It should be Legal to throw acid at women who are Feminists

No, I wouldn't say to use male pronouns is sexist. Where the hell did that come from? Your a$$? Because I think you pulled that from your a$$. I choose to use gender neutral pronouns when I don't know for sure the other person's gender, and also because I just like them. Yes, I, a male, need to find reasons to hate men so that I can feel superior to... myself?Oh my god Pro is so god damned annoyed that I didn't presume his gender that he has devoted three paragraphs towards showing I have some conspiracy to confuse the voters. Now, just to annoy Pro, I will ONLY refer to him as 'they'.Now that they are done with their hissy fit, they say that they're not anti-women. They are against rape and acid attack laws, crimes that affect primarily women, and he thinks that women should be thin, hairless barbie dolls with a dick receptor, but they're not misogynists. Oh wait, they've backpedaled, I mean, clarified, that it is only feminists who grow hair and gain weight that they have a problem with. Why? F*ck off and let them speak. Somehow they have described feminism as a goal for equal rights for women, but also that feminists want to be superior. Their source for this? I'm going to guess their a$$ again, since it holds such a wealth of knowledge. Apparently feminists tell men that they should find overweight and hairy women sexy, though with no evidence this happens. I think what they are referring to is when feminists speak out against beauty standards, but if so, the critique is that a woman shouldn't have to fit these standards to be worth something. It is saying that a woman's worth isn't dependent upon her ability to meet a check list, which I guess creates misogynists for some stupid reason. Apparently, if a man saw a fat/hairy women, he could assume that she is a feminist, which, presumably, means he could throw acid on her. Whoops. Nowhere in this paragraph do they say why they brought up fat and hairy feminists, but it must be pretty hard to backpedal and create some BS out of thin air so maybe we should give them a break? Yes, they have said that killing sprees are a problem. No, they haven't explained or shown why this is a problem, or even that it happens often. It seems that they have no reason for wanting feminists to be the victims of these attacks, except for the vague and unexplained "it'll fix some problems." Will it change or deter feminists? Nope. So why feminists? Check the bank vault of information that is their a$$.If you mean the graph showed that the number of attacks have remained constant? Then no. In fact, the graph showed a decrease. I mean, murders still happen man. Should we make murder legal too? Why is a law necessarily harmful? Should we designate a certain political party as free reign when it comes to murder? /Whoa whoa whoa, man. You can't severely punish a man who attacks a non feminist. They'll just go on a killing spree, and you know that laws aren't a deterrent for anything. Also, we shouldn't even regulate the acid. It'll just be on the black market anyway, which all people have access to, because, you know, I say so./(sarcasm). Things They Failed At--Showing that feminists create misogynists--Showing that feminists hate men or need to feel superior to them--Showing that mass killing sprees are likely to occur--Showing that feminists are worthy of being targeted--Showing that this will stop whatever bad thing feminism does--Showing that a lack of law will help anybody but the attackers--Showing how we identify feminists for attack, besides being fat and hairy (though, admittedly, there are non feminist overweight and hairy women) --Stating that a law will be used to deter attacks against non feminists even though they say that laws aren't effective deterrents--Showing how they will keep fatal acids out of the hands of attackers besides the broad term regulation, and has stated that regulating isn't enough and will lead to black market sales of these acids