ObjectivityIncarnate

Don’t mention that among the three primary ‘sex pairings’ of romantic relationships (m/f, m/m, f/f), the one with the highest incidence of domestic violence is f/f, or their head might just explode, lol…

This problem will never get solved until men take ownership over it

Why exactly, should having a chromosome in common with a violent criminal make preventing their crime more that person’s responsibility than anyone else’s?

The crimes of men are not ‘owned’ by men. The crimes of women are not ‘owned’ by women. Crime is a societal ill that society collectively is responsible for preventing/catching/etc., to the best of its ability.

Don’t imagine you’d be good with a girl being physically abused by her mother reporting it to a male authority figure and being told ‘sorry, women gotta take ownership over this problem and solve it, it’s not men’s problem’, would you?

Think for a moment and realize how bigoted this line of thinking actually is.

If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.

Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.

Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.

It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.

Is this article about a newborn being killed?

Is the concept of an analogy really so far beyond you? Do you not understand my simple point that it would be completely unfair to point the finger at the entirety of the female sex and say “hey you, stop killing your babies”, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

And that therefore one might consider that it’s equally unfair to point the finger at the male sex, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

This is not exactly cryptic, you know.

You’re the same clown that said [that it’s irrational to live life in fear of an event that has a 0.00147% of occurring]

I did say that. Stating simple facts is not exactly what clowns do, though, you seem a bit confused.

Fuck off, you hate women

No, I hate fear-mongering used to manipulate, in all cases. In this case, it’s feminist fear-mongering that tries to deceive women into thinking that murderous men are always all around them, waiting to strike the moment their guard is down.

Hate it just as much as sensationalized media that deceives the public into thinking the violent crime rate is much higher than it actually is. Just to give one sex-neutral example of the exact same phenomenon.

You could say I hate manipulation via deception in general.

and you’re trying desperately to gaslight them.

This is straight-up projection–you can’t gaslight someone with facts, lol.

If the sex of a murder victim changes, at all, how you perceive the crime, you’re sexist, period.

At least have the guts to admit it instead of pretending this is a noble stance.

There is a big difference in intent.

Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?

‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’

Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?

So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.

‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.

How many in that statistic are men being killed by women?

Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.

The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.

Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.

Can someone explain where the notion of an exception proving the rule came from? This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me, lol.

It’s not misogynistic to not want the half of humanity that gets murdered multiple times more often (over 3x in the US) than the other, to be erased as victims.

Not really. Specifically saying “end femicide” is like fundraising for breast cancer treatment, but only for men, who are a small minority of those with breast cancer.

You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.

There is zero reason to oppose murder of one sex any more or less than the other, and it takes the same amount of effort to voice opposition for both, as for only one. So going out of your way to advocate only for the half of the population that suffers this fate far less often, understandably comes off as sexist and callous, to the objective observer.

Yeah, that never goes wrong.

https://news.sky.com/story/how-sweet-and-gentle-anti-paedophile-vigilante-was-allowed-to-bludgeon-innocent-man-to-death-12438351

https://www.thedailybeast.com/innocent-man-killed-during-vigilante-search-for-abducted-1-year-old-blaise-barnett-georgia-police-say

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi

Someone needs to learn that “strawberries are fruits, therefore all fruits are strawberries” is idiotic ‘logic’.

Basically 100% of parents who have killed their newborns by throwing them in dumpsters are women. Yet I have a feeling you’d magically understand the logical flaw in pointing to those instances and saying “what’s wrong with women?”, wouldn’t you? Maybe something to do with the fact that the vast majority of women don’t do that?

It’s only your misandry that prevents you from identifying the exact same illogic directed at the demographic you’re bigoted toward.

On paper, yes, in practice, no.

In the US, at the time that marginal tax rates got that high, the amount of things you could deduct was also MUCH higher. Truth is, nobody ever actually paid 90% back then.

Not quite. 🤓 Humans and monkeys are both primates.

republikkklown

Grow up, please, lol.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.

If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.

Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?

I also said “generally speaking”, you know.

Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.