As one of the 'toxic' ones referred to by 'she who knows it all and must not be challenged or corrected', I can speak with authority as one who regularly scrutinizes comments, well only the more interesting topics.
I can tell you, that when you see the same people, twisting and bending the facts to suite their view on the topic, over and over again, it wears you down, and so it is that one must up the ante and increase the vitriol and intensify the delivery so as to make it clear to such people that we will not accept an untruth or a misrepresentation of the truth by simply quoting facts.
It is an old ploy, to promote the facts as the truth.
When being sworn in, in court, you are asked to 'tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'.
Not to 'tell the whole facts and nothing but the facts'.
You see the facts can be manipulated, to deliver a pre-concieved outcome.
The truth cannot.
Cherful has attempted the very thing I describe.
Firstly she contends that the problem with femecide is men and so on and so forth.
I then looked into her assertions and found she had been 'bending the truth' by promoting or quoting an advocacy group, not official figures, surveys or research.
No, some bleeding heart movement.
And so again, the facts did not support the premise or the 'truth'.
And you wonder why we get fed up and go 'toxic'.
Here's a suggestion, promote the truth, or if it does not suite your agenda, say nothing at all, then I have nothing to correct and no-one to berate or abuse for attempting to lie and seriously mis-represent something

ALTRAV,

If you want to be taken seriously you need to give us
something of substance to back your claims. So far
as others have pointed out - all you do is rant.
That doesn't work on discussion forums and subsequently
you get ignored.

You accuse CHERFUL of twisting and bending facts. Of
having a problem with men. That is incorrect.
She even made the statement that
"There are many wonderful men."
The problems that were being discussed were men who
committed violence and this does not apply to all men.
The same as - not all women are "selfish maggots."

You can't speak with any authority when all you do is
make sweeping generalisations, especially about people you
don't know.

Unlike you, I do not claim to "know it all."
Far from it. That's why I do my research and provide
evidence to back my claims. If you want to challenge
what I provide or what CHERFUL says - you have to provide
evidence to prove your claims not just claim that you
own the "truth."

I fully accept being challenged and corrected when its
evidence based that disproves the evidence that I am
providing. You don't provide any evidence. You are not
arguing on a logical well reasoned platform, but an
immature, emotional one.

Nobody supports or likes an illogical, abusive debater.

As Steele told you - you need to lift your game.
Your rants are not impressing anyone apart from
your kindred spirits on this forum.

Foxy and Co, it is YOU who needs to heed your own advice.
You continually commit the very offenses you blame me of.
You don't quote things and let the reader decide at all, and you know it.
You quote things as submissions to bolster your case.
Your submissions, links and references, all of them are not intended for us to 'make up our own mind', they're all structured in such a way as to convey a meaning or a message, YOUR message.
I, on the other hand, regularly submit alternate views for consideration and most of the time they are truth based not just fact based.
'Twisting' words or meanings is what you and others do who 'cherry pick' to attempt to win your point.
Like Cherful's attempt at conveying the message that over 50 women a year die at the hands of men.
Even you can't defend her accusations when her whole submission was peppered with words like men and males as the source of all these deaths, and to seal her fate she goes on to give examples as to some 'bad men' in her life.
So don't patronise us here on OLO by attempting to virtue signal or shame, because we know that you know exactly what is being said and implied.
Don't try to deflect by fruitlessly accusing me of the things YOU and your mates are guilty of, expecting sympathy and backing.
You're alone on this one.
How many times do I have to say it, I am a pragmatist, a pessimist, an optimist, and, a realist with an objective view on things.
You on the other hand are an optimist, with a subjective view on 'everything'.
In other words, you cannot be taken seriously, you don't just accept all the findings, you keep looking until you find something that will help your agenda, stance or opinion, ie;cherry pick.
BTW, do stop trying to 'catch me out', it's boorish and a waste of time, I also don't think you are comfortable being this way, it does not sit well with your type of 'persona'.

ALTRAV,

CHERFUL was giving actual statistics that are
part and parcel of the problem that exists in our society
regarding violence against women.

As I stated earlier - you need to disprove
what she said with evidence.

And if you don't like what someone says - provide
evidence to back your claims. Sweeping generalisations,
and your own views don't wash. Of course you're
entitled to have your views. But we're entitled
to disagree with them. We provide evidence for ours.
You need to do the same to be taking seriously.

Foxy, for christ's sake, I am forever providing you with evidence and truths, at the very least by disproving comments and rendering them moot or irrelevant.
You keep ignoring my responses and comments because they refute the comments in question.
You see Foxy, where you don't know about something, just like me or anyone else, you go looking for links to back your subjective and personal views.
I don't because in the main, I don't care.
But what I will NOT stand for or do nothing about is when a wrong is being promoted.
I will not allow distortions or mis-information.
That's not to say that I know the answers, no, it simply means that what has been written is either not entirely correct or a complete fabrication or lie.
I then set about to highlight and debunk the comment/s, thereby not allowing an incorrect view or opinion into the conversation.
You know all this, if you don't then who's comments are you responding to if not mine?
So given that you HAVE read my past comments, we can only conclude that you completely disregard my results and conclusions, because they do not concur with yours.
BTW, I thought by debunking lies it disproved them.
If I am not completely au fait with something I will not presume otherwise, unlike some.
I/we need to question EVERYTHING!
It is she who has chosen to supply a very, tenuous at best, link laughingly authored by an, wait for it, ADVOCACY GROUP!
Even if you both think I'm a moron, fine I'll take it, but let me warn you, I am only one person on OLO, so are you suggesting that everyone else is also stupid enough to not see the flaws in the link?
Read my comments, in response again, and if you still don't get where and why Cherfuls submission is moot, then I rest my case.

ALTRAV,

Your case was "rested" a long time ago.

I'm just trying to be polite.