The fact that she targeted babies, who have no wealth? Harold Shipman targeted lonely old people, and changed their wills to his name. That was a clear profit motive.
What does that have to do with feminism?
If she had done that, you'd have claimed that women are "leeches", by the way. Just like you said about Kyle Rittenhouse's girlfriend, because you made up that he got a "huge settlement" and then anxiously avoided answering any question about that "huge settlement" you pulled out of your ass.
If it was a male nurse, women would have jumped to that conclusion before they even had a modicum of data, like they do with every single shooting.
You have the habit of referring to 'them', 'they' and 'that conclusion' without ever making it clear what exactly it is.
The fact that all she has to gain is the "pleasure" of killing babies. It's an inherently sadistic way of thinking. I'm surprised the tradcons at TD haven't latched onto this for "women's devaluation of unborn life takes the next step".
Women would have jumped to the conclusion that a male nurse was targeting girls before even getting one victim's data. I'm showing the restraint and respect for victims that they never do by not immediately suggesting, even though I strongly believe it, that this is motivated by hate for males.
The fact that all she has to gain is the "pleasure" of killing babies. It's an inherently sadistic way of thinking.
What does that have to do with feminism?
Women would have jumped to the conclusion that the nurse was targeting girls before even getting one victim's data. I'm showing the restraint and respect for victims that they never do.
A rare showing of decency by you. And "women" don't do that. You just follow a few retards and then attack women as a whole for what they say.
Because feminism is inherently sadistic. Feminist leaders in the UK do nothing but spew hate against men, the Sarah Everard rallies featured women threatening to "make men afraid to walk the streets".
Even if feminism is 'inherently sadistic', that would not make any act of sadism feminism. It's the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You are as bad as basic logic as you are at predicting stuff.
the Sarah Everard rallies featured women threatening to "make men afraid to walk the streets".
Still less egregious that you saying that Sarah Everhard deserved to be murdered.
What does that have to do with feminism?
If she had done that, you'd have claimed that women are "leeches", by the way. Just like you said about Kyle Rittenhouse's girlfriend, because you made up that he got a "huge settlement" and then anxiously avoided answering any question about that "huge settlement" you pulled out of your ass.
You have the habit of referring to 'them', 'they' and 'that conclusion' without ever making it clear what exactly it is.
The fact that all she has to gain is the "pleasure" of killing babies. It's an inherently sadistic way of thinking. I'm surprised the tradcons at TD haven't latched onto this for "women's devaluation of unborn life takes the next step".
Women would have jumped to the conclusion that a male nurse was targeting girls before even getting one victim's data. I'm showing the restraint and respect for victims that they never do by not immediately suggesting, even though I strongly believe it, that this is motivated by hate for males.
What does that have to do with feminism?
A rare showing of decency by you. And "women" don't do that. You just follow a few retards and then attack women as a whole for what they say.
Because feminism is inherently sadistic. Feminist leaders in the UK do nothing but spew hate against men, the Sarah Everard rallies featured women threatening to "make men afraid to walk the streets".
Even if feminism is 'inherently sadistic', that would not make any act of sadism feminism. It's the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You are as bad as basic logic as you are at predicting stuff.
Still less egregious that you saying that Sarah Everhard deserved to be murdered.