Well, they literally were Nazis. And no, that article didn't mention children, unless it was after my eyes glazed over from the propaganda.
Well, they do call for violence. Which I've shown, multiple times.
It's not that simple. Not every woman is trying to kill me, but every woman could be. It's the beauty of an ideology based around lying about what you are to everyone. People make the same arguments about Islam and nobody bats an eyelid except for puppet leftists.
You really didn't read the whole thing. It was implied that they were comfortable with ending lives regardless of legality.
Children were raped by the Soviets. Are you now invoking your own historical ignorance? "Your Honor, I saw 'wahmen' and I flew in a rage. I cannot be held responsible for the nonsense that I then posted."
Well, they do call for violence. Which I've shown, multiple times.
"They" are not a monolith.
Not every woman is trying to kill me, but every woman could be.
Someone just discovered this thing called 'free will'. Every man could also be trying to kill you.
It was implied that they were comfortable with ending lives regardless of legality.
Something tells me that it wasn't "implied" at all.
I'm not even going to bother answering this. It's not my job to waste my time learning irrelevant facts about things I'm not interested in. The article posted didn't mention it.
They literally are. Have you not heard of their in-group bias?
The difference being that most men aren't members of an ideology telling them to.
You have the archive. Read it yourself. I've posted it enough times.
It's not my job to waste my time learning irrelevant facts about things I'm not interested in.
It's not your job to know what you are talking about?
Sounds about right.
They literally are. Have you not heard of their in-group bias?
Incredibly dumb. Even with a 'bias', you are not a monolith.
The difference being that most men aren't members of an ideology telling them to.
Neither are most women. And quite the pathetic attempt to divert. If the standard is that something "COULD POTENTIALLY" kill you, you need to be afraid of every man as well, instead of engaging in this pathetic, sad special pleading from the misogynist we know you to be.
You have the archive. Read it yourself. I've posted it enough times.
No, cite it. Or are you lying about this, like you lied so many times before?
No, it's not my job to research obscure Soviet history about how they treated women during the war, just to be right in Internet arguments. From what was presented in the post, it sounded like the typical female victimhood complex.
Near as makes no difference. The only thing that changes it is marriage, and that's just to make sure the assets they are using don't get requisitioned by the sisterhood.
Please use this same argument for radical Islamists. You'd be accepted on the left with such utter tripe as "you have to wait for the knife in your back before you can act".
I'll read it later. I have to be in a better mood to read it, because it usually ruins my moods.
I should not have said 'lied', as I think you firmly believe the nonsense that you post. You deceived yourself and then post what you convinced yourself.
Well, they literally were Nazis. And no, that article didn't mention children, unless it was after my eyes glazed over from the propaganda.
Well, they do call for violence. Which I've shown, multiple times.
It's not that simple. Not every woman is trying to kill me, but every woman could be. It's the beauty of an ideology based around lying about what you are to everyone. People make the same arguments about Islam and nobody bats an eyelid except for puppet leftists.
You really didn't read the whole thing. It was implied that they were comfortable with ending lives regardless of legality.
Children were raped by the Soviets. Are you now invoking your own historical ignorance? "Your Honor, I saw 'wahmen' and I flew in a rage. I cannot be held responsible for the nonsense that I then posted."
"They" are not a monolith.
Someone just discovered this thing called 'free will'. Every man could also be trying to kill you.
Something tells me that it wasn't "implied" at all.
I'm not even going to bother answering this. It's not my job to waste my time learning irrelevant facts about things I'm not interested in. The article posted didn't mention it.
They literally are. Have you not heard of their in-group bias?
The difference being that most men aren't members of an ideology telling them to.
You have the archive. Read it yourself. I've posted it enough times.
It's not your job to know what you are talking about?
Sounds about right.
Incredibly dumb. Even with a 'bias', you are not a monolith.
Neither are most women. And quite the pathetic attempt to divert. If the standard is that something "COULD POTENTIALLY" kill you, you need to be afraid of every man as well, instead of engaging in this pathetic, sad special pleading from the misogynist we know you to be.
No, cite it. Or are you lying about this, like you lied so many times before?
No, it's not my job to research obscure Soviet history about how they treated women during the war, just to be right in Internet arguments. From what was presented in the post, it sounded like the typical female victimhood complex.
Near as makes no difference. The only thing that changes it is marriage, and that's just to make sure the assets they are using don't get requisitioned by the sisterhood.
Please use this same argument for radical Islamists. You'd be accepted on the left with such utter tripe as "you have to wait for the knife in your back before you can act".
I'll read it later. I have to be in a better mood to read it, because it usually ruins my moods.
I should not have said 'lied', as I think you firmly believe the nonsense that you post. You deceived yourself and then post what you convinced yourself.