New flash: women make fun of incels and virgins like yourself too.
This isn't "making fun". It's a hyperfixation with someone else's personal decision, and it's indicative of-- at minimum-- subclinical mental illness commonly seen among the so-called "involuntary celibates".
Seriously, how have you not necked yourself yet? Your entire life revolves around this forum.
Are you having a bad night? You usually wouldn't project this blatantly.
And you know the funny thing? I'm pretty sure we mentioned this same thing while citing studies about 50 pages back. You have no interest in learning about this or you would have done it the first time around.
To be frank, I haven't a clue as to why I, myself, participate in this rhetorical merry-go-round with
@Muh Dik-- especially as he's started frothing more rabidly about my decision to not use a woman's body for points in an internet argument.
He makes reference to the law in service of his arguments for abortion, so you point out that there are plenty of blatantly immoral things that were/are legal depending on the jurisdiction.
This point is glossed over and he'll make the same appeal five pages later.
He asserts that fetuses don't feel pain. Putting aside the argument for fetal pain, this suggests that-- contrary to his supposed pro-choice position-- abortion is only okay up to a certain point, that being when the fetus starts to feel pain... which implies that it would be okay to kill or otherwise harm
anyone if you could make it so that they wouldn't feel pain, meaning that you could even render someone comatose before harming them and it wouldn't matter. The fact that the argument is posed also runs against the value of the pro-choice position--
why does it matter when the fetus feels pain if the fetus' life is subject to whether the mother wants it or not on account of it being a resident of her body?
These contentions are glossed over and he'll make the same appeal five pages later.
Hell, even the idea that he's pro-choice is demonstrably false, and not only have I linked relevant evidence, but his mask slipped in this thread not too long ago. He's either playing an anti-natalist woman, or he's an anti-natalist playing a woman.
Bring up the evidences, and either the point gets glossed over or he has a flare up.
This isn't even getting into his poor usage of citations-- anything he's cited either has a poor sample size, is completely irrelevant, or immediately contradicts the point he's making at that moment.
It's not just your discussion about "fetal pain"-- he doesn't have the desire to progress a conversation, because he doesn't have the
means to do so. He doesn't have the means to do so because he's wildly out of place in this discussion, either inherently or because he can't properly extend the woman act he's long taken up.
