Why can't you say 'nearly all'? Why do you always have to exaggerate?
See, this is why you would not be able to persuade anyone, let alone 80% (as you claimed), to hate women if you were given 5 minutes of TV time. You lack all theory of mind to even imagine what others find persuasive. For example, you try to discredit me by saying that I support TERFs, when that is not going to persuade people here. Like I told you, a far more effective line of attack would be to point out that I am pro-choice.
I know you're bad at predictions, but turns out that you're also bad at postdiction.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/nz-myocarditis-death-had-probable-link-to-pfizer-v
Even "The Science"™ has admitted males are most likely to get cardiac issues from the jab.
You said they are "all men".
You know we can see your previous comments, right?
My god, 93% is close enough to 100% don't you think?
Why can't you say 'nearly all'? Why do you always have to exaggerate?
See, this is why you would not be able to persuade anyone, let alone 80% (as you claimed), to hate women if you were given 5 minutes of TV time. You lack all theory of mind to even imagine what others find persuasive. For example, you try to discredit me by saying that I support TERFs, when that is not going to persuade people here. Like I told you, a far more effective line of attack would be to point out that I am pro-choice.
93% are men.
7% are men in wigs.
:)