Yes, it would be pretty outrageous if they messed with a road on your land. If the action is legal intent is irrelevant. That's why it's perfectly OK to minimize your taxes even though your intent is to pay less than your "moral responsibilities" would demand.
Are there actually professional child pornography studios serving a "market" though? Or are they all hobbyists who do it out of love? Certainly possible in the 3rd world for people to do brutal things for money, but if they couldn't film the kids they would be pimping them out. Even if it were a market, narcotics prohibition should have made it obvious that government efforts to alter economic realities are futile and harmful.
I don't know about a lack of dirt, but lab-produced meat might have a "diet" that makes less nutritious or more toxic. Of course it might be possible to make an even better food than nature, but it's hard to be smarter than millions of years of evolution.
Can only help so much if your government does not recognize individual rights. If the government went around raping dogs you could devise a sort of chastity belt for yours, but that's not really addressing the problem.
Facebook is bringing that number up to demonstrate the severity of the damage, but at facebook's scale was it really that severe? Perpetrating the same crime against slashdot might result in $3.25 in damage, which wouldn't sound as good when demanding severe punishment in court...
They aren't your friends, they are members of a privileged unit that obeys a handful of people up the command pyramid who might as well be aliens from another planet. Yes, technology progresses, but when government starts developing mass pacification equipment or researches formulations for large-scale gas chambers the goal should be blocking acquisition, suggesting make-believe legal limitations on deployment.
"Fuck" is a manly discourse particle. "Like" or "hey" are chirpy words more suitable for the vocal cords of little boys and girls. Direct speech would of course be preferable, but conversation requires a little flair.
Lots of smart guys were religious, so it can't be all bad. But you can't be surprised if you are prejudged negatively, because the majority of the faithful are stupid, crazy, or hypocrites. Which is probably true of any group of people, but the religious usually feel the need to meddle in other people's lives with self-righteous smirks on their faces.
All those teachers and legislators ate their fair share of potato chips and now they take them away from kids by force? Sounds as perverted as that teacher who was taping kids mouths shut and taking photos.
Since the woman almost always walks away with the children, it's hard to see how the man is favored by the separation. And when the woman backs out she is obviously the one breaking the contract, since a wife's obligation is actually not just to raise children. In any case the general terms should be upfront. Every prospective groom with a house should know that he is giving it to his girlfriend so that she can quit the job she hates to fulfill her baby-making instinct and subsequently stop having sex with him.
It's not the 1800s when divorce required the husband's consent. When divorce gives your wife the house and the kids all to herself, plus a bunch of your money and a cut of your paycheck, you're only going stay married if you married a saint. (Require proof at least two miracles performed before proposing, and don't accept that "healing the sick" bullshit).
"Downloading" is just the transfer of information, which is speech in its purist form. Requiring "permission" for all transfers of information is censorship in its purest form. King and Zenger may be giants, but they are beneath our feet: we are past a minister's or a newspaper publisher's right to talk to the masses, it's now about the individuals' rights exercised simultaneously, ubiquitously, infinitely.
Pretty much all piracy starts with someone buying a copy so even your simplistic formula doesn't work. Artists are only guaranteed to profit from one sale. Do it for the pussy, bros, and STFU.
You're missing "step zero" where you can be held in jail for months or years while you wait for trail. While state investigators build their case, you are investigating how to hold the soap; while they are getting overtime pay, your mind begins to weaken.
The security guys are going to be almost as amused by cocks, so scanning only men doesn't eliminate the issue, unless you "chivalrously" think that the embarrassment and inconvenience of males is of no significance. And while it's true that it's unheard of for women to accomplish anything without a man, they can and have significantly contributed to terror plots.
He isn't just "against child porn", he is passionately interested in the subject and wants to radically change the law without offering a justification. Since it's impossible to argue with someone like that logically, questioning his motivations is legitimate. Now maybe his hysteria comes from being himself abused as a kid, maybe he just wants an easy win that will make himself look good at re-election, maybe he's been paid off by an internet surveillance company, or maybe he struggles daily with his lust for tender boy ass. The point is that the law is for himself, not the children.
Objectively, women peak physically during their late teens. I'm sure all the worn-out female athletes approaching 30 would like them declared too "childish" to compete, just like the pre-menopausal hags want to say they are too young to breed with, but reality favors the young.
Out of the norm, but they could be going to the same school. If the 18 year-old sexually assaulted or forcibly raped a 13-year-old he/she might deserve more punishment than if it was with a girl closer to his/her age, however.
Slashdot Mirror
So now the government is "private". Great news, no more taxes!
Sure, but only if you travel by foot. Crawling is recommended.
Yes, it would be pretty outrageous if they messed with a road on your land. If the action is legal intent is irrelevant. That's why it's perfectly OK to minimize your taxes even though your intent is to pay less than your "moral responsibilities" would demand.
Are there actually professional child pornography studios serving a "market" though? Or are they all hobbyists who do it out of love? Certainly possible in the 3rd world for people to do brutal things for money, but if they couldn't film the kids they would be pimping them out. Even if it were a market, narcotics prohibition should have made it obvious that government efforts to alter economic realities are futile and harmful.
I don't know about a lack of dirt, but lab-produced meat might have a "diet" that makes less nutritious or more toxic. Of course it might be possible to make an even better food than nature, but it's hard to be smarter than millions of years of evolution.
Can only help so much if your government does not recognize individual rights. If the government went around raping dogs you could devise a sort of chastity belt for yours, but that's not really addressing the problem.
Cops will "break into" unlocked cars and leave warnings. So maybe hackers should get badges and salaries at taxpayer expense to make it OK.
Facebook is bringing that number up to demonstrate the severity of the damage, but at facebook's scale was it really that severe? Perpetrating the same crime against slashdot might result in $3.25 in damage, which wouldn't sound as good when demanding severe punishment in court...
They aren't your friends, they are members of a privileged unit that obeys a handful of people up the command pyramid who might as well be aliens from another planet. Yes, technology progresses, but when government starts developing mass pacification equipment or researches formulations for large-scale gas chambers the goal should be blocking acquisition, suggesting make-believe legal limitations on deployment.
Imagine if the bully was given pepper spray and a taser by the principal so he would stop hitting. He would never want to go home!
"Fuck" is a manly discourse particle. "Like" or "hey" are chirpy words more suitable for the vocal cords of little boys and girls. Direct speech would of course be preferable, but conversation requires a little flair.
The government has already issued $2-5 trillion (who's counting) with less than interesting results
Lots of smart guys were religious, so it can't be all bad. But you can't be surprised if you are prejudged negatively, because the majority of the faithful are stupid, crazy, or hypocrites. Which is probably true of any group of people, but the religious usually feel the need to meddle in other people's lives with self-righteous smirks on their faces.
All those teachers and legislators ate their fair share of potato chips and now they take them away from kids by force? Sounds as perverted as that teacher who was taping kids mouths shut and taking photos.
Since the woman almost always walks away with the children, it's hard to see how the man is favored by the separation. And when the woman backs out she is obviously the one breaking the contract, since a wife's obligation is actually not just to raise children. In any case the general terms should be upfront. Every prospective groom with a house should know that he is giving it to his girlfriend so that she can quit the job she hates to fulfill her baby-making instinct and subsequently stop having sex with him.
It's not the 1800s when divorce required the husband's consent. When divorce gives your wife the house and the kids all to herself, plus a bunch of your money and a cut of your paycheck, you're only going stay married if you married a saint. (Require proof at least two miracles performed before proposing, and don't accept that "healing the sick" bullshit).
"Downloading" is just the transfer of information, which is speech in its purist form. Requiring "permission" for all transfers of information is censorship in its purest form. King and Zenger may be giants, but they are beneath our feet: we are past a minister's or a newspaper publisher's right to talk to the masses, it's now about the individuals' rights exercised simultaneously, ubiquitously, infinitely.
Pretty much all piracy starts with someone buying a copy so even your simplistic formula doesn't work. Artists are only guaranteed to profit from one sale. Do it for the pussy, bros, and STFU.
You can't clam you can't be confident in a security feature when that feature isn't used.
Let's say we can't be confident in a security feature when we can't be confident the feature will be used.
You're missing "step zero" where you can be held in jail for months or years while you wait for trail. While state investigators build their case, you are investigating how to hold the soap; while they are getting overtime pay, your mind begins to weaken.
Still can't even be confidant of that basic safety measure
The security guys are going to be almost as amused by cocks, so scanning only men doesn't eliminate the issue, unless you "chivalrously" think that the embarrassment and inconvenience of males is of no significance. And while it's true that it's unheard of for women to accomplish anything without a man, they can and have significantly contributed to terror plots.
He isn't just "against child porn", he is passionately interested in the subject and wants to radically change the law without offering a justification. Since it's impossible to argue with someone like that logically, questioning his motivations is legitimate. Now maybe his hysteria comes from being himself abused as a kid, maybe he just wants an easy win that will make himself look good at re-election, maybe he's been paid off by an internet surveillance company, or maybe he struggles daily with his lust for tender boy ass. The point is that the law is for himself, not the children.
Objectively, women peak physically during their late teens. I'm sure all the worn-out female athletes approaching 30 would like them declared too "childish" to compete, just like the pre-menopausal hags want to say they are too young to breed with, but reality favors the young.
18-and-13 is clearly illegal
Out of the norm, but they could be going to the same school. If the 18 year-old sexually assaulted or forcibly raped a 13-year-old he/she might deserve more punishment than if it was with a girl closer to his/her age, however.