I dunno man, Imp might be batshit but when all the info you have is "two feminist activist lesbians raped a boy in their care with dildos and beat him to death", starting with misandry as an initial presumed motive seems like a pretty fair assessment just on the balance of probability.
They're a pretty distinct group and being a feminist activist is a choice not an immutable characteristic so it is evidence of their character and mental state, hell within that subdemographic it's kind of ambiguous for many of them how much even being a lesbian isn't more of a conscientious objection than a sexual orientation. The onus at that point should probably be on proving that, contrary to the rest of their behaviour, that murder wasn't at least mostly motivated by man hating.
but when all the info you have is "two feminist activist lesbians raped a boy in their care with dildos and beat him to death", starting with misandry as an initial presumed motive seems like a pretty fair assessment just on the balance of probability.
See, you brought reason and probability into it. And I would agree with that. It's rather suspicious, although abuse occurs everywhere and it's not proof positive. My issue with the Imp is that he claims to know with certainty, not probability, what the cause of this is.
And that this 'shows' that feminism is about murdering boys, or whatever. That's obviously false, because not only has a connection not been demonstrated, there are many feminists who raise boys, and in fact, spoil them to such an extent that they become rotten to the core.
They're a pretty distinct group and being a feminist activist is a choice not an immutable characteristic so it is evidence of their character and mental state
Definitely. It sheds some light on their conduct, but it's by no means the end of the story. And I hate that it now sounds like I'm defending either these murderers or feminism in general.
The onus at that point should probably be on proving that, contrary to the rest of their behaviour, that murder wasn't at least mostly motivated by man hating.
And here again, I wouldn't even object to this statement. If you claimed to know with complete or near-complete certainty, on the other hand, I would take issue with that.
I dunno man, Imp might be batshit but when all the info you have is "two feminist activist lesbians raped a boy in their care with dildos and beat him to death", starting with misandry as an initial presumed motive seems like a pretty fair assessment just on the balance of probability.
They're a pretty distinct group and being a feminist activist is a choice not an immutable characteristic so it is evidence of their character and mental state, hell within that subdemographic it's kind of ambiguous for many of them how much even being a lesbian isn't more of a conscientious objection than a sexual orientation. The onus at that point should probably be on proving that, contrary to the rest of their behaviour, that murder wasn't at least mostly motivated by man hating.
See, you brought reason and probability into it. And I would agree with that. It's rather suspicious, although abuse occurs everywhere and it's not proof positive. My issue with the Imp is that he claims to know with certainty, not probability, what the cause of this is.
And that this 'shows' that feminism is about murdering boys, or whatever. That's obviously false, because not only has a connection not been demonstrated, there are many feminists who raise boys, and in fact, spoil them to such an extent that they become rotten to the core.
Definitely. It sheds some light on their conduct, but it's by no means the end of the story. And I hate that it now sounds like I'm defending either these murderers or feminism in general.
And here again, I wouldn't even object to this statement. If you claimed to know with complete or near-complete certainty, on the other hand, I would take issue with that.