Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
Honestly, cut the attitude, it doesn't make you sound smarter at all.
I'm sorry, but the whole castration bit already betrayed your true political and social leanings, so I'm treating you like one of the true believer cultists.
You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
why is a woman's word proof of an issue
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
actual physical proof of a positive interaction is worthless
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
your cult
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
Bad assumptions, really? There's no group that loves talking about castration unprovoked more than radfems. You pretty much outed yourself as one by making that analogy, because it shows that hatred is always in your mind as the first thing you jump to.
Well, I don't agree. I think the credibility of a woman's claims against a man died when you made #KillAllMen hit trending every year since 2014, including during the Covid-19 pandemic, where men actually were dying.
A feminist with a verified check (not a random person, but an actual public figure) actually stated "The Coronavirus is not killing men fast enough.", this statement hit trending until even Twitter, notorious for their left-wing bias, had to take it down and reprimand her.
So, no. I don't believe that your worthless claims are worth anything and a lot of people would agree with me.
But it should supercede a claim made with zero evidence, which it did up until this point. As always, feminists wait until all the headlines are about the people dying from Covid-19 before they strike with their latest policy based solely on making men feel even more threatened than they already are.
What does show consent at this point? What can a man show to get away from a malicious accusation from a woman? What haven't you made illegal to use as evidence? Nothing. We're supposed to just believe in your benevolence, despite it being blindingly obvious that there isn't any.
And I know your next point as well - if you don't trust us, don't have sex - that's fair enough but you have to stop calling people incels then, hypocrites.
But it's not attacking you. I'm just not an idiot who genuinely believes in the good nature of your side. I'm calling you out for what you truly are.
I just find your game so sickening. You stack the deck hugely in your favor, censor everyone who hates you for it and then add onto that with constant mockery and dehumanization of anyone not willing to play.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
I do apologise, I was under the misapprehension that you were replying to me.
Since all of your message is clearly directed at someone else I shall ignore it.
Who is it directed to, if not you?
Honestly, cut the attitude, it doesn't make you sound smarter at all.
I'm sorry, but the whole castration bit already betrayed your true political and social leanings, so I'm treating you like one of the true believer cultists.
You're making bad assumptions and launching continual unfounded accusations based on them. You're failing to understand simple points. You're getting angry that someone online dared to disagree with you, and that they used a ridiculous analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your position is.
Incidentally, claims are evidence. Not necessarily good evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
I haven't said that it is. I've merely said that sexts are not consent.
I haven't said that an amicable exchange of text messages is worthless as evidence. I've said that it does not indicate consent.
Because it does not indicate consent.
I don't know why this is so difficult a concept for you.
What cult? Stop attacking me by making wild spurious claims about things you think I believe in or support. You're being silly.
Bad assumptions, really? There's no group that loves talking about castration unprovoked more than radfems. You pretty much outed yourself as one by making that analogy, because it shows that hatred is always in your mind as the first thing you jump to.
Well, I don't agree. I think the credibility of a woman's claims against a man died when you made #KillAllMen hit trending every year since 2014, including during the Covid-19 pandemic, where men actually were dying.
A feminist with a verified check (not a random person, but an actual public figure) actually stated "The Coronavirus is not killing men fast enough.", this statement hit trending until even Twitter, notorious for their left-wing bias, had to take it down and reprimand her.
So, no. I don't believe that your worthless claims are worth anything and a lot of people would agree with me.
But it should supercede a claim made with zero evidence, which it did up until this point. As always, feminists wait until all the headlines are about the people dying from Covid-19 before they strike with their latest policy based solely on making men feel even more threatened than they already are.
What does show consent at this point? What can a man show to get away from a malicious accusation from a woman? What haven't you made illegal to use as evidence? Nothing. We're supposed to just believe in your benevolence, despite it being blindingly obvious that there isn't any.
And I know your next point as well - if you don't trust us, don't have sex - that's fair enough but you have to stop calling people incels then, hypocrites.
But it's not attacking you. I'm just not an idiot who genuinely believes in the good nature of your side. I'm calling you out for what you truly are.
I just find your game so sickening. You stack the deck hugely in your favor, censor everyone who hates you for it and then add onto that with constant mockery and dehumanization of anyone not willing to play.