Yes, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was in fact largely propaganda. It was their activism that lead to the fragmentation of the very concept of age of majority, not to mention a big pile of federal overreach.

Which is why the age of majority in the United States is now effectively 16, 18, 18 again, 21 and 21 again.

Personally I think it's just bad faith argumentation.

There is a big huge flashing neon sign's worth of difference between sexual maturity and lack thereof. And frankly anyone trying to blur that huge, obvious line is suspect.

Particularly when the idiotic federal legal age argument is involved. Congratulations, you've discovered that federal preemption is stupid. Welcome to the eighties where the rest of us figured that out. It's a violation of the tenth amendment to boot. But of the mountain of problems facing America right now it's just about the least important thing on the menu.

If it's legal in your state nobody cares. It it's not, shut the fuck up already, or move somewhere else.

Sure. You can keep the poem too. Heck let's see if we can saw Manhattan Island off and float that out to France as a bonus prize.

No, I'm implying that God cannot ever be the victim of a human action. Sin is an affront to the goodness and majesty of God, not a wound upon Him.

And again, that is a very wrong meaning of "render unto Caesar."

What victim is there in the First Commandment? Where is the victim involved in praying to a golden calf?

And as for the last half of your comment, if that's what you think it means you are very wrong.

All of the above.

And then everyone clapped.

Oh what fools these mortals be.

A certain group and pedophilia?

Hardly. The Lord himself has given us a list of so called victimless crimes.

Your foundational principle here is morally incorrect.

It presumes that for something to be wrong, that there must be some victim who did not consent to what happened. Which is false.

Sure it logically follows.

You say that a weapon against sexualized depictions of cartoon children shouldn't exist because said weapon might conceivably be turned on something else. It's the same premise liberals use to demand gun control.

Because it doesn't really have anything to do with the government or not. It has to do with malefactors and the inevitability of their existence.

Just because a law banning pedophilia might be misused does not mean pedophilia should be legal. Laws as a concept exist for the purposes of codifying and punishing evil. If they are not doing this then they are useless.

All weapons are dangerous, should guns be banned because someone might misuse them?

6 is still too generous in my eyes unless someone does something about those eyebrows.

Most women are insane, frankly. Lacking direction they flail around unhappily, since society encourages their worst traits and the enemy has defanged the church that would have stood as a good influence.

So your claim here then is that the term "man children" is an earnest, honest one? And not one that has been used to attack anyone with hobbies for the last two decades?

Your mistake here is using a genuine, honest definition of obsessed.

I can guarantee you that, "the religious hippie" (lol) definitely is not. What she really means is how dare he have a thing he pays attention to that isn't orbiting me.

The women in this hypothetical aren't actually looking for a husband. They don't want a partner or a lifelong friend or someone to love and cherish. They're looking for a settle. They think they're doing you a favor and their attitude matches that.

Not with that receding hairline lol. And I'd wager he doesn't have three balls either.

That's... not a bad thing sometimes.

Holy fuck look at the dude on the left.

First, any definition that whines about "means of production" is invalid by default.

Secondly, gold or some other precious and inherently useful commodity.

Liberals couldn't get a point if you dropped one on their heads like an anvil.

We don't live under capitalism. Not in his entire lifetime.

Not in almost a century even. We haven't had capitalism in the United States since the arch traitor Roosevelt confiscated privately owned gold.

Keynesian economics is not capitalism in any way, shape or form. Period. If he has such a problem with the current system, the simplest thing to do would be shooting himself in the head, because he and his are who is responsible for it. Not this boogeyman they want to point at.

Foreigners have no rights, and moral turpitude permits the summary revocation of legal status. No trial needed, right there in the existing law.

Bingo. End result is one less mud slime. Thumbs up from me.

Well yeah their men are hairless and short.