OK, then substantiate your generalization that "feminists want" to see men die.
No, because that's just an absurd response.
Your problem is that you're just a tad bit bad at reasoning. If the fact that you can find a few feminists who want to see men die proves something about every single feminist, because they are feminists, then the fact that they are male, female, then human, then mammals, then eukaryotes would prove thee same thing about those groups.
Because women who are left wing have a far deeper hatred of men by virtue of not being one.
I don't disagree with this, as something true most of the time, but your earlier proof was to cite that this is somethihng every single journalist believes.
A million of them turned up to listen to Donna Hylton, a convicted torturer and murderer?
I don't believe their idiotic deflections. That's all. It's like the ConPro cuckolds who go on about muh joos but the Holocaust didn't happen, but they wish it did and if it had, it should have.
I said that a woman wouldn't be hired without being one.
No, I asked you a very simple question, which you couldn't answer. Even assuming that the idiots showing up there (1) knew Donna Hylton (2) knew what she had done (3) knew that she would be speaking AND (4) approved of it, how does their presence say anything about the rest of them that did not show up?
It's not immune. It just takes actual proof, actual changes in behavior, not just "I'm not like them!"
Eh, here's suspecting that you'll be saying: "IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE US THINK THEY'RE OK WHEN THEY'RE NOT!"
What do you think of Finland and Denmark having female PMs who abolished all coronavirus rules? A plot to kill you?
In men, they look for socialists.
Is there anything you say that is actually based on evidence?
OK, then substantiate your generalization that "feminists want" to see men die.
Your problem is that you're just a tad bit bad at reasoning. If the fact that you can find a few feminists who want to see men die proves something about every single feminist, because they are feminists, then the fact that they are male, female, then human, then mammals, then eukaryotes would prove thee same thing about those groups.
I don't disagree with this, as something true most of the time, but your earlier proof was to cite that this is somethihng every single journalist believes.
A million of them turned up to listen to Donna Hylton, a convicted torturer and murderer?
I don't believe their idiotic deflections. That's all. It's like the ConPro cuckolds who go on about muh joos but the Holocaust didn't happen, but they wish it did and if it had, it should have.
I said that a woman wouldn't be hired without being one.
Supposing for a moment that this million to a man want to see men die, how exactly would this group be representative for those who did not show up?
It just means that you've come to a conclusion that is immune to any evidence of refutation. That's why you keep getting stuff wrong.
A man would be? Strange. So men have it easier than women, because they don't have to conform to ridiculous ideological strictures?
"The Nuremberg Rally didn't represent Nazism"
It's not immune. It just takes actual proof, actual changes in behavior, not just "I'm not like them!"
In men, they look for socialists.
No, I asked you a very simple question, which you couldn't answer. Even assuming that the idiots showing up there (1) knew Donna Hylton (2) knew what she had done (3) knew that she would be speaking AND (4) approved of it, how does their presence say anything about the rest of them that did not show up?
Eh, here's suspecting that you'll be saying: "IT'S A PLOT TO MAKE US THINK THEY'RE OK WHEN THEY'RE NOT!"
What do you think of Finland and Denmark having female PMs who abolished all coronavirus rules? A plot to kill you?
Is there anything you say that is actually based on evidence?