and therefore aren't worth the paper they were filled in on?
As psychotic as it is to say "believe wahmen", it's equally psychotic to say that women can only lie.
If you've not noticed, these things usually have a catalyst that will lead to them. Guessing a random date is pointless, because until the catalyst that allows them to make it happen has occurred, there's no chance of a change that favors them.
I knew you'd pussy out. Earlier, you tried to pussy out by saying that you wouldn't be able to collect your Ferrari. Now, you're unwilling to even specify a date, even though you're absolutely sure that it's coming.
I think deep down you know that you're acting like a lunatic.
OK. Why appear happy then? Besides this is among surveys of women. I am pretty sure that if you broke down by feminism vs. normals, the normals would be more happy.
I'm not pussying out. I'm pointing out that giving a date is an impossibility, because it'll happen whenever they have another Everard situation. That could be in a few weeks, or it might not happen for another decade, or maybe even longer than that.
How very convenient. When you were trying to create hysteria over this, you sure as hell were not bothering to mention that it could be "decades away" - by which time, of course, no one can hold you accountable for your "prediction".
No, it's common sense. If people see others gaining from performing an action
Your "common sense" is "the wimmenz are trying to kill me", so forgive me for disregarding it.
Why do you think they started with that? Use your brain. "You're against punishing violence against women more strongly? After Sarah's tragic death?"
I favor punishing crimes against everyone extremely harshly. So no, of course I'm against punishing violence against women more strongly. This, by the way, is coming from people who are against stricter sentences because they claim it doesn't help.
What's that supposed to mean?
You know full well what it means, you just asked for confirmation because you did not expect it of me. Don't you worry, I'm not the kind to kill myself.
I don't think this website will be around in five years.
I really don't know what this means. Are you saying I should try to make them afraid of me?
Not necessarily. But if people know they can walk all over you, they will. People therefore need to be aware of the consequences if they do something stupid. They may assume that they can hit a white boy without consequences. Your job is to make sure that they are not under that impression.
No, I said it because it took them from early 2017 to now to pass their last agenda, so it makes sense for it to take now to 2025 to pass the next one.
And you think I believed your excuse? You thought it would pass right now.
I'll think you'll find they are, or do you think all the divisive narratives appeared out of thin air?
A small group, which you then use to puke your hatred for women in general. I don't believe it has anything to do with feminism, and everything with your own pathology.
Mutually Assured Destruction. It's a deterrent.
So if you want people not to attack you, what do you do?
I believed it was that because it was advancing so quickly to legitimacy, but they decided to pull back and criminalise speech instead.
It'll never have legitimacy. You simply don't understand the sources of power.
Because everyone will hate them even more than usual?
Incorrect. Likely very few will be angry at not being able to hate on women, other than you and other bona fide misogynists, as well as the vanishingly small number of people who care about free speech. However, excluding the most rabid nonsense means that all that remains is perfectly reasonable.
I hate the whole "women aren't a minority but should be treated like one" shit.
How'bout not giving minorities special privileges to begin with?
They're half the population who demand power constantly, they should be able to take someone calling them what they are.
But it isn't real. If a group of people spends their whole time spreading hate for their own benefit, is it really fair to question those who fire it back?
Well, guess what? Women aren't doing that. But you do hate women as a proof, so you are living, walking proof that misogyny is real.
That is the longest nothing answer I've read since the AstraZeneca safety statement. What do you mean? What should I do differently exactly?
Why do states have nuclear weapons, even though their use would result in their own annihilation?
I said something would pass and that they were openly talking about that. I didn't say it would for sure be that
Not only do I remember your scare-mongering about that, but also that you recently said, after of course no such thing happened, that you thought it would.
Criminalising speech against women fits that.
It would be to the detriment of the feminists, ironically enough.
Great insight, that's what a survey is.
As psychotic as it is to say "believe wahmen", it's equally psychotic to say that women can only lie.
I knew you'd pussy out. Earlier, you tried to pussy out by saying that you wouldn't be able to collect your Ferrari. Now, you're unwilling to even specify a date, even though you're absolutely sure that it's coming.
I think deep down you know that you're acting like a lunatic.
OK. Why appear happy then? Besides this is among surveys of women. I am pretty sure that if you broke down by feminism vs. normals, the normals would be more happy.
How very convenient. When you were trying to create hysteria over this, you sure as hell were not bothering to mention that it could be "decades away" - by which time, of course, no one can hold you accountable for your "prediction".
Your "common sense" is "the wimmenz are trying to kill me", so forgive me for disregarding it.
I favor punishing crimes against everyone extremely harshly. So no, of course I'm against punishing violence against women more strongly. This, by the way, is coming from people who are against stricter sentences because they claim it doesn't help.
You know full well what it means, you just asked for confirmation because you did not expect it of me. Don't you worry, I'm not the kind to kill myself.
Is that why you said 2025?
Your existence is proof that misogyny is real.
Not necessarily. But if people know they can walk all over you, they will. People therefore need to be aware of the consequences if they do something stupid. They may assume that they can hit a white boy without consequences. Your job is to make sure that they are not under that impression.
And you think I believed your excuse? You thought it would pass right now.
A small group, which you then use to puke your hatred for women in general. I don't believe it has anything to do with feminism, and everything with your own pathology.
So if you want people not to attack you, what do you do?
It'll never have legitimacy. You simply don't understand the sources of power.
Incorrect. Likely very few will be angry at not being able to hate on women, other than you and other bona fide misogynists, as well as the vanishingly small number of people who care about free speech. However, excluding the most rabid nonsense means that all that remains is perfectly reasonable.
How'bout not giving minorities special privileges to begin with?
Our better halves.
ROFL. Is literally everything a giant conspiracy in your mind?
Oh no, stricter sentences for violent crimes.
Now this is a real problem.
The reason you are afraid of women attacking you, is because of your inability to establish credible deterrence. I don't have that problem.
Good. Suicide is the most retarded thing imaginable. If I knew things would end for me tomorrow, I'd do at least some good before I died.
I did not mean suicide by the way. I meant that you'd be around on this website, for me to hold you accountable.
Well, guess what? Women aren't doing that. But you do hate women as a proof, so you are living, walking proof that misogyny is real.
Why do states have nuclear weapons, even though their use would result in their own annihilation?
Not only do I remember your scare-mongering about that, but also that you recently said, after of course no such thing happened, that you thought it would.
It would be to the detriment of the feminists, ironically enough.