Sounds like the classic case of a girl all through her life being told how horrible men are, grows up, gets pregnant, and has a boy. Of course she's been indoctrinated to hate all men so a young boy is fair game. Horrible.
Women are children and cannot be expected to take responsibility for anything. This is universally recognized. Yet they are the majority of voters, control family court from top to bottom, and run our society, in general. Therefore, they are never punished. They never are made to take responsibility. Surely, there is a convenient man nearby to shoulder the responsibility and blame?
You let them vote. This is what you get. You will pay the price and this train will rocket off the cliff at 150mph and there is nothing you can do about it. Try to survive. Never repeat this mistake.
If she didn't want to have a child, she'd have aborted.
That so? It follows from that, that there is no such thing as a mother with an unwanted child in the UK. Absurd on its face.
Seems more likely that she wanted a girl but got stuck with a boy to me.
Based on what? Funny how you don't make that same claim when mothers are abusing their daughters. Your selective BLM-style reasoning is bloody obvious: the very same thing is racist/sexist or not, depending on the race/sex of the victim.
Well, considering they fought for 11 billion years to have the "right" to do it, yes, that seems correct.
It seems correct that there is no woman in the UK with an unwanted child?
Are you completely insane, or are you trying to win an Oscar?
but merely not wanting a child doesn't explain the level of abuse. Neglect wouldn't put that many bruises on him.
If the explanations are correct, then I think she is a ChildFree cultist who resents the boy for depriving her of her freedom.
There has to be a genuine hatred there.
Well, you seem to assume that everyone is as hate-filled as you are. But let's say that you are correct. That would mean that every man who abuses a girl hates women, which means that contrary to your claim that 'misogyny is not real', it is. (If you weren't proof enough of it.)
If I was trying to win an Oscar, I'd write a dreadful propaganda piece about men being bad, like the predicted winner.
Nah, you're doing a pretty good job at pretending to be insane (if you're not) by claiming that there is no woman in the UK with an unwanted child.
Let's not forget, your friends at GC openly advocate for abusing boys.
I remember you calling German women aged 9 to 70 who were raped by USSR soldiers "Nazis" and saying that what THEEEY say cannot be believed - even though there are numerous confessions from the USSR itself that this happened, including from Stalin.
Seems more likely that a feminist followed up on that ideology
So you not only failed to back up your claims, you made two additional unsubstantiated claims, that she is a (1) feminist and that (2) she is following up on 'that ideology'. Let's see if you manage to prove this any better than you did the rest.
Even the incels draw the line at attacking kids. They might be wannabe mass shooters with ridiculous beliefs, but they don't attack kids. Women's worst is somehow even lower than them.
I don't think you want to compare men's worst to women's worst. Who rapes most children? Not your dreaded wahmen.
But then we have a female judge, who sees that it's one of the in-group harming the out-group and therefore means nothing.
exactly like nogs. women are the nogs of gender. I defend a statement that women would behave exactly like nogs if they were as strong. They both have an emotional reaction, sometimes violently, to words they dont like. The only difference is women are much weaker.
There's absolutely nothing to substantiate it. You made this up based on your delusions that the wimmenz are after you and trying to kill you and all other men.
But then we have a female judge, who sees that it's one of the in-group harming the out-group and therefore means nothing.
What is your evidence that the sentence would be any different if the judge had not been female?
If this was someone of either gender abusing a girl, they'd get far more.
Prove it.
Where are the staunch woman defenders to explain this one?
Right here. You're full of shit, as usual. Speaking of which, have "they" managed to kill you yet with that "virus created by women to kill men", and with that "vaccine created by women to kill men"? You said they'd switch out the Pfizer vaccine for the AZ vaccine to kill you.
You may be downvoted, but you're right. Let's not fall into the same trap of victimhood and moral indignation that our old enemies do, however easy it may be.
Even if there isn't, that doesn't make the sentence correct.
Absolutely not. She should be hanged from the highest trees - by lawful authorities, after a fair trial. No mercy for child abusers.
My objection is not to you pointing out that this sentence is absurd. It is. My objection is to the unsubstantiated claims that you are making, and unsubstantiated claims of 'sexism' - which is what feminists do.
Common sense? When have you ever seen a child abuser get such a low sentence?
Slow tap... low sentences are universal, boy.
I never caught Covid and I don't plan to be vaccinated for it at any point.
If you claimed that they would swap out Pfizer for AZ, and you did, why wouldn't you claim that they would swap out any other injection you're going to get in the future with AZ (or even pure arsenic), just to kill you.
Did you see that the fatality rate for AZ has already doubled since they started vaccinating under 60s, even in the Government's questionable metrics?
Like I've said several times...neglect doesn't equal this.
And like I already answered, this was probably resentment over the kid depriving her of her ChildFree BS.
People who don't care about a child don't attack it, they just ignore it. The motive claimed doesn't go with the actions.
So we should also presume that men who abuse girls are acting out of misogyny?
Yeah, no. I highly doubt a man would walk for this.
You're changing the argument now. First you said that this sentence was due to the "female judge" and because of the gender of the kid, now you're saying that it's because of the gender of the offender. Make up your mind already.
If you think only female judges are soft on crime, and only when the offender is a woman, you have a much more positive view of the criminal justice system in the UK than I do.
It was a suggestion, not a definitive answer. I still think the excuse will be a new variant that's deadlier and therefore that vaccine needs to be unblocked.
Your 'suggestion' was that they would secretly inject people with AZ to kill them. That's pretty insane, innit?
Could be incompetence. Has anyone seen the "professor" that created it? She was all over the place before people started dying.
Considering that the cost-benefit ratio of the vaccine is still vastly positive, especially for older people, I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. The fact that this has taken 'authorities' by surprise, however, shows that no one should put trust in theeeeem (the authorities).
Again, if you never ever, ever want a child, why wouldn't you get an abortion at the first sign of one?
Again with this ridiculous argument from ignorance, which has already been addressed in a previous comment.
Can men abort a child? What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
It's not a non-sequitur. If you assume that a woman abusing a boy hates men, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I fully believe it was because the female judge wanted to let the woman off
Alright, so male judges don't go easy on female offenders. I'll make sure to remind you of that whenever you start whining about some other case where there is a male judge.
It was insane to believe in vaccine passports last year.
Not really. It was to be expected. But let's assume this arguendo. So that means that every one of your loony beliefs is not loony?
Fully agree. Despite the fact that I believe Pfizer is safe and even have an investment in Pfizer, I won't be getting the shot. I just don't trust the authorities to make the right decision after fucking up twice already. (AZ safe, J&J safe)
I am less worried about known side-effects, than about unknown side-effects. The rate of side-effects for both AZ and J&J is infinitesimal compared to toe good that vaccination does - at least for some groups. Authorities most certainly don't know about those, and yet they assert that these vaccines - all of them - are 'safe'. There certainly are higher-risk groups where you would take the risk of the unknown over the risk of the known, but that is not a great idea for young and healthy people.
Feminism's sacrament is killing one's own child so unsurprising.
Maybe?
Likely.
Sounds like the classic case of a girl all through her life being told how horrible men are, grows up, gets pregnant, and has a boy. Of course she's been indoctrinated to hate all men so a young boy is fair game. Horrible.
Women are children and cannot be expected to take responsibility for anything. This is universally recognized. Yet they are the majority of voters, control family court from top to bottom, and run our society, in general. Therefore, they are never punished. They never are made to take responsibility. Surely, there is a convenient man nearby to shoulder the responsibility and blame?
You let them vote. This is what you get. You will pay the price and this train will rocket off the cliff at 150mph and there is nothing you can do about it. Try to survive. Never repeat this mistake.
Actual title:
TheImpossible spin:
From the article:
She sounds more like a ChildFree cultist, than what OP wants to spin it as.
That so? It follows from that, that there is no such thing as a mother with an unwanted child in the UK. Absurd on its face.
Based on what? Funny how you don't make that same claim when mothers are abusing their daughters. Your selective BLM-style reasoning is bloody obvious: the very same thing is racist/sexist or not, depending on the race/sex of the victim.
It seems correct that there is no woman in the UK with an unwanted child?
Are you completely insane, or are you trying to win an Oscar?
If the explanations are correct, then I think she is a ChildFree cultist who resents the boy for depriving her of her freedom.
Well, you seem to assume that everyone is as hate-filled as you are. But let's say that you are correct. That would mean that every man who abuses a girl hates women, which means that contrary to your claim that 'misogyny is not real', it is. (If you weren't proof enough of it.)
Nah, you're doing a pretty good job at pretending to be insane (if you're not) by claiming that there is no woman in the UK with an unwanted child.
I remember you calling German women aged 9 to 70 who were raped by USSR soldiers "Nazis" and saying that what THEEEY say cannot be believed - even though there are numerous confessions from the USSR itself that this happened, including from Stalin.
So you not only failed to back up your claims, you made two additional unsubstantiated claims, that she is a (1) feminist and that (2) she is following up on 'that ideology'. Let's see if you manage to prove this any better than you did the rest.
I don't think you want to compare men's worst to women's worst. Who rapes most children? Not your dreaded wahmen.
I'm amazed he wasn't arrested after that and the story ended.
exactly like nogs. women are the nogs of gender. I defend a statement that women would behave exactly like nogs if they were as strong. They both have an emotional reaction, sometimes violently, to words they dont like. The only difference is women are much weaker.
There's absolutely nothing to substantiate it. You made this up based on your delusions that the wimmenz are after you and trying to kill you and all other men.
What is your evidence that the sentence would be any different if the judge had not been female?
Prove it.
Right here. You're full of shit, as usual. Speaking of which, have "they" managed to kill you yet with that "virus created by women to kill men", and with that "vaccine created by women to kill men"? You said they'd switch out the Pfizer vaccine for the AZ vaccine to kill you.
The one thing I think is that if it was a man doing this he would have gone to jail, but because she is a women she is basically free of consequences.
You may be downvoted, but you're right. Let's not fall into the same trap of victimhood and moral indignation that our old enemies do, however easy it may be.
Absolutely not. She should be hanged from the highest trees - by lawful authorities, after a fair trial. No mercy for child abusers.
My objection is not to you pointing out that this sentence is absurd. It is. My objection is to the unsubstantiated claims that you are making, and unsubstantiated claims of 'sexism' - which is what feminists do.
Slow tap... low sentences are universal, boy.
If you claimed that they would swap out Pfizer for AZ, and you did, why wouldn't you claim that they would swap out any other injection you're going to get in the future with AZ (or even pure arsenic), just to kill you.
Must be The Genocide.
And like I already answered, this was probably resentment over the kid depriving her of her ChildFree BS.
So we should also presume that men who abuse girls are acting out of misogyny?
You're changing the argument now. First you said that this sentence was due to the "female judge" and because of the gender of the kid, now you're saying that it's because of the gender of the offender. Make up your mind already.
If you think only female judges are soft on crime, and only when the offender is a woman, you have a much more positive view of the criminal justice system in the UK than I do.
Your 'suggestion' was that they would secretly inject people with AZ to kill them. That's pretty insane, innit?
Considering that the cost-benefit ratio of the vaccine is still vastly positive, especially for older people, I don't think she has anything to be ashamed of. The fact that this has taken 'authorities' by surprise, however, shows that no one should put trust in theeeeem (the authorities).
Again with this ridiculous argument from ignorance, which has already been addressed in a previous comment.
It's not a non-sequitur. If you assume that a woman abusing a boy hates men, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Alright, so male judges don't go easy on female offenders. I'll make sure to remind you of that whenever you start whining about some other case where there is a male judge.
Not really. It was to be expected. But let's assume this arguendo. So that means that every one of your loony beliefs is not loony?
I am less worried about known side-effects, than about unknown side-effects. The rate of side-effects for both AZ and J&J is infinitesimal compared to toe good that vaccination does - at least for some groups. Authorities most certainly don't know about those, and yet they assert that these vaccines - all of them - are 'safe'. There certainly are higher-risk groups where you would take the risk of the unknown over the risk of the known, but that is not a great idea for young and healthy people.