I guess you took a pause from calling for a bloody civil war to heroically attack 13-year-old girls, with the same language SJWs use.
It's interesting that people hide behind the word 'consequences' when they don't want to spell out what they mean, in this case that you think posting child pornography is justified because you judge someone you don't know to be a 'whore'.
Fact is, you were backtracking, cause you realized you were justifying the posting of child pornography, and that you declared a 13-year-old girl to be a "whore". Quite despicable, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
And that's going to start a civil war? You're afraid of your own shadow.
I guess you took a pause from calling for a bloody civil war to heroically attack 13-year-old girls, with the same language SJWs use.
It's interesting that people hide behind the word 'consequences' when they don't want to spell out what they mean, in this case that you think posting child pornography is justified because you judge someone you don't know to be a 'whore'.
Don't take or send nudes. It's pretty easy to avoid this problem.
You said that it should have 'consequences'. Backtracking, eh?
You really think you've cleverly outwitted me. God you're dense.
Outwitting the witless is no accomplishment.
Fact is, you were backtracking, cause you realized you were justifying the posting of child pornography, and that you declared a 13-year-old girl to be a "whore". Quite despicable, but that's what I've come to expect from you.
And that's going to start a civil war? You're afraid of your own shadow.