Again, this dolt thinks zir can convince me that zir is "laughing" when zir obsessively writes rambling retardation in response to everything I say about zir.
Should I break out the autism smiley face chart in order for you to see which emotions are referred to by which words?
This:
Is not laughter. It's anger. That's what you're doing when you spend all this time obsessively replying to my comments.
I do not spend all day replying to things that make me laugh because that's not how humans react to things that make them laugh.
Every feminist implies exactly that, and I have clearly explained exactly how. The fact that you can't - or won't - follow paradigms to their logical conclusion is not my problem. If you can't see the implications in your idiotic statements, that's because you're stupid.
Feminists tell us all the time explicitly NOT to ask women out in private because they feel threatened there. See Elevatorgate with that Rebecca Watson nutjob. In other words, they can not properly "consent" to being asked out in private because they claim the interaction entails a form of silent coercion. This also means they can not consent to sex, because sex (usually) takes place in private, and they could also fear that they're going to experience violence if they say "no," hence many feminists insist it's still rape even if the woman didn't say "no," so long as SHE decides she didn't actually want it.
On the other hand, feminist dipshits ALSO tell us all the time that we shouldn't ask women out anywhere else, either, because they are afraid of the social consequences (making a scene) of saying "no" in a public place.
You see, idiot, this is what guys like me get from actually LISTENING TO WOMEN. Everything I have said comes from WOMEN. It's not shit I just made up.
I have even seen women literally saying that men should never approach women, at all, and we should wait for them to approach us. Well, that will ensure that most men remain incel.
The point is - which you insist on not understanding because you're an obnoxious lunatic - women are admitting that they're complete pussies. There is no rational reason for women to be afraid of men. It is statistically false that they are at significant risk. It's a factually irrational fear, yet they persist in expressing it.
If you're afraid of walking alone in the dark, you should be afraid of everything else far more, because you are statistically in less danger walking alone in the dark than in any other situation there is.
Look at your horrible phrasing for your statistics, too. "34% of women are murdered by intimate partners." No, 34% of the women who are murdered - which is a TINY number of women - are murdered by intimate partners. Are random men "intimate partners," you idiot?
In other words, the data shows that you are in far more danger just going through your everyday life than you are walking alone in the dark, yet you sniveling little pansies admit to being afraid of the time you are statistically the safest (which is because you're just little children who are scared of monsters under your bed, NOT because of anything logical).
What does it matter who perpetrates it? Do you not see the obvious fallacious reasoning here? Of course you don't. Because you're a solipsistic psychopath (I used both words correctly; you put "solipsistic" into an AI chatbot because you didn't know what it meant, then didn't understand how the word is used beyond literal philosophical frameworks).
We're talking about who ought be AFRAID of it. You claimed that men should be afraid of other men, too. Why? Everyone is statistically unlikely to be in danger walking alone in the dark. It's an irrational fear. Women attempt to justify their irrational fears with the kind of idiocy you're writing.
Again, because you're going to pretend not to understand this: Women are in more danger with the men they trust than the men they don't trust. Do you get it yet? This is proven by the statistics. The men they trust are far more likely to be violent towards them. It is not strangers in the dark they need to be worried about. Yet women pretend they're worried about that because they're children who are afraid of the dark.
The guy who asks you out in an elevator or while you're working in customer service isn't going to rape you. It's the Chad you're banging that is going to do that. Of course, you'll admit he raped you, but then keep having sex with him anyway. Then if he runs for office, you'll tell the media about how he "raped" you because you had a headache while you were lying in bed with him and just relented when he didn't listen to you when you told him you weren't in the mood.
Women are such victims.
You won't touch the fact that women use rape as a status symbol because you can't argue with it. It's obviously true. Women are bragging when they say it. You think you're fooling us, but you're not. Even the feminist rape victim propaganda organizations say that the vast majority of women are never raped, yet every fucking woman you meet claims to have either been raped or had men "try" to rape them (which is absurd on its face; if a man tries to rape you, you're getting raped. "Attempted rape" is just women's way of bragging about how sexually attractive men find them without taking on the potential stigma of being a "victim").
I'm not sorry that happened to you. You are not brave. You are a pussified little bitch.
perfect, guy was a wannabe braziliansigma
