Topic: Two-Tier Queer Starmer wants social media ban for minors.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #135,602
Will it slow the mass hysteria?
Mr. Society (OP) joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,440,958
*Except Discord and Bluetroon
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 8 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,002
not since Thatcher have minors lost so much
The best falafel in Shenzhen joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,004
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,005
@1,440,958 (Mr. Society (OP))
If you can see diverse political opinions or network with real community groups it's bad.
If it's a grooming service or a party propaganda outlet then it's good.
Capital has wrecked Britain and sold it out to foreigners and perverts.
Where does capitalism originate? Look at the first capital markets. Same country that legalized godless homosexual "marriages" first.
Britain's greatest curse was being close to the lowly people.
If you can see diverse political opinions or network with real community groups it's bad.
If it's a grooming service or a party propaganda outlet then it's good.
Capital has wrecked Britain and sold it out to foreigners and perverts.
Where does capitalism originate? Look at the first capital markets. Same country that legalized godless homosexual "marriages" first.
Britain's greatest curse was being close to the lowly people.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,007
Good news for Minichan, though.
Every exodus needs its promised land.
Every exodus needs its promised land.
The best falafel in Shenzhen replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,008
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,013
The best falafel in Shenzhen replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,018
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,024
@previous (The best falafel in Shenzhen)
mind your own fuckin business and stop thinking about fags so much, it's not good for you
mind your own fuckin business and stop thinking about fags so much, it's not good for you
The best falafel in Shenzhen replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,025
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 45 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,036
@1,441,013 (boof)
I have no kids, but I deserve the child tax credit.
If you disagree you are a bigot who needs to mind his own business.
How does my child tax credit hurt you?
I have no kids, but I deserve the child tax credit.
If you disagree you are a bigot who needs to mind his own business.
How does my child tax credit hurt you?
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,037
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,039
@previous (boof)
What was the definition of marriage for thousands of years?
We had an institution to manage social relations for building a family, join property legally, and give some tax support to couples that were set up to create children.
Rather than just cohabitate, fuck, and find a church that would marry them in they eyes of god as they see it- there was a demand for the legal priveleges that were created as a framework for families.
What was the definition of marriage for thousands of years?
We had an institution to manage social relations for building a family, join property legally, and give some tax support to couples that were set up to create children.
Rather than just cohabitate, fuck, and find a church that would marry them in they eyes of god as they see it- there was a demand for the legal priveleges that were created as a framework for families.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Mr. Shitting Blood and Glass replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,154
@1,441,005 (A)
Nigga we havent had anything resembling capitalism since WW1 happened, take your polscience degree you got out a box of crackerjack and wipe my ass with it.
Nigga we havent had anything resembling capitalism since WW1 happened, take your polscience degree you got out a box of crackerjack and wipe my ass with it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Mr. Shitting Blood and Glass double-posted this 1 month ago, 44 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,155
.
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 20 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,158
@1,441,154 (Mr. Shitting Blood and Glass)
I didn't say we have capitalism, I said Capital (as in the class) has wrecked Britain.
You can point out that the market has cronyism and corruption, but that doesn't change the fact that Capital, as a class, still exists.
I didn't say we have capitalism, I said Capital (as in the class) has wrecked Britain.
You can point out that the market has cronyism and corruption, but that doesn't change the fact that Capital, as a class, still exists.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 52 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,164
@1,441,039 (A)
you are not required to have kids when married
you are not required to be capable of kids when married
you are not barred from making kids when not married
government marriage licenses can be got and there is nothing in there about children and you are not asked about children when you get it
because it's none of their fucking business
you are not required to have kids when married
you are not required to be capable of kids when married
you are not barred from making kids when not married
government marriage licenses can be got and there is nothing in there about children and you are not asked about children when you get it
because it's none of their fucking business
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,165
@previous (boof)
The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
When families split and need two houses instead of one, you get housing shortages and neglected kids. When birth rates collapse because people gender relations deteriorate, the country loses the fuel that allows it to survive.
Taking a hand-off attitude and letting institutions lose their original purpose destroys the country.
The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
When families split and need two houses instead of one, you get housing shortages and neglected kids. When birth rates collapse because people gender relations deteriorate, the country loses the fuel that allows it to survive.
Taking a hand-off attitude and letting institutions lose their original purpose destroys the country.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,167
@previous (A)
> The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
>
> The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
Nonsense. Or, you need to be specific about when and where. There are I don't know how many jurisdictions around the world with their own histories and laws about it. Certainly today it does not boil down to what you claim.
> And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
>
the rest of your writing is over-the-top melodrama
maybe you hang out with faggy theater kids too much
> The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
>
> The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
Nonsense. Or, you need to be specific about when and where. There are I don't know how many jurisdictions around the world with their own histories and laws about it. Certainly today it does not boil down to what you claim.
> And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
>
the rest of your writing is over-the-top melodrama
maybe you hang out with faggy theater kids too much
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 44 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,177
@1,441,165 (A)
> The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
>
> The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
>
> And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
>
> When families split and need two houses instead of one, you get housing shortages and neglected kids. When birth rates collapse because people gender relations deteriorate, the country loses the fuel that allows it to survive.
>
> Taking a hand-off attitude and letting institutions lose their original purpose destroys the country.
Have you ever considered Godless consumerism might be why the brith rate is falling in developed countries?
> The claim isn't the kids will necessarily follow.
>
> The institutions was set up to provide the framework for a family.
>
> And it is the business of government to have a stable social order so that the country functions properly.
>
> When families split and need two houses instead of one, you get housing shortages and neglected kids. When birth rates collapse because people gender relations deteriorate, the country loses the fuel that allows it to survive.
>
> Taking a hand-off attitude and letting institutions lose their original purpose destroys the country.
Have you ever considered Godless consumerism might be why the brith rate is falling in developed countries?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,209
@1,441,167 (boof)
Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
What's melodramatic about seeking a stable society?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
People aren't ending their lineage because of shopping.
Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
What's melodramatic about seeking a stable society?
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
People aren't ending their lineage because of shopping.
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,395
@previous (A)
> Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
Yeah no shit, but it wasn't invented once for one purpose. Why do you read past what I wrote and respond obliquely like that?
> What's melodramatic about seeking a stable society?
again, you are fretting about fags
you think about fags too much
I bet I wouldn't have thought of fags for several days if not for your frets
>
> Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
Yeah no shit, but it wasn't invented once for one purpose. Why do you read past what I wrote and respond obliquely like that?
> What's melodramatic about seeking a stable society?
again, you are fretting about fags
you think about fags too much
I bet I wouldn't have thought of fags for several days if not for your frets
>
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,405
@previous (boof)
> > Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
> Yeah no shit, but it wasn't invented once for one purpose. Why do you read past what I wrote and respond obliquely like that?
It was invented many times, and always for heterosexual couples to form families.
There wasn't a single country that had gay marriage in 2000, or the 2000 years prior.
> > Every major culture has had marriage, it's not unique to one region.
> Yeah no shit, but it wasn't invented once for one purpose. Why do you read past what I wrote and respond obliquely like that?
It was invented many times, and always for heterosexual couples to form families.
There wasn't a single country that had gay marriage in 2000, or the 2000 years prior.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,441,409
@1,441,013 (boof)
so are you saiyan its okay for pedos to rape kids, as long as they restrict the pedo behaviour to the bedroom(or the fritzl basement)?
so are you saiyan its okay for pedos to rape kids, as long as they restrict the pedo behaviour to the bedroom(or the fritzl basement)?
(Edited 1 minute later.)