It doesn't work like that. You just said that any time a man murders his wife or girlfriend, it is 'self-defense'.
A bit like when they want to censor, they start with the stormcucks. Because they're indefensible.
Wait, so you know that they start censoring when it's someone they can more easily defend censoring, and still you supported censoring GC?
Or did you delude yourself into thinking that it was about their supposed hate for men, like you deluded yourself that the Democrats were turning on the womans because they supported drafting women?
What I said was that women being killed is not the problem they claim it is
Wrong. That is what I said. You said that it is not a problem at all, and you referred to all cases as 'self-defense'.
Me: "something that is a problem but not nearly as big as they make it out to be."
You: "Men using self-defense against violent women isn't a problem."
You finally sense that you went too far by advocating for literal murder? It will not be long before you become the next Marc Lepine.
If you're going to gaslight like a woman does, try it on someone who actually will fall for it.
I have no desire to harm anyone, I'm not a woman.
I didn't go too far, you misconstrued what I was saying. They have done this before, pointing to these kinds of stories, and then slowly reducing the level of harm they want to be protected from, until you've got courts clapping like trained seals for pre-meditated murder of a disabled man.
Nothing good comes from pretending they are genuine in their concern. When people talk about "femicide", they are saying "let us take this step towards legally murdering you."
A bit like when they want to censor, they start with the stormcucks. Because they're indefensible.
But what do I know, it's not like this exact same playbook happened in my birth country.
First it was "protect women from random murderers"
Then it was "protect women from being killed by violent partners"
Then it was "protect women from coercive partners"
Then they dropped all pretenses and let us watch them defend a man in a wheelchair being beaten to death.
It doesn't work like that. You just said that any time a man murders his wife or girlfriend, it is 'self-defense'.
Wait, so you know that they start censoring when it's someone they can more easily defend censoring, and still you supported censoring GC?
Or did you delude yourself into thinking that it was about their supposed hate for men, like you deluded yourself that the Democrats were turning on the womans because they supported drafting women?
No I didn't. What I said was that women being killed is not the problem they claim it is, because they've played this game before.
Wrong. That is what I said. You said that it is not a problem at all, and you referred to all cases as 'self-defense'.
Me: "something that is a problem but not nearly as big as they make it out to be."
You: "Men using self-defense against violent women isn't a problem."
You finally sense that you went too far by advocating for literal murder? It will not be long before you become the next Marc Lepine.
If you're going to gaslight like a woman does, try it on someone who actually will fall for it.
I have no desire to harm anyone, I'm not a woman.
I didn't go too far, you misconstrued what I was saying. They have done this before, pointing to these kinds of stories, and then slowly reducing the level of harm they want to be protected from, until you've got courts clapping like trained seals for pre-meditated murder of a disabled man.
Nothing good comes from pretending they are genuine in their concern. When people talk about "femicide", they are saying "let us take this step towards legally murdering you."
Stormcucks are people who live in Tornado Alley.