This is basically the same thing light does in death note and it's so obvious it's brilliant youtube.com/shorts/s5msP...
This is basically the same thing light does in death note and it's so obvious it's brilliant youtube.com/shorts/s5msP...
The implications here seem to be that the majority of those on porn sites are minors, until proven otherwise UK age check law seems to be hurting sites that comply, helping those that don’t | TechCrunch share.google/iTZVUeiVJg6t...
There is no way to confirm anything other than that there's a card on file
This dude t require a user to show proof that they themselves are over 18. Especially if they borrow a card from a parent, use its input, and never actually charge anything to it
Except that kids steal their parents credit cards all the time. Especially online trolls Steam outlines how it's verifying age for its UK users | Windows Central www.windowscentral.com/gaming/pc-ga...
Hey kids, school took your porn? Don't worry, local library has you covered, we don't have an adults only section at all. We don't even care your making out with guys twice your age in the corner during study hall, we just hope your learning while you do it
Your saying messing with the English language stresses teachers of the language?
Criminals forfeight rights when they abuse them
That would be a book.
So books can make people things? And wrong, many books are censored by the government. Many are kept in files in the white house n there's more in the Vatican
If it can be corporeal at all, it's just as safe to assume that it is corporeal.
And either way you have to acknowledge a physical interaction, which means god can't be completely incorporeal.
Because either way you look at it, if God could create physical mass by providing its own energy or influence, it could legitimately have just created itself without needing to impregnate someone
The question from there is, what else would have to be true about god, that it's not to say that the leader wasn't given this command by an Almighty being, but simple conjured it in his mind that this was good
So if it's incorporeal, and acts it's will through its servants, and it's chosen servant was the leader at the time, and God acted it's will over another member, then there's no reason to consider that isn't the case
There's a lot of nuances to it, but if it were god in any capacity drawn in theology, than god is incorporeal, meaning without physical properties of any kind. So it wouldn't be capable even if forming something in a womb, with or without providing genetic material
Technically, he would legally have had rights to the kingdom
It actually makes a lot of sense too
If my theory is right, no, he would technically be a bastard of rape. As much as the guy stood for his life was a serious tragedy. Because of gods refer to humans, or even aliens..
1a for example doesn't protect any right to verbal harassment. It's illegal and considered a crime, as is cyber bullying. It can be silenced, and legally is obligatory to do so.
Unless that nation is using their voice to violate laws that protect innocent people. Otherwise the block button is illegal too.
Can't uphold rights you can't associate to a citizen or would be citizens who won't or cannot identify.
Sovereignty, the ability to govern ones own state, or territory, or country, not have that ability influenced unlawfully by outside influence www.wired.com/story/big-te...
The 'bools don't make you gay' people are pretty worried the Bible will make kids religious
Exactly
Was the illness body dysphoria because the gender identity they learned about in school wasn't the same as their sex?
Wouldn't that be an ad for your yt?
Your not gonna stop it either.
Bye friend of Epstein
Hey Valerie Hartless, I can't talk to anyone about my sexuality with anyone but you, especially my parents. Can you please teach me?
Hey Epstein how do condoms work?
So your using gender to define sex?
So now 10 year olds get to learn about how to use a condom with complete strangers on the block, especially if parents aren't looking :D
I also think that leaving the door open to educate kids by 8 about sex to anyone is willfully saying let pedos talk to them
I would think they should no it's either egg or sperm, not egg sperm or rainbows
This is why there's a school nurse, literally paid for exactly this type of situation. So they can review whether potential neglect is occuring
Predators who want the right to talk to kids about sex without parental oversight. How convenient
*male, not 2nd make
Does being born with a penis make you make if you identify as a woman?
So early sex ed: Sperm+egg= reproductive function. Sperm+sperm= no reproductive function Egg+egg= no reproductive function. Sex is based on biological terms defined by reproductive roles. There is no third sex cells in humans
And you want kids talking to predators online
Male OR female, never transient.
Binary: sperm or egg. Intersex: dimorphic, with either male dominant or female dominant reproductive potential
No, your just using gender as a term to Segway into why your biologically female
I think if you didn't gender people there wouldn't be an argument.
And you just got done saying your make but your a woman (biological term) because of a gendered identity. Feminine does not mean female
The term is sexual dimorphism. You just used it.
And chromosome function in reproduction still hasn't changed. Go figure
Sexes are a biological reality. Stereotypes of the sexes are mostly cultural.
Your conflating sex and gender. That's why gender theory is a problem
Your argument is both that sex has nothing to do with gender, and yet gender can define biological sex
Stereotypes of the SEXES
Woman is a biological term that your overiding using gender theory
Incorrect. Both the act of sex, and the biology of sex
Woman is a topic of sex. Not gender. Why can you not talk about one without imposing it over the other?
Weird you say that here in response to this argument
As long as your not conflating sex n gender and consider it seperate from anything to do with sex or sexuality.
Good, so gender has no relationship to sex.
No weight in identifying the opposite SEX. Why do you keep replacing sex with gender?
Nor does it have anything to do with sexual orientation.
Good, so gendered behaviors have no weight on identifying as the opposite sex in a medical diagnosis.
Which is why you can't tell other parents what they can and can't prevent their kids exposure to in education. You sit with your kids and show them porn?
Which is why any talks of sex and sexual orientation needs to be permitted by the legal guardian. To ensure no predatory behavior.
That define behaviors based on stereotypes of the sexes?
Your saying sex has no relevance to gender and therefore a gendered behavior has no weight in a person's sex?
And you shouldn't be allowed to talk to kids online about any of it without parental permission
Incorrect. Gender stereotypes are bullshit social constructs.
And you just make openings for predators over n over again.
Parental permission.
Should be done by a person with permission.
The only reason he dee theory exists the way it does is because of John money making gender associated with sex, and a lot of his research blends into modern application of the information
Well firstly gender was never intended to be used as a singular description. It's a literary device for personification of inanimate objects, and there's no educational value in core education
There's these things called predators and your ignorance of their psychology makes you their best friend
The fact that there's no distinction when you say anyone can talk to kids about sex at any time without parental knowledge or permission
A hell of a lot more than your willing to read up on evidently
*12 year olds, not 22 year olds
You know how many chat rooms I've walked into on discord with adults talking to 22 year olds about rape and saying it's just surprise sex?
It's like you can't believe the idea a predator would take advantage of an open door policy
No, they want full right to talk to kids online about sex without parental approval or knowledge.
Saying any exposure to sexual material to children is free game is saying adults online can send dick pics to 9 year olds without legal reprecusions
What I'm saying is they have no business no matter what their background, talking with kids about sex without parents knowledge and consent. Regardless of whether someone is capable of explaining it. Because there's people who will use that to try to abuse them
Coming from the group whose only arguments are :make me, fancy fuck you, and fancy fuck your kids
And what American parents clearly said was: no sex talks without their permission
Now, only trusted adults with permission should be discussing sex with minors
And how do you segregate them?
You sure do make a lot of arguments to talk with kids about sex online without parental permission.
Learn the difference between fuck and you.
Public SCHOOL libraries you dense beast of burden
The constitution
Oh look another lefty thinking the right to talk means the right to talk people's kids into nudes for 'educational purposes '
It's not supposed to be accessible by minors period without direct permission from the parent or guardian, and even then porn still isnt
Maybe because people like you say anything goes when it comes to sex
Appalling. Not appealing, it was a typo. And rape and incest are both literally sex crimes, because they involve sex. Because their sexual content. Appalling, but still sexual content. Matter of fact there are literally porn categories for it, which somehow get protected from being in investigated
This doesn't provide any verification of identity
Your the exact type that display more than anything there are people online who want nothing more then to sexualize kids without borders
Wrong. That's literally how kids get roped into sex trafficking operations. It's literally how Epstein sourced traffick victims
Your arguing that people online should have open right to 'educate' children on sex and show them porn. I'm not the one worshipping pedophile behavior
But as long as your in agreement that kids should be kept away from sexual situations, or exposure to sex.
*appalling, not appealing. Typo
It's not the call of public schools and teachers in violation of the law to expose people's kids to sexual material or talks of sex or sexual orientation. It's against the law. Your arguing that anyone should be able to talk with kids about sex anywhere any time