TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Flying_Burrito_Bro Archive

View 0 posts and 47 comments by Flying_Burrito_Bro 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)
2

"anyone who is raped in private should be barred from receiving justice" No, I said that there are scenarios in which there will not be physical evidence nor will there be eye witnesses. By your standard, those victims don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction. I'm not sure what you mean by "baseless" allegations. I don't know how I'm being hysterical, and I'm sorry that I've apparently come across as a fuckwit. I don't really understand why.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:49 PM
1

I don't understand-- I just described a scenario that would be an affront to justice by your standard, and it seems that it would result in a categorical bar for a certain type of victim. What's idiotic about what I said? There are plenty of reasons to not trust juries. What's false about the way I presented my understanding of your position?
/r/MensRights11/12/15 03:40 PM
1

So people that are raped in private, as most are, and freeze instead of resisting should be barred from getting justice because you don't trust a jury to decide who to believe?
/r/MensRights11/12/15 03:29 PM
1

Courts have found that testimonial evidence alone is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find someone guilty BARD
/r/MensRights11/12/15 03:18 PM
1

Purely testimonial-- sometimes there are no physical signs of abuse and there are very rarely eye witnesses to it. Accordingly, a jury has to make the call based on cross and direct examination of the victim and any statements that the accused made to police if she doesn't take the stand in her defense.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 02:45 PM
3

Of course. Keep up your advocacy work-- it's essential. Very grateful for folks like you.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 12:38 AM
1

Evidence is the currency for truth, there is no work around or shortcut, no evidence no sale What if there is no physical evidence?
/r/MensRights11/12/15 12:14 AM
3

It's a waste of time and life talking with people like this, Bobby. I appreciated your responses, particularly the soccer analogy. You're doing good work and presenting things fairly and reasonably.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 12:02 AM
0

Right, call me insane and then tell me I'm bothering you when all you have to do is disable inbox replies if the orange icon is distressing. If you think I have no life because I have a free afternoon to talk about an important subject, you're sorely mistaken.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 09:03 PM
1

You don't think there's a difference between law and policy here? That makes me insane?
/r/MensRights10/12/15 08:47 PM
0

I have not advocated for special legal rights for alleged victims in any of my posts nor have I suggested that it should be treated differently as a matter of law. My entire argument turns on what resources, as a matter of policy, states ought to provide to alleged victims. I don't know if you actually read my posts, as you're rehashing the same objections that the other guy raised and I addressed repeatedly.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 08:21 PM
1

I appreciate that. I'm just trying to offer my positions in a civil and respectful way, and so far that's been met with extreme prejudice and outright hostility.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 08:05 PM
0

an't be you! It's everyone else who is being problematic! Are you done yet? I'm not talking about disagreement, I'm talking about civility and reasonableness. I don't know how I am being a problem by trying to have a civil discussion about a heated topic. I'm not going to be silenced because a handful of people refuse to engage on reasonable terms and offer a bare minimum of respect, at least enough to not put words in my mouth or grossly distort my positions.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:55 PM
1

Could you point to a single instance when I wasn't offering reasonable thoughts? I don't believe that you can. Everyone else? This was a conversation between two people. The others, presumably 2-3 people, offered nothing but downvotes. There was no reasonable discussion-- how can you have a reasonable discussion when someone announces that he refuses to have one at the onset? Did you catch that part? These aren't different people from all walks of life-- they're people that subscribe to Men's Ri…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:41 PM
0

Individual called me pathetic after categorically refusing to have a reasonable discussion. I said I pitied him. I'm horrified by redditors like this, and it has nothing to do with me being "butt hurt." Cowardice is talking shit without offering a single bit of substance. Not sure why you're choosing to be like that.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:13 PM
0

I'm making a narrow point about the sufficiency of the evidence, not its admissibility. FRE (and almost all states ) established rape shields, primarily with regard to prior sexual contact/behavior, and there's substantial debate as to whether or not those rules have had any effect on conviction rates. What evidence is relevant as a matter of law is, of course, determined by the law, but sufficiency is a matter of judicial interpretation on appeal, though technically the foundation for those cla…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:00 PM
-1

That really says all I need to know about your opinions here. You read through a message chain where someone is distorting what I'm saying if not outright making things up and say to yourself, "Those are reasonable points."? You refuse to offer a single insight or constructive critique, tell me that people must pity me because the same 3-4 people keep downvoting me? This is so fucked up.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 06:50 PM
-1

Why not actually engage with what was said and decide for yourself if I'm "pathetic" or have done anything pitiable. I don't like resorting to name calling, so I'm going to delete that frustrated reply to someone actively attacking me and grossly distorting, if not outright making up, things that I was saying. I don't understand these reactions to even slight disagreement-- they're so destructive.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:22 PM
1

Again, pedantic re: "until conviction is made"-- unless you're willing to say the same for every violent crime except murder, you're creating a strange and potentially disturbing distinction about rape. You're right about the modifications regarding resistance as substantive changes in proof. I shouldn't have generalized my point-- determining what evidence is sufficient as a matter of law is left up to courts, overturning on appeal when no reasonable jury could have convicted. Most of the resis…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 05:49 AM
1

Nothing is illegal until you get caught. That's a horrific way of thinking about unreported sex crimes. Suggesting that no crime has been committed because charges were never filed is pedantry. Also, state legislatures write statutes that define the elements of crimes. Courts decide questions of evidentiary sufficiency, "the rules" that you're alluding to.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:20 AM
0

I don't know how "legal" knowledge is different from actual knowledge. We do know that people are getting away with heinous crimes unless you want to categorically dismiss every survey about unreported crime. I'm not going to debate numbers, but you must certainly concede that sex crimes are going unreported. We rely extensively on surveys for all manner of statistical data, so suspecting that people are lying about unreported crimes on them seems unfounded. As for requiring physical evidence fo…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:28 AM
0

I mean I can't imagine what some victims might feel, and lifelong trauma can literally destroy your ability to function. Many victims live with horrible PTSD. But of course I think it's better that they are alive, that they are not "damaged goods," that they are worth just the same as they were before they encountered a predator.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:13 AM
0

I mean most sex crimes take place in private and produce little physical evidence. What are we to do? The answer is that many prosecutors won't take the cases. Those that do will rely heavily on the reliability and truthfulness of the alleged victim. They will often call friends/family of the alleged victim to the stand to testify about their impressions, what they knew, when they knew it, how it was conveyed to them, etc. Still, the odds of a conviction are low. But what other option do we as a…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:58 AM
0

If he has none and no witnesses than she should not get convicted. There are very rarely direct witnesses to sex crimes. Many are not violent enough to produce physical evidence of anything but intercourse/sexual contact. Are you suggesting that juries shouldn't be allowed to convict based on testimonial evidence and their resulting credibility judgments? "Look what you did here. You put this in quotes as if it is something I wrote. I did not and I never made this claim. All allegations of all c…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:46 AM
-1

I work in a prison right now. I have more than one guy in prison who is there for rape because he turned 18 and didn't stop having sex with his girlfriend of 3 years. They broke up and she reported him. Since he turned 18 he gets to spend 6 years in prison and end up on a sexual offenders list. Just because she got pissed off when he broke up with her. She never said no. Was never scared but there you go. Her ordeal was so much worse than his. Pathetic. I seriously doubt that you're accurately r…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:36 AM
0

Special rights for the protected classes. White males? Fuck them. Garbage. I never said anything about "rights" or protected classes unless you're referring to all alleged victims of sex crimes. I believe that they should have counselors and that law enforcement should aspire to have special victims units when possible, at a minimum aware of and trained in the complexities of sex crimes, including having a trauma expert on hand to testify at trials. This applies equally to every single alleged v…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:24 AM
0

How can I have discourse with someone who would put me in jail if some random woman that I never met came up and said I raped her. Then you would want to put my name in the press, destroy my life with my family all because we have to take special care of the accused. What in the fuck are you talking about? If you think that you'd see the inside of a holding cell for a second if someone you've never met randomly accuses you of rape, you're going to be wrong 99.99% of the time. Do you seriously be…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:10 AM
-2

This is what you are writing now but you are talking about the trial. You have advocated that the women should be believed before the trial even without evidence. This is what I am talking about. Putting a man in jail for years while he waits for a trial and having his name put on trial in the media while the woman is kept secrete. So what you answered here is correct but not what you have advocated. This is such bullshit. I made no claims whatsoever about "belief." Prosecutors retain discretion…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 12:57 AM
-4

In every rape case they are. The right to a fair trial is suspended so as not to hurt the feelings of the accused. You have no idea what you're talking about. And to be clear, we publish the names of the accused because we have open courts. This is a blessing and a curse, but the alternative would be to have secret sex crime courts, which no doubt would be found unconstitutional, not to mention ethically abhorrent. I don't know how you have a more fair trial when you publish the name of the alle…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 11:09 PM
-2

If you give someone special attention because of their accusation you have just destroyed any ability to have a just trial. And are assuming guilt before the trial. If you are treating them special for maybe being raped you are saying YES THEY WERE RAPED. No, you're not. You are taking their charge seriously and enabling them to proceed with a case worker while law enforcement investigates. Please explain to me how having a case worker available for accusers (they are legally referred to as alle…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:57 PM
-2

No, you're out of your mind because you are literally ignoring what I write while using snippets like sock puppets to rant about everything but the merits of my position. I have not once referred to these things as "rights," and I have explicitly advocated extended them to all sex crime victims, including, of course, white men. If you want to debate whether or not law enforcement should given special attention to a particularly heinous and difficult to prove crime, that's fine. I fundamentally d…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:42 PM
-2

You are out of your fucking mind.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:32 PM
-1

According to what you wrote they are. Women deserve special rights now because they were treated poorly in the past. No, rape victims, male and female, deserve greater attention and social awareness given the nature of their accusations and the alleged violence done to them. This attention and awareness is to promote a complete and just trial with a verdict on the merits of evidence presented. Providing a rape victim with a special advocate for emotional and psychological support throughout the …
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:21 PM
1

Your questions are both insulting and unproductive, but I'll answer them as briefly as possible: Absolutely not. A jury (or judge in a bench trial) makes that determination after weighing the evidence presented at trial. A person's testimony alone is sufficient grounds for a conviction in almost all states, though in practice that very rarely happens. They must convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and they may base that decision on whatever they chose to credit or discredit during the direct and c…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 10:10 PM
0

What are you talking about? The point of highlight past injustice is to demonstrate that the legal community is now aware of how the system was unjust and are taking steps to rectify it when possible. No one is "privileged" by their prior racial or gendered victimization-- they are instead, as you advocate, treated equally before the law and given a fair opportunity to vindicate their rights and the rights of the community in pursuing the prosecution of crimes perpetrated against their bodies. W…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:58 PM
0

You're so off base that it's literally absurd. I advocate for, as do thousands of judges, lawyers, and legal academics, increased awareness of the difficulties that rape prosecutions present, especially in light of centuries of regressive and horribly biased prosecutions, which were alternately misogynistic, racist, and misandryist: everything from automatically taking a white woman's word for rape when the accused was black, to requiring that women "resist to the utmost" to qualify for first de…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:39 PM
-1

You've made no attempt to engage with what I'm saying in an intellectually honest way. You've drawn illicit and misleading inferences from my post and are now creating straw men throughout it. You have no idea who I am or what I believe. You are not contributing to a meaningful dialogue, perhaps intentionally so. I'd be glad to talk about this stuff with you if you'd respect my words enough to not distort them or to ask for clarification before making incorrect assumptions about my positions.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:27 PM
1

special rights I didn't say that at all. I said that they should receive a larger measure of societal solicitude and appreciation for the unique difficulties in reporting the crime. This is reflected in some states offering case workers for rape victims pursuing charges and an increased utilization of psychological experts to explain why some people don't bring charges for months or years and why they may be traumatized and not able to recall certain details of the attack, and to explain why som…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:16 PM
-1

I know you're not trivializing it, but there are not many worse things I'd argue.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:45 PM
-1

If I were to claim that you raped me, should I automatically be believed? You should be neither believed nor disbelieved. You should be taken seriously until an investigation gives law enforcement reason to no longer take you seriously, or even to prosecute you for bringing false charges. Otherwise the jury makes the final credibility judgments. Edit: Whoever would suggest that people bringing rape accusations should be automatically disbelieved is a fucking monster. I don't understand how you c…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:43 PM
0

This is a good reply, constructive and thoughtful. I would nuance it by adding that we should take every accusation seriously, the corollary to that being that we should also take false accusations very seriously.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:40 PM
1

That's right folks, approximately 0.02% of people in the US are raped every year. It's a goddamn epidemic./s 80,000 men and women-- that's a lot of people. And "unwanted touching" is a pretty absurd euphemism for sexual assault. I don't know of any reputable group that's including "threats" as a form of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:38 PM
-1

Any assumption is basically based on bullshit, Not really-- you can survey people about anything.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:34 PM
2

Saying that you should report any other crime if you want to see the criminal put away isn't victim blaming; rape shouldn't be seen any differently. Very much agree, but we have to be extra sympathetic toward rape victims-- there is very little, if anything, more dehumanizing and less dignified than being raped, and the shame and fear paralyze thousands of men and women. They blame themselves, look for reasons to rationalize their guilt because they didn't do enough to fight/prevent it.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:33 PM
-1

There are worse things than rape. Death sure (some would disagree), but dismemberment is highly debatable.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:30 PM
-2

made up statistics You can question their accuracy, but these aren't really "made up." Cheapens the phrase.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:29 PM
-1

In some ways, reclaiming and affirming the masculine identity as something that is neither toxic nor threatening is part of that. There's no such thing as a monolithic "masculine" identity that needs to be reclaimed. Both MRA and feminists seem to miss that with great regularity, and the discussion is far poorer for it.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 08:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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