the afterlife, then it would be viable to consider the only ones left alive to be the greater victims. This isn't something I believe, I'm merely trying to provide other viewpoints. In her mind, it's entirely possible she saw all of the dead men as living it up in heaven, while their sisters, mothers, daughters, and whatnot had to live on without them. This isn't something I personally agree with, so you can stop being a colossal cunt to me now. I'm merely tryi…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:21 PM
0

I could be misinterpreting this, but it seems to me like you're agreeing with my comment, which makes me wonder why I'm absorbing downvotes like crazy from simply trying to be devil's advocate, and you're not.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:15 PM
-1

she I hadn't actually bothered to research this quote, I assumed it came from Bill Clinton. My mindset on the subject has probably changed at least slightly from this. I see what you mean completely, and I personally agree. I was merely trying to be devil's advocate. I've found reddit doesn't like to hear opposing viewpoints though, they mostly just want to circlejerk.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 05:14 PM
-10

No, I didn't miss shit. I can't help that no one realizes that I was merely stating the potential for a statement to be partially true. I'm not preaching it, I'm not agreeing. I'm just making a fucking observation.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:17 AM
-15

Today is honestly not my day. Almost every comment I make is dedicated to keeping people's minds open or showing other viewpoints, and reddit has just been pissy with the votes.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:08 AM
-16

In some situations, yes. I imaging many Jews in the labor camps of the Holocaust thought so. (Shitty comparison, but it merely goes to show that death can sometimes be preferred)
/r/MensRights09/11/15 08:06 AM
-20

Didn't the draft go up to 40? Not to mention those who enlisted older than that?
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:55 AM
-18

I believe Clinton's intended meaning was "greater" rather than "direct"
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:54 AM
1

You're right, but /u/Naftoid makes a point. It is simply said to garner votes, but maybe we can make them realize that there are more votes to be had on the other side?
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:38 AM
-43

This is kind of true. In WW2, few women died, but many mothers had to hear about their dead children.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:37 AM
2

Sadly, some people think it will.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 03:59 AM
7

You missed a "Brad"
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/15 02:55 AM
6

I read that section on the picture before reading the title. I legit thought it was satire.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:52 AM
1

ALL I WANNA DO IS HAVE A FAP
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:36 AM
1

No learning. Too much drama.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 02:33 AM
-1

Saying you would murder someone who has done some crime is pretty much the definition of an emotional reaction This is literally not true at all. One of the many things I agree with/believe in is darwinism. Part of this (or a belief based on this) is that the world is better with less stupid people. While not the same, it is objective. Objective just like my opinion that the world is better without evil people. It's nothing more than "are we all better off with this rapist gone"? Also, I only sa…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 01:32 AM
1

You are factualy not incorrect Exactly this. My original comment was not meant to be there to analyze anything or provide any opinions, simply to suggest people keep in mind the fact of their word choice. Though, you are right. Words used are not words interpreted, and I fully expect people to converse about that. I just want people to keep in mind, words used are still relevant.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 01:24 AM
0

You call someone evil for playing the world's tiniest violine Yes. The expression "playing the world's tiniest violin" implicates a lack of compassion on a subject. You literally said that you have no compassion for actual rape victims. That is evil. You are an extremist http://i.imgur.com/B1R5dvg.jpg a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. This does not apply to me in the least, as extreme implies that an o…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 01:20 AM
0

Mental scarring. Not even real scarring That's cute. For a bit of comparison, I'm going to use some personal experiences of mine. I have at least 2 scars. One of these is physical; I accidentally cut myself cleaning up some glass from a broken window that my mom dropped. It is a mark on my body, but it doesn't affect my day-to-day life. I also have some mental scarring from a car accident I was in when I was younger. As a result, I now get anxiety attacks in certain situations while driving, and…
/r/MensRights08/11/15 10:02 PM
0

I have no clue how incorrect/correct these numbers are, but the difference is valid. IF for example, the numbers were correct, (1/5 sexually assaulted) the difference between "sexual assault" and "rape" would literally be the difference between being correct and being incorrect. That's that. It's not your job to judge the video based on how a portion of the population will interpret it, just objectively judge the video based on the validity of the video and it's content.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:43 PM
0

Objectively, for the victim, I believe rape is worse than a quick painless death. That said, I will not be forced to choose which I would rather my father be subjected to. This isn't Saw, and you can fuck off.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:10 PM
-2

I'm sorry, what? For your information, the problem here is not emotion, it's exactly the opposite. If I allowed emotion to rule my opinions, every decision would be quick and without a second thought. Because I take my time to evaluate everything objectively, I sometimes end up and a kind of mental-stalemate. In this situation for example: I do not agree with the death penalty on a legal scale for any crime. All too often are people found innocent of crimes they've previously been convicted of v…
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:10 PM
0

I'm merely suggesting that the users here keep the difference in mind, that's all. I personally don't like this video one but. It doesn't help anyone. But, the difference is relevant.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:01 PM
-1

I honestly don't know. I'd rather not even think about that.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 07:58 PM
0

Comparable, not equal. (In the sense that you have to live the rest of your life with mental scarring of some kind)
/r/MensRights08/11/15 07:58 PM
-2

I don't even have rape fantasies or desire to be dominated in bed like women do. I'm a man and that even managed to offend me. You think all women are submissive?
/r/MensRights08/11/15 07:55 PM
0

So you rate rape and murder at around equal, above torture? It's a bit of an odd opinion, but they're all pretty evil, so I'm not gonna waste my time analyzing anything.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:09 AM
2

Around 1/4 votes are downvotes right now. That's gotta be a new low-score for CH.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:02 AM
2

As far as I can tell, only the (inaccurate) reddit post's title says rape. The article and video seem to use "sexual assault"
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:01 AM
1

For reference to all of you, keep in mind they use the term "sexual assault", not "rape". This does change the numbers drastically as the definition of "sexual assault" legally covers everything from pantsing your bro to tying down and raping a classmate. I'm not saying I agree with any of this one way or the other, nor do I know any of the exact number, merely that you should all keep in mind the difference.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:01 AM
0

Rape and torture or rape and murder?
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:57 AM
1

I have a lot of very clear-cut beliefs on a lot of things, but this is just one subject I can't formulate an opinion on.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:55 AM
-3

It's difficult to imagine how a few minutes of forced non-consensual sex can be equated to murder or even a violent assault. You had me until this part. The word forced literally implies violence, and makes it equivocal to a violent assault. On top of even that tiny inherent flaw in whatever logic you're trying to display here, there's also the much larger one: actual non-consensual and/or forced sex is rape and is on-par with murder. In fact, there are some (including myself) that would even go…
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:52 AM
-8

IMHO, it is. Rape is comparable to torture. It can often lead to years upon years of everything from simple flashbacks to full-on PTSD. Not to mention the numerous ways it can affect something as simple as a person's ability to trust others. ** edit - People seen to forget that the down vote button is for comments that don't add to a discussion, not for opinions you don't agree with.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:42 AM
2

HEY, LISTEN UP
/r/MensRights02/11/15 11:26 PM
3

I believe most states require you to be 18 or over if the other is in a position of power. (Like a teacher) Even the age of consent being 16 is only true in MOST states, not all.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/10/15 08:26 PM
4

Because most men follow the golden rule: don't stick your dick in crazy. I haven't actually read the article, it's just meant to be a funny reply to the title
/r/MensRights25/10/15 03:37 PM
2

Should, yes. I'm curious about the legal entitlement to due process though.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:36 PM
1

Problem is, I don't think there is any power delegation. They just do their thing, and people can also press official charges as well, if they'd like.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 11:35 PM
2

I just mean, like the rest of our rights, (for example, the right to bear arms) doesn't extend to private property that is not your own. (IE, why businesses can put up "No Guns" signs) Due process, to my knowledge, (IANAL) would only apply in government-based proceedings, not those conducted by a private entity such as a university. I definitely don't agree with it, I'm just curious what others think.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 10:11 PM
2

Haven't read the story or anything, (can't get to the site from here for some reason) but just a question from something in the title: do due process rights apply in this situation?
/r/MensRights20/10/15 09:30 PM
0

In a bar/pub it's a but different, but when all of my potential hookups are met at high school, and I'm usually driving them to my place, it's not that crazy to ask.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/15 12:37 PM
-2

Seeing as I don't actually have to ask often, no its not. I haven't had anyone 17+ refuse to show me yet. Only people that have refused were 16- and wouldn't show me because they didn't want me to say no.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/15 12:25 PM
-17

I don't get laid often, but when I do, you can bet your ass I check ID, no joke.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/15 03:46 AM
2

Well the possibility of conviction is still there, but at least it's reduced a bit. Anyway, simply asking for ID helps a lot, there's not a lot of fake IDs around where I am.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/15 01:24 AM
1

Except people lie? I've had 2 freshmen lie about this to me already, and I wasn't even trying to sleep with them. Kids just want to be older.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/10/15 12:35 AM
1

NW. Near Algonquin. I don't know of any relevant cases in the area, but America as a whole is fucked on this stuff right now.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 09:37 PM
1

Well most of the people I hang around with are 18 already, but a lot of my friends' friends aren't. I sometimes end up hanging around with freshmen. And when most of these people that I come into contact with are smokers/drinkers already, there's not really any clear indicators. I generally take them at their word unless things are getting hot and heavy, but the way society is now, it's not worth my life for a bit of pussy that doesn't want to fork over an ID.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 09:30 PM
-3

no close age law Yeah, I do happen to live in one of those states: Illinois. The age of consent here is 17, so I'm pretty limited, and I figure 99% of 17 y/o have driver's licenses anyway, it's not crazy to ask to see it. if you're in a bar I'd say you're fairly safe anyway Not entirely true. People have been tried for statutory rape because they had sex with a minor they met in a bar. That said, checking ID would be kind of useless, because no minor is getting into a bar without a fake anyway.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 09:17 PM
13

This should fall under wasting the time of police officers Yes, this situation is much simpler than others. She should merely be charged with impeding a police investigation. (IE, whatever they would've been investigating if they hadn't been dealing with her shit) Something similar to what they charge 911-prank-callers with.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 09:04 PM
-3

As an 18 y/o who still attends high-school, which is where any potential hookups would come from: I do.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/15 09:02 PM
0

Your comment stated that he's a moron. I'm stating that your misspelling makes you a moron as well. I don't give a flying fuck who has better morales.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 07:47 PM
1

No they didn't. On the flipside of the same logic, he couldn't OD without them.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:48 AM
1

Ignoring all of the suicide/murder bullshit, a false allegation is a crime. That is a crime. Withdrawing the allegation does not mean that the allegation did not exist, much like if I rob a store, but decide to bring the stuff back a week later. They can still press robbery charges because the robbery still happened.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:32 AM
2

His point is that even though very few actual drug-users OD, it's still the drugs that made them OD.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:28 AM
-4

You're not exactly displaying yourself to be any better.
/r/MensRights02/10/15 10:26 AM
2

Even if you were to construe my point to be "non-life-threatening violence is okay", I explicitly stated that sex (gender) is irrelevant. On top of this, I never even inferred that any kind of abuse is okay. Honestly, I'm done defending myself against literally baseless accusations. Quote me or fuck off.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:38 AM
1

I'm sorry for what you went through, but like I'm trying to tell everyone else: I was merely clarifying a point. A fact. Yes, it's abuse with just as much danger as any other kind, but fuck, half this fucking sub is jumping all over me like I'm trying to defend her. (I'm not)
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:53 AM
1

Please, oh please, quote me, screenshot me saying that. Stop yanking out words that I have never uttered just to start a fight on the internet. No one here is saying it was okay, merely clarifying on a detail.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:50 AM
2

ok sure lets gauge abuse No one's saying it wasn't abuse or violence, merely that it was not life-threatening. It has nothing to do even with the sexes of the people, but size and experience. Short of a firearm, I doubt she's going to kick a trained soldier's ass.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:11 AM
1

inaccurate information The sentencing was never "inaccurate information". He was sentenced, and then the sentence was vacated.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 07:23 PM
1

I think mine just retreated back into my body.
/r/PussyPass16/09/15 07:05 PM
2

Rape or not, you can't say there wasn't lasting harm.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 05:18 PM
2

You are correct. As of now, there have not been any cases (that I know of) where this has actually happened and been prosecuted, but I can't really find many cases of it even happening at all. It was simply a comparison to what some people would call rape.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:27 AM
2

doesn't really cause lasting harm Honestly -- and I don't mean to come off as insensitive -- this is no different than saying that normal rape doesn't cause lasting harm. I guarantee that the victim in this story will have lasting psychological effects, such as questioning her own sexuality, or an immense distrust of strangers. Likely something that will require therapy. Her physical health may not be at risk, but she has been harmed.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:18 AM
2

who knew what I did unintentionally did wrong Okay Jayden, It's Time For Bed.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:11 AM
2

IIRC, none of the US cases about lying about HIV resulted in a rap charge, but rather attempted murder. The comparison may not be totally relevant, but it does have some relevance.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 12:10 AM
3

The accurate dildo analogue would be a fleshlight.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 10:41 PM
2

Put a slash before it: \#BlackDildosMatter becomes #BlackDildosMatter
/r/MensRights15/09/15 10:40 PM
9

There is an argument (fairly common here on /r/MensRights) that states that if a woman lies about something such as birth control, it could be considered rape, because the man's consent was given under false pretenses. There's already a legal precedence for this general idea in the way of lying about STDs. IIRC, there are actually multiple people convicted in the US on various charges due to claiming not to have HIV, and then having sex and passing it on, ultimately reducing the victim's lifespa…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 10:28 PM
8

It wasn't a one-night stand Either way, she consented under false pretenses. This is mildly similar to the argument that if a girl claims to be on birth control (but is not) it is rape.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:39 PM
1

Honestly, reading the article, it almost seems like she might have multiple-personality disorder or something like that.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:37 PM
-2

Ease off the agression. I am a man, but while there is nothing inherently wrong with it, a man recording a girls soccer game with no apparent connection to any of the players or their parents will be seen as creepy by the general populous. I'm merely looking at it from the light that society would put these things in.
/r/PussyPass13/09/15 05:40 PM
-6

You can call bullshit all you want, but I can guarantee whatever I want.
/r/PussyPass13/09/15 01:03 AM
-4

That is far more in your head than any likely reality Not saying it's certainly always for creepy purposes, but I guarantee that there are more people that want videos of a girls soccer game for creepy purposes than there are that want it for non-creepy purposes.
/r/PussyPass12/09/15 09:21 AM
2

I literally can think of 3 reasons in a matter of seconds: security - movable aerial recording is insanely useful for property security research - they can get to places and see things for us that would otherwise be impossible or much more expensive sports - Some news stations have posited plans to use UAVs at sports events because of their unique and dynamic positioning capabilities That's just the important ones, ignoring all of the various hobbyist reasons, such as: they're fun to fly By your…
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 11:23 PM
2

Oh yeah. It's legal to fly anywhere over public property except for restricted airspace. (near airports or military installations) Private property has some interesting rules/standards, (I think you have to fly above the height of the tallest building) but it sounds like he was nowhere near private property anyway. IIRC, she wasn't even assaulting him because she felt like he was breaking the law by flying, she was assaulting him in the same way that she would assault someone standing 10 feet fr…
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 10:06 PM
2

Yes. Yes it is.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 10:02 PM
2

Oh, I misread your comment. I thought the assaulter didn't have a top while she was assaulting the teen. Yes, tearing someone's top off would have the potential to be sexual assault, even if it wasn't the intended purpose.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 09:54 PM
1

I was just saying that it shouldn't have any bearing (if he had been) because if it had been a crime, than the lady might have been in her right to stop a criminal with violence. Seeing as the spying (which didn't happen anyway) wouldn't have been a crime, it doesn't really affect the assault case.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 09:47 PM
3

Don't forget, (IIRC) she attacked him while the drone was still in the air. She was endangering more people than he was.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 08:39 PM
2

sexual assault, considering she was exposing his nipple In all fairness, that's totally wrong, as both the male and female nipples have been decided by courts to be acceptable for public. One of many sources
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 08:38 PM
1

lets test their theory I think this is how the show works..... they make a theory, and then test it. I haven't personally seen this episode, but I know they don't just spend 30 minutes spitting out ideas. when even a nylon prop hits your eyeball at many thousands of RPMs Or a pencil/pen. Or a shoe. Or a car. Or thousands of other everyday items. Eyes are vulnerable and the rotation is irrelevant. Finally, your inherent lack of correct spelling and grammar seriously puts a dent in the reliability…
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 08:34 PM
3

He was asking for a source that the pilot was exposing others to risk, not that they inherently have risks. Cars and busses have risks. I could be fatally run over by one tomorrow. But yet they're allowed to operate on the road. I don't assault bus drivers just because they could run me over.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 08:16 PM
3

Anything is dangerous to the eye, the spinning is irrelevant.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 06:37 PM
-1

Spying on a girls soccer game In all fairness, if it's played on an open field, there's nothing inherently illegal about it. Although creepy, it shouldn't affect the assault case.
/r/PussyPass11/09/15 06:33 PM
5

Even a fat pig actively stuffing his face with doughnuts could have caught her. She was running like 2 mph. She would have forgot why she was running in like one minute anyway and probably would've just sat there.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/15 11:50 AM
5

unless you count "I'm a stripper" That counts. Like way more than just "I'm a woman"
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/15 11:49 AM
2

Like 3 days ago. It says so in the link.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/15 11:47 AM
15

Except for the fact that judges don't determine guilt in felony trials.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 10:50 PM
32

This kills the girl
/r/MensRights20/08/15 07:29 AM
1

Pour Ear Grease
/r/PussyPass19/08/15 03:20 AM
2

It's gonna get weird, don't judge.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 05:12 PM
8

Devil's advocate here: there is a mildly valid reason for this. The general idea is that if you're spending more time with your kids (they draw the line at 51 days I guess) then you're going to be directly spending that money on them and there's no reason for it to go to/through the other parent. If you're spending less time, you're likely spending less directly on them, so you give more to the other parent to spend on them.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 02:30 PM
8

I only said attraction is evolution based, and that is an undeniable fact.
/r/MensRights05/08/15 04:54 AM
13

Following teenagers on instagram while in your mid-20's is not perverted. The human race (largely men, as far as attraction to females go) has evolved to be attracted to things like symmetry, wide hips, or large breasts, and there are reasons for this, but they are irrelevant. As girls begin to display these features midway and late in puberty, they are, as far as our primal instinct goes, attractive. Yes, there are problems when people are exclusively attracted to younger people, or act on thes…
/r/MensRights05/08/15 03:19 AM
3

I would like to point out that your post shows you to be under the impression that the acquittal of the accused means the accusation was false. There are a lot of true rapes in which conviction is impossible due to insufficient evidence.
/r/PussyPass30/07/15 11:20 PM
2

Anyone who has an abortion because of age or lack of money is an her entry being mature.
/r/MensRights27/07/15 12:27 AM
1

I've seen it, I love it. I just forgot his name.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/15 05:03 PM
1

I can't stand watching stupid people. Same reason I can't watch shitty horror movies. Too many stupid decisions being made.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/15 04:51 PM
19

Who's that, again? I've seen this, but I forgot his name. ** OOPS - Was watching it in-app, didn't see the YouTube title.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/15 04:07 AM
17

I literally can't watch this show 99% of the time just because the accuser/defender are so goddamned stupid.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/07/15 04:06 AM
2

It's not an admission of guilt to perjury, but it is implied. (enough to get the police asking questions, at least)
/r/MensRights17/07/15 02:13 AM
17

Plus awesome editing and music.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/06/15 02:49 AM
3

behaving in an honorable or polite way especially toward women That is the definition of chivalry. What's so wrong with being polite?
/r/MensRights14/06/15 06:54 PM
3

It's okay to be chivalrous, it's not okay to expect it.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 06:44 PM
10

Eh, they use it, why can't we? Plus, some sexual assault is so violent that men do fear for their lives.
/r/MensRights14/06/15 05:55 PM
1

Oh, I'm only using uBlock. I'm saying that since I only see the one subreddit ad when disabling my adblocker, maybe there's a reason they're on the "good list"
/r/MensRights11/06/15 11:23 AM
1

I use uBlock, but when I turned it off, I still didn't see any ads, so maybe that's okay?
/r/MensRights11/06/15 10:31 AM
2

What about 2 mom's? Wouldn't that then produce the best person?
/r/MensRights02/06/15 03:14 AM
2

TIL
/r/MensRights18/05/15 08:23 PM
-1

?context=4
/r/MensRights18/05/15 07:19 PM
5

Typo or was Colt a colonel?
/r/MensRights18/05/15 07:18 PM
1

I'm curious, what does this have to do with men's rights? I'm not trying to be a douche or anything, I think I'm just missing something.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 07:08 PM
5

And how is that?
/r/MensRights10/05/15 04:13 PM
6

Even if he didn't need to be "convinced" the experience will change him forever, possibly in a bad way.
/r/MensRights10/05/15 03:57 PM
9

It's only a repost if it's in the same sub, calm your shit.
/r/PussyPass09/05/15 01:16 AM
1

She did after I cut her up.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:28 PM
1

"near age exceptions" What do you mean?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 01:10 PM
3

heartily chuckled
/r/MensRights27/04/15 06:00 AM
11

/r/TalesofPrivilege
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:59 AM
1

Where can I get one?
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:57 AM
-3

If we assume that at least 1 person in all of this was under 18 (which I believe is true) there is either production/distribution of child porn, or providing porn to a minor, is either a felony or at least a misdemeanor. http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57300000401.HTML 3 is the best one for this situation, I think.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:53 AM
-6

Ok, so even if all of the girls were 18, distributing pornography without a license is illegal. I'm not saying the boys shouldn't have gotten in trouble, just that the girls should have too.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 05:25 AM
5

No shit they can't consent, that's the issue. It's a non-violent procedure (they won't die without it) and should be avoided at all costs until the baby is 18 and can decide for themselves.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 01:51 PM
-2

has no value other than marketing I'm just refuting OP's exact words.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/15 08:08 AM
-4

Diamonds aren't useless though. (Diamond-tipped blades, anyone?)
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/15 06:39 AM
6

And most states have laws that say you must be 18 to have sex with someone in a position of power over you. (a teacher)
/r/PussyPassDenied31/03/15 05:42 PM
25

In all fairness, I think anybody will stop protecting you if you slap them.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/03/15 09:10 PM
6

My point is that he wouldn't be "browsing" /r/pussypassdenied
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/15 09:01 PM
2

Or he could be browsing his front page :-/
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/15 05:16 PM
19

It's an ad, the video was staged
/r/PussyPass28/02/15 04:17 AM
1

/s?
/r/PussyPass21/01/15 09:12 PM
5

Can I get a tldr?
/r/PussyPass21/01/15 05:21 AM
1

Even then, winning is an uncertainty
/r/PussyPass18/01/15 04:34 PM
6

She looks to me like she might have Down's or something, but that could just be me.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/15 04:30 AM
-1

In fairness to both sides, it's often very hard to judge force from a video. Like when she was already all the way on the ground and he kept saying "stop resisting", it doesn't look like she's moving, but she could be putting a lot of force into trying to break his grip.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/15 03:58 AM
2

Maybe a bit rough, but still within reason.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/15 03:54 AM
3

Actually, quite the opposite. They do something; they often record/laugh.
/r/PussyPass07/12/14 12:50 AM
6

Bitch, you lyin' FTFY
/r/PussyPassDenied20/11/14 04:14 AM
6

Oh my god that's amazing. I once saw my history teacher fucking tackle someone who was beating on a kid on the ground. Best part? This happened RIGHT outside the door to the deans office, so none of the deans or the local police officer could do anything but watch.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/11/14 08:21 PM
3

Love the title of the video there. I guess he "smacked the soul" out of her. Actually sounded like it too.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/11/14 05:40 AM
7

So does everyone on /r/gonewild, go tell them that they're all using pussy pass and see how quickly you get downvoted into oblivion.
/r/PussyPass10/11/14 04:40 PM
5

I enjoy the little details. Whether they were necessary or not doesn't constitute downvotes.
/r/PussyPass10/11/14 04:34 PM
15

Oh I agree. She was a total dumbass.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/14 12:54 AM
41

Ok, that is obviously an attempt at pussy-pass, but I personally don't think her original business model was.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/10/14 07:22 PM
20

Fuck our rights, just have some responsibilities here some responsibilities there.
/r/PussyPass07/10/14 06:48 AM
63

Here's a few little facts about this: The mother didn't even look for money from him. She applied for welfare and the state tracked him down so they wouldn't have to pay her welfare. He was never told he had a kid until the state found him and told him he needed to pay child support The guy who was raped actually said he wanted to be in the kids life
/r/PussyPass07/10/14 05:12 AM
21

America, Mexico, Earth
/r/PussyPass07/10/14 04:50 AM
1

It is possible that she considered her own word more valuable because she was female.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/09/14 05:12 AM
27

D:
/r/PussyPass03/09/14 04:34 AM
11

?
/r/PussyPass03/09/14 03:16 AM
3

Can we x-post this to /r/news?
/r/PussyPass03/09/14 12:26 AM
15

Sadly, for a man, the only contraceptives are abstinence and condoms.
/r/PussyPass03/09/14 12:26 AM
3

Which law? For the speeding, you're right. For manslaughter, no.
/r/PussyPass01/09/14 01:36 PM
3

It is completely possible to drive anywhere without breaking laws. Reckless/dangerous aside, and ignoring how stupid some laws might be, she was breaking a law resulting in the death of a human being, and she deserves what any lawbreakers would get from manslaughter.
/r/PussyPass01/09/14 05:13 AM
1

15 over is the flow anywhere on a highway, but did it say that was a highway? Also, whether it's normal or not, she was breaking a law that caused her to lose control and kill a man.
/r/PussyPass01/09/14 03:43 AM
1

"hysteria" re: women rationalizing batshit behavior No need to be sexist. I used to be on borderline strong medication, and missing a day did effect me quite a bit. Oh, and I have a penis.
/r/PussyPass18/08/14 03:57 PM
-1

A. I take meds, it's not a big deal. Some are more important than others, and sometimes people just forget to take them. B. Everyone gets into accidents now and again, also, no big deal. It's unlucky that they happened on the same day. C. Yelling at cops. Yes, it's bad, but 2 normally insignificant things happened on the same day, you can't completely blame her. I'm not defending her, or agreeing with how she handled any of that situation, but I'm just saying she deserves a bit of slack.
/r/PussyPass26/07/14 03:24 PM
-6

In all fairness, she did say she missed meds that day, so you can't completely blame her for all of that.
/r/PussyPass26/07/14 05:13 AM
1

Forced conscription would be. If you signed on and then wanted to quit, that's grey area.
/r/PussyPass21/05/14 08:52 PM
1

Fair enough. I swear the title changed.....
/r/PussyPass20/03/14 06:40 PM
5

From what I can tell, yes. I don't think they really could legally tack on any more from what I read.
/r/PussyPass15/03/14 04:02 AM
4

From what I read, they were charged, why is this on /r/PussyPass
/r/PussyPass14/03/14 11:57 PM
26

One of them stole his wallet, (should have been obvious to the cop) of course he's going to follow them.
/r/PussyPass23/01/14 07:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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