I thought that too, but thankfully not quite:

I thought it meant half of the EU saw him as a friend, but thank god that’s not quite true:

They already have invaded Europe. For the second time in the last decade.

Fyi, Ukraine is in Europe.

Fuck USA for abandoning it’s allies, the whole world is realising they cannot be trusted.

The EU is doing the right thing by arming up.

And they won’t stop and no one else will stop them either. Fuck all coward corrupt politicians. And most of all fuck Israeli fascists.

Child fucker Trump couldn’t care less about children, let alone foreign children, so of course his “peace” plan doesn’t mention anything about children in the occupied territories of Ukraine.

As if you could murder women before?

This isn’t giving one group more than the other, it’s not like you can murder men now.

And that’s not what I’m arguing about.

The other commenter said “giving more to one group doesn’t take away from another” and apparently you have to have flawed logic to think otherwise.

THAT’S what I’m arguing about. In case you didn’t bother reading the comments properly…

It scores some political points, without having to address the deeper issues. That’s what politicians do best.

Infuriated? I see someone is projecting.

Other bigots like you go completely nuts when someone mentions these words

Like myself? Uhm. Wasn’t I the one who just said they should have introduced a gendercide law?

I think it’s time for one of us to take a nap.

Would it have been difficult to introduce a gendercide law?

If androcide doesn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter anyway, right?

So that you know, all the feminists fighting for equality are satisfied with having equal rights and laws for both genders.

Unless…

no sex is more important than the other.

So that means they also have laws for androcide. Right?

You know you won the argument when the other party starts insulting instead of presenting valid arguments.

Keep your options to yourself in serious debates please. It just muddles the truth.

We’re no longer discussing stalking or harassment.

We are talking about equality between different groups and what it means.

They’re trying to use “logic” to justify giving one group more than the other.

And I’m using the same “logic” to argue the opposite.

Simple debate, nothing more.

I don’t. I just know that someone is trying and losing.

That’s exactly what I read in the article. Here’s a snippet:

The debate over introducing sexual and emotional education in schools as a way to prevent gender-based violence has become heated in Italy. A law proposed by the government would ban sexual and emotional education for elementary students and require explicit parental consent for any lessons in high school.

The ruling coalition has defended the measure as a way to protect children from ideological activism, while opposition parties and activists have described the bill as “medieval.”

They are actively working against educating children about genders and sex.

It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something.

What if one group is getting something unproportionally more than the other.

That creates inequality, essentially meaning that the disadvantaged group is losing something. I.e. they get less that the other group.

So yeah, if you give one group much more than the other, they are losing something.

If homicide and femicide carry the same sentence, what is the point of all this?

That makes much more sense

How can you prosecute domestic terrorists if they are actually foreign terrorists?

I think you’re mixing up the two.

FYI, the article is about foreign terrorist groups, not domestic .

Are they going to invade Poland, their NATO ally, to arrest them? Because USA laws only apply in the USA.

It’s just a fucking farce, with no consequences other than Trump scoring some points for “fighting far-left radical terrorists”.

Unless he really lost his mind and plans to invade Europe to get rid of these “terrorists”.