Virtvirt588

joined 3 years ago
[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I can certainly understand, it has an abstract, minimalist appeal - however, its safety or its basic features aren't as appealing.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

What if you owned: weed/drugs, illegal firearms, items which could be used for potential murder, negative opinions about the fascist government?

This argument is shallow to the point where fascism is what you're advocating here for. So what, if you did own something thats not law abiding - without any credible proof there is nothing there, and non of anybody's interest.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I dont think the word "pedophilia" really means what it supossed to mean in this case.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

only a small portion of total kms traveled

Thats doesnt really prove anything, the fuel burn is at its peak during take off and landing since it requires a lot of force to actually lift up. On the contrary, sustain flight is very efficient.

Shorter distances isnt a valid excuse - in fact, it is the direct problem you're seemingly defending.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Relative to how busses are more efficient to cars and how in general public modes of transport are much more effective than riding a massive tin can all by yourself.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Because its all snake oil thats based on nothing. It will always be 13-18 as this is the area they can get away with - teenagers will be the sacrificial lamb where all the focus will be brought towards children.

But why are teenagers included? Because they have greater ambitions than just children. And every one of these states has their own fascist strategy for totalitarianism.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

A ban for children (& teenagers) is a ban to privacy for everyone.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

What the hell are you even talking about? This really reads like a troll comment more than anything.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (5 children)

convicted paedophile

He is a convicted rapist not just a "paedophile". Paedophilia is a mental condition - and we are way past that - so why spread nonsence such as "convicted paedophile" when in fact we're talking about a sex offender/rapist.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I feel you. To help, there is tools on Lemmy which aid you with trauma or content you find troublesome. Filters are a great way to adjust your feed to rule out stuff just like this; there are also specific blocks you can do such as community blocks ❤️.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its really such a poor choice of words. Why try to invent new words for the exact same thing? The only thing that comes to mind in this case is strategic manipulation.

[–] Virtvirt588@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Agreed, the reality is that he raped everyone that was available. Children weren't the sole victim - in the sake of this post, it was a teenager that was the victim which illustrates how wide spread this is.

And that argument is probably ragebait, which that other person has fallen into.

view more: next ›