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?
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?