Check my profile. We’ve been discussing this for hours.

We will simply keep going in circles until you explain why frequency is irrelevant.

You’re unduly expanding the scope of the argument. I’m just arguing that laws should be based in reality and not based on how it makes people feel about them, and the reality is that the leading cause of murders in women are based on misogyny. The same is not true for men and thus the expansion of hate crimes doesn’t need to be extended to them. I never once suggested only the most prevalent hate crimes should be put forward in exclusion of others. We should start from a standard of not expanding hate crimes unnecessarily and move forward from there.

The reason I landed on optics is because no one has laid out an argument for any other reason. If you have one I’d love to see it. Simply asserting that frequency is irrelevant doesn’t prove it.

To take the example to its most extreme, you believe that a law that focuses on something that does happen regularly (in my country it’s the leading cause of murder in women) should be expanded to something that happens rarely. And the reason is optics? Am I misinterpreting your point?

Nothing more than sex based whataboutism.

It’s like you can’t read past my first sentence. Nothing you’ve said has shown any light on how this is a sexist law. We’re both clear in the fact that you don’t like it, but that isn’t the barrier in front of you.

If that’s how the other commenter feels I’d be happy to have a different conversation, but judging by his replies I don’t know if he’s arguing from there or not

Then we wrap back around to the start. That would only be true if there were a commensurate killings based on misandry. You keep jumping back and forth between perpetrators and victims. The lawmakers saw an issue and created a law to target that issue. If you have evidence that they’re ignoring them feel free to show it, but nothing about this law is sexist on the face of it.

How is it sexist? Both men and women are equally culpable for their actions under this law. It just takes into account intent which is difficult to prove in most cases. Nothing about the law takes the sex of the perpetrator into account.

This would be true if there were commensurate rates of murder where the motivation is misandry. Otherwise you just like the veneer of equality to cover up the rot underneath.

Dumb age baiting. There is no war but the class war.

Why didn’t he put this in Who Rules the World?

Exactly my thoughts. The real cause of crime and violence in the abstract is inequality in the macro and social disorder in the micro.

I need to rewatch this movie. Just the opening sequence alone lives in my head after decades.

A tale as old as time.

I knew I’d get something wrong. lol thanks for the correction.

Apparently they’re related to two different Latin phrases. Fervēre, meaning “to boil or seethe,” and fōvēre, meaning “to keep warm” or “to heat”. So they’re similar in definition and sound. Off by just a matter of degree.

You know, you reminded me of a vague memory. Making that same mistake in school, being corrected, and deciding that I liked it better my way. I was a stubborn child.