It's an important story but your editorialized title once again hurts you and the message. Not that the BBC's title puke ("landmark move") is much better.
I don't think it's editorialized at all. Everything I said was true. The law was written and advocated by feminists, it does remove the need for evidence and everyone was distracted by "the gays" while it was being quietly passed.
No that's your opinion. Editorialized means you changed the original title, here in an attempt to make your point about "the gays". You should be adapting your message to the audience. Was adding some clever stinger like "rainbow ruse" necessary? If you must add opinion you should be trying to piggy-back on top of the LGBT bill instead of telling us the things we value are wrong. Something like...
"It gets worse: Along with the LGBT bill Japan passes wide-ranging feminist re-write of rape laws"
Then put your bullet points about why it's bad in a comment. You could even end the comment with "Honestly I think the LGBT bill was a distraction. This is far worse for men."
Your tactic is instead to run around screaming LISTEN TO ME YOU FOOLS while slapping people and calling them idiots, simps, stormcucks, and allies of TERFs. One of the reasons people cannot take you seriously is that you don't even seem to be trying.
Well, I wasn't going to keep the original pro-woman title and have my name attached to it.
I don't believe gay people existing is a problem. I don't even think trans people existing is a problem. I think if you prevent a feminized culture, nobody will want to change gender except those who are genuinely unwell in the head.
To be fair, my opposition's tactics is to log on, downvote everything I say regardless of community or topic, then log back off.
Simone de Beauvoir, of "every woman is a lesbian at heart" fame (probably got that quote wrong) was a massive pedophile.
She was arrested by the French government for pedophilia, but freed when the Nazis took over, in exchange for her support for their propaganda. (Again proving that Nazis were feminists with a better ability to hide it). She was host of Radio Vichy until the Allies retook France.
No, you can't say women are adopting male children to murder them. To address your other concern: you can't say gays only want to rape children for the same reason.
I don't really care about Imp being banned and I'm fine if you let him calm down for a couple days, but I still wanted to ask:
Why is that rule 16 a thing on this site? I'm pretty sure that near everyone here values free speech far more than not allowing a few schizos from making sweeping generalizations. If we were to pin a poll asking people about their opinion on removing it, would you honor the results?
Yeah, this will do wonders for a country already suffering from lack of interest in sex and marriage. Now Japanese men have to worry about false accusations that need zero proof for conviction, that will get those men back out there... right?
Its 13 nationwide but the prefectures had it at 16-18. The change is to the national law, but it doesn't change much in practise because the prefectures themselves already had it at 16-18
You argue like a feminist. And including protecting kids in women's pushes to harm men is their other famous tactic.
or is "frightened or astonished". Another scenario appears to describe an abuse of power, where the victim is "worried" of the consequences of refusal.
All she has to say is "he was bigger than me, I felt nervous, he might have hurt me so I didn't say anything, I just did what he asked." and some poor guy is fucked.
I'm not, I'm probably more pessimistic than you. But I'm not disconnected from reality.
Any criminal punishment has to have intent on the part of the offender. If the woman is afraid and the guy knows it or should reasonable know, that is one thing. If not, no punishment can result from that.
It's an important story but your editorialized title once again hurts you and the message. Not that the BBC's title puke ("landmark move") is much better.
I don't think it's editorialized at all. Everything I said was true. The law was written and advocated by feminists, it does remove the need for evidence and everyone was distracted by "the gays" while it was being quietly passed.
No that's your opinion. Editorialized means you changed the original title, here in an attempt to make your point about "the gays". You should be adapting your message to the audience. Was adding some clever stinger like "rainbow ruse" necessary? If you must add opinion you should be trying to piggy-back on top of the LGBT bill instead of telling us the things we value are wrong. Something like...
"It gets worse: Along with the LGBT bill Japan passes wide-ranging feminist re-write of rape laws"
Then put your bullet points about why it's bad in a comment. You could even end the comment with "Honestly I think the LGBT bill was a distraction. This is far worse for men."
Your tactic is instead to run around screaming LISTEN TO ME YOU FOOLS while slapping people and calling them idiots, simps, stormcucks, and allies of TERFs. One of the reasons people cannot take you seriously is that you don't even seem to be trying.
Well, I wasn't going to keep the original pro-woman title and have my name attached to it.
I don't believe gay people existing is a problem. I don't even think trans people existing is a problem. I think if you prevent a feminized culture, nobody will want to change gender except those who are genuinely unwell in the head.
To be fair, my opposition's tactics is to log on, downvote everything I say regardless of community or topic, then log back off.
but what about lesbians or ftm who want to date gay guys? 🤔
but are lesbians pedos? 🤔
Simone de Beauvoir, of "every woman is a lesbian at heart" fame (probably got that quote wrong) was a massive pedophile.
She was arrested by the French government for pedophilia, but freed when the Nazis took over, in exchange for her support for their propaganda. (Again proving that Nazis were feminists with a better ability to hide it). She was host of Radio Vichy until the Allies retook France.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
No, you can't say women are adopting male children to murder them. To address your other concern: you can't say gays only want to rape children for the same reason.
I don't really care about Imp being banned and I'm fine if you let him calm down for a couple days, but I still wanted to ask:
Why is that rule 16 a thing on this site? I'm pretty sure that near everyone here values free speech far more than not allowing a few schizos from making sweeping generalizations. If we were to pin a poll asking people about their opinion on removing it, would you honor the results?
I guarantee women's groups used that argument.
A quick flashback :
https://archive.ph/V88m6
Would someone Google what's the most common female sexual fantasy in Japan?
Tentacles.
Yeah, this will do wonders for a country already suffering from lack of interest in sex and marriage. Now Japanese men have to worry about false accusations that need zero proof for conviction, that will get those men back out there... right?
Post Reported for: Rule 13 - Reposts
Post Approved: Similar stories covering the same issue is not a repost.
Imp hit hardest.
Its 13 nationwide but the prefectures had it at 16-18. The change is to the national law, but it doesn't change much in practise because the prefectures themselves already had it at 16-18
It's still dumb as it encourages underage slutting around with chads from school.
You argue like a feminist. And including protecting kids in women's pushes to harm men is their other famous tactic.
What of it? That still requires mens rea.
You're too optimistic.
All she has to say is "he was bigger than me, I felt nervous, he might have hurt me so I didn't say anything, I just did what he asked." and some poor guy is fucked.
I'm not, I'm probably more pessimistic than you. But I'm not disconnected from reality.
Any criminal punishment has to have intent on the part of the offender. If the woman is afraid and the guy knows it or should reasonable know, that is one thing. If not, no punishment can result from that.
Yeah, no. There are countries with "yes means yes" rape law where the woman doesn't even have to prove you have even met.
The only thing that protects justice is keeping women's meddling out of the system.
That's got nothing to do with 'yes means yes'.
I know you think grooming gangs and rape should be legalized.
Are you really lecturing me on feminism?
No, I don't. I think that we should be more careful who we believe and of the stereotypical innocence/benevolence assigned to young women.