

not sure when somebody told a bigot to eat shit
it’s me then and again right now. i’m telling you, a homophobe, to chow down on a live grenade. preferably while livestreaming the results.
not sure when somebody told a bigot to eat shit
it’s me then and again right now. i’m telling you, a homophobe, to chow down on a live grenade. preferably while livestreaming the results.
was I unclear? people like you should be shot on sight and left to rot in the gutter
that’s us. not sure what relevance that has to telling a bigot to eat shit.
useless dickheads
die screaming you sack of shit
god i’d rather get hit with a grenade
you could try it against the cops but it’ll just remind them of when they peaked in middle school
i suppose there’s gotta be somewhere for the 1% of christians who wouldn’t lynch every gay person on the planet to chat amongst themselves
in my experience it was mostly used by assholes to tear gas a whole locker room by puncturing the can and then blockading the door so no one can escape
no sorry i think you might just be a loser. D.A.R.E already exists and it never changed anyone’s mind.
rapidly losing interest here but illegality in no way corresponds to social unacceptability. i’m not sure why you would ever make the mistake of conflating the two tbh.
as someone who suffers pretty frequent migraines i can agree that it’s no fun when people are stinky in public. you don’t hear me calling for a ban on perfumes, colognes, axe body spray (showing my age here probably) etc, etc, etc.
Indoor cooking serves a social purpose
big time yeah, but so does smoking. for that matter, so does alcohol.
We can’t just do away with it.
sure we could! we can just do it outside.
ngl if all you’ve got is “well these things are legal and this one isn’t” then i’m deeply uninterested. “but it’s illegal!” okay so what? in the u.s. at least those laws were created explicitly to target and demonize black people and progressive movements. i listed the things i did bc they’re all harmful to human health in one way or another. candles put out a similar level of air pollution to smoking cigarettes inside. campfires? oh you better believe that shit is terrible for you. my point is that you’re not really being honest about the reasoning behind your beliefs. it’s okay to say “i think this should be banned because i don’t like it.” maybe nobody will agree with you! maybe they will. at least it would be truthful.
i think this is the only time in my life i’ve ever encountered someone who isn’t an arch conservative try to make the claim that weed contributes to sexual assault (per your argument elsewhere in the thread) and mass murder. did your parents leave you in a locked room with nothing but reefer madness for entertainment as a kid or something?
air pollution
oh hell yes now we’re talking. so you’re in favor of banning cigarettes, campfires, candles, gas stoves, and shit why not, indoor cooking too right?
distracted driving impairs your ability to operate a vehicle significantly, better ban talking to passengers!
or you know. just invest in public transit instead and ban cars.
ah yes the myriad dangers of eating too many cookies and falling asleep watching nature documentaries
this scourge must end!
he/him
this joke
Punch her in the mouth and then say you’re just trying to shape her into the perfect young lady.
But more reasonably, let her know she’s a monstrous piece of shit and an awful friend and that you’ll be cutting ties due to her pro-child-abuse beliefs. Then do that.
I hope you can find a safe situation somewhere far away from these assholes soon.
they always go after the children. i get it, since children are basically exclusively viewed as property, but honestly what the fuck could possibly be more evil?
oh yeah i fucking bet.
e: skimming it and it’s absolutely fucking evil. it’s also weirdly catty
cw: transphobia obviously
A central theme of this Review is that many U.S. medical professionals and associations have fallen short of their duty to prioritize the health interests of young patients. First, there was a rapid expansion and implementation of a clinical protocol that lacked sufficient scientific and ethical justification. Second, when confronted with compelling evidence that this protocol did not deliver the health benefits it promised, and that other countries were changing their policies appropriately, U.S. medical professionals and associations failed to reconsider the “gender-affirming” approach. Third, conflicting evidence—evidence that challenged the foundational assumptions of the protocol and the professional standing of its advocates—was mischaracterized or insufficiently acknowledged. Finally, dissenting perspectives were marginalized, and those who voiced them were disparaged.