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.
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.