While the actions of the (rabid Islamist) Qataris were completely unjustified, I love how the BBC simply does not care that a baby was thrown in a trash bin.
By the way, 'ethicists' have long argued in favor of allowing parents to murder their children. Peter Singer is only the most infamous example, but there have been many others, and articles published in prestigious journals arguing for it.
The fact that you are trying to catch an attempted murderer (I have nowhere seen that the woman in question succeeded in murdering her offspring) does not justify any action that you are going to take in the process, violating the rights of innocent people.
Don't you find using this angle a little ironic, considering the people you're defending are most likely supportive of all kinds of violations against innocent men in the name of catching rapists?
I mean, they're from NZ, AU and the UK. The three worst places to be a man that aren't Sweden.
You're really overdramatising this. If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too, and the BBC won't give a fuck. I'm not allowing more one rule for them, another for everyone else.
Especially when lives can be in danger. If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched (We have seen the feminist escalation towards violence recently, and of course we can't forget that there have been female IS plotters.) are we allowed to blame the people who thought this was a bad thing for those lost lives?
Well, I'm not. I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
Having female leaders fairly recently? Having weak and useless conservatives?
Excuse me? You initially claimed that this was a 'murder', then you realized that the kid was not actually dead. You also claimed that it was definitely a boy, because the wimminz threw it in the trash, and even though I explained to you that far more girls get murdered as children than boys, you branded that as just propaganda - because TheImpossible may not have evidence, but he knows in his heart that it is true.
It turns out, of course, that it was completely bogus. That unlike your rabid gender obsessions, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. And that the kid did not actually die.
If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too,
I think you get your 'knowledge' from television.
If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched
Impressive job with equating not penetrating someone with 'not searching'.
I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
You don't even know these people. But based on one characteristic, you've already decided what their character is. For some reason, you manage to recognize that this is rather stupid when people do it with the JOOOOOOOZ, but you can't quite see the log in your own eyes.
Having female leaders fairly recently?
And this case has nothing whatsoever to do with feeeeeeeemale leaders... except that you tried to jump from people you did not know to people you do.
Yeah well, I had a theory that when the gender is omitted, it's a sign that it's a bad look for our worse halves. It actually worked last time I saw a BBC article, a few days ago. I predicted the murderer of a man was a woman based on the suspect being conveniently not identified by their gender, where if it was a man they'd be constantly mentioning it. 14 year old girl did it. Sick world we live in.
Can't say I have an experience of it, but cavity searches are a thing.
Well, four characteristics, actually. They are young, which makes them likely to be left-wing. They are from either Australia, New Zealand or the UK, which makes them more likely to hold the kind of female supremacist beliefs that are accepted in those countries. They are female, which makes them even more likely to hold those beliefs. They mentioned sexism, which makes it almost certain.
Well, what else do those three countries have in common? The Queen?
In this case, it was the wrong tool. A DNA test would be the way to go. It's non-invasive (just a check swab) and would have established if the woman is the mother of this child in particular, while the exam was invasive and just establishes if the woman is the mother of a child of the correct age.
While the actions of the (rabid Islamist) Qataris were completely unjustified, I love how the BBC simply does not care that a baby was thrown in a trash bin.
By the way, 'ethicists' have long argued in favor of allowing parents to murder their children. Peter Singer is only the most infamous example, but there have been many others, and articles published in prestigious journals arguing for it.
We skipped clown world and went straight to women's world.
The workers were punished for trying to catch a murderer? Really?
The fact that you are trying to catch an attempted murderer (I have nowhere seen that the woman in question succeeded in murdering her offspring) does not justify any action that you are going to take in the process, violating the rights of innocent people.
Don't you find using this angle a little ironic, considering the people you're defending are most likely supportive of all kinds of violations against innocent men in the name of catching rapists?
I mean, they're from NZ, AU and the UK. The three worst places to be a man that aren't Sweden.
Unlike our worse halves ("I was so depressed to put another white male into this world"), I consider children innocent.
Even though I've seen some shit from girls 14-16 on the news that makes me question that position, I still stick by it.
Who am I defending? The innocent women who were violated? How do you know what they are 'supportive' of?
And if it's bad to support violating the rights of innocent people, why are you suing the supposed bad conduct of others as an excuse for your own?
Jeez, I wonder what these three shitholes have in common.
You're really overdramatising this. If a guy was suspected of a crime, they'll put fingers inside him too, and the BBC won't give a fuck. I'm not allowing more one rule for them, another for everyone else.
Especially when lives can be in danger. If a female terrorist gets through because they couldn't be searched (We have seen the feminist escalation towards violence recently, and of course we can't forget that there have been female IS plotters.) are we allowed to blame the people who thought this was a bad thing for those lost lives?
Well, I'm not. I'm just wondering why on earth anyone would bother defending people who would gladly sell them out to God only knows who for their own superiority.
Having female leaders fairly recently? Having weak and useless conservatives?
Excuse me? You initially claimed that this was a 'murder', then you realized that the kid was not actually dead. You also claimed that it was definitely a boy, because the wimminz threw it in the trash, and even though I explained to you that far more girls get murdered as children than boys, you branded that as just propaganda - because TheImpossible may not have evidence, but he knows in his heart that it is true.
It turns out, of course, that it was completely bogus. That unlike your rabid gender obsessions, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. And that the kid did not actually die.
I think you get your 'knowledge' from television.
Impressive job with equating not penetrating someone with 'not searching'.
You don't even know these people. But based on one characteristic, you've already decided what their character is. For some reason, you manage to recognize that this is rather stupid when people do it with the JOOOOOOOZ, but you can't quite see the log in your own eyes.
And this case has nothing whatsoever to do with feeeeeeeemale leaders... except that you tried to jump from people you did not know to people you do.
Yeah well, I had a theory that when the gender is omitted, it's a sign that it's a bad look for our worse halves. It actually worked last time I saw a BBC article, a few days ago. I predicted the murderer of a man was a woman based on the suspect being conveniently not identified by their gender, where if it was a man they'd be constantly mentioning it. 14 year old girl did it. Sick world we live in.
Can't say I have an experience of it, but cavity searches are a thing.
Well, four characteristics, actually. They are young, which makes them likely to be left-wing. They are from either Australia, New Zealand or the UK, which makes them more likely to hold the kind of female supremacist beliefs that are accepted in those countries. They are female, which makes them even more likely to hold those beliefs. They mentioned sexism, which makes it almost certain.
Well, what else do those three countries have in common? The Queen?
No one tried to stop it. The people who recovered the baby were not punished. The people who raped the women were punished.
All of the women were innocent.
Who raped what now?
www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes - please return home.
I wouldn't stand by and see men raped and say anything different. Please get out of your own pussy and be reasonable.
It absolutely is. Any form of penetration without permission is considered rape.
This is the kind of insane logic that feminists have.
Repeat after me :
Women are not special.
Women are not special.
Women are not special.
If a man can be cavity searched for probable cause, so can a woman.
If a man can be cavity searched for probable cause, so can a woman.
If a man can be cavity searched for probable cause, so can a woman.
In this case, it was the wrong tool. A DNA test would be the way to go. It's non-invasive (just a check swab) and would have established if the woman is the mother of this child in particular, while the exam was invasive and just establishes if the woman is the mother of a child of the correct age.
DNA test is not instant. They were checking people leaving the country for evidence of connection to an attempted murder.
I agree 1000%. Many men are raped this way, as well. It's no less or more egrerious. And none of it should happen.
They didn't even have any reasonable probable cause here.
At least this time you talked about ideology, which is the correct thing to attack.
You seem to think so though. You connect any evil that you encounter anywhere to 'women'.
I don't think there is any such 'probably cause'.