When the mandatory face ID KYC rolls out it won't come from the "government" you know, like a president, Congress, or prime minister.

It'll quietly roll out through corporations and major financial network services.

It wont be a law or bill up for debate, just page 3 recommendations by FinCEN, WEF, SEC.

Quiet control that isn't mandated by law, but necessary if you want to apply for a job, loan, or invest.

Wtf? Lmao no

In my many decades long career I have met many people who are unable and will remain unable to function in society. These people are extremely dangerous. Barely trainable animals.

They come in all colors, sizes and shapes. Not all nightmares are locked away in cells. Many walk free. Some in my neighborhood and some in your neighborhood. You see them nightly in the local news.

Example: I call him the Mojo Man. He tried to burn up eight people at home and succeeded in destroying their home and all their possessions. WHY? Because a juvenile female would not talk to him at three in the morning. He did a couple years and released. He has been arrested and charged with violent crimes three times just this year. He is at the mental hospital every few months, off his meds and on a coroner's PC for 72 hrs. A good dose of Haldol injectable a bottle of Seroquel and Cogentin and off he goes. Booked in to the local jail until OR'ed out.

On meds he is a quiet zombie, off his meds a crazed murderous maniac.

He has no soul. Just a walking crazed corpse that don't know it is dead yet. This is the best he can expect, forever.

They are always classed as mentally ill and so never do significant time in prison. Released to maime, rape, and slay. Wash, rinse, repeat.

There is nothing humane about allowing them to walk free. There might be a time to consider euthanasia, however, I would not want that decision to make.

Once...

Prison was a break for society from the criminal. Prison was a punishment for the guilty.

Now...

Prison is a bus stop to the next victim. Three meals a day, satellite TV, gyms, free healthcare, breakfast in bed and laundry service.

The neighbors suck though. 🙄

They walk among you.

Stay strapped people.

Good morning! 🫂💜 GM! 🇦🇷 🌧️

Have a wonderful and blessed day!! 🙌

(Ignore my hashtags)

#zbdinternetcitizen #plebchain #donate #zbd #nostrplebs #donation #fundraiser #grownostr #fundraising #pepethon #nostriches #zbdsocial #plebstr #eurothon #zapathon #nostrich #zbdmagic #arg #bsas #ba

Good morning! My coffee’s stronger than my will to be productive. Priorities, right? 💻

Sipping @ #coffeechain

Please actually type out what you refer to as "the conclusion of my first paragraph" and what you refer to as my "first statement". As it is, you are making it unnecessarily difficult to determine whether you have actually read anything I've written.

Earlier you asked me to explain how I know "shallow and worthless sex". Now you seem unsurprised that I "would be able to explain why." Have I addressed your question about shallow and worthless sex?

Also, to address your other comment about my usage of the word grooming, I agree. The idea that talking to someone could ever take away someone's free will or make a person solely responsible for the other's actions is completely bunk, whether it gets called grooming, brainwash, or the devil's whisper.

The reality is that any kind of communication requires engagement from both sides. Plenty of boys would realize how fucked up sex with a man is all on their own, and would require brutality in order for the man to be able to have sex with them. A man can't groom a boy into making a mistake unless the boy's naivety aligns with the man's message and unless the boy uses that message to come to his own false conclusions.

Really when a boy and a man have sex, the sex is bad all on its own. There's nothing inherently wrong with grooming and there doesn't need to be any brutality for the sex to be bad.

I've done a lot of both I think. I try to make statements when I have something clear and concrete to say.

"Shallow and worthless sex" is not a complete, grammatically correct statement. You would need to add a verb and a subject before I would be able to say what I know and how. For example, I could tell you why I believe that "gay sex with boys is shallow and worthless sex", but I wouldn't be able to tell you why "shallow and worthless sex."

If that's what you were trying to ask, then I could answer it easily. I know that sex is shallow and worthless when it's between two males, because two males have nothing to offer eachother that the other doesn't already have without sex. I know that sex between an adult and a little boy is shallow and worthless because children are too incompetent and infertile for an adult parner and because adults are too ugly and unattractive for an underaged partner.

I hope these assertions are direct enough for you, I don't want to be passive aggressive when there is an opportunity to be actively critical towards you or your beliefs.

I would love to hear more questions from you. If you have any thing else you want to talk about, please try to make more complete sentences. It's easier to respond to what you have to say if you are more explicit about what exactly you are asking.

What, are you playing bingo as a coping mechanism or something? Won't you please be more explicit about which of my implications and statements you are picking out?

Yes. My question is whether I am characterizing your position correctly. Because unless for some reason the goal is shallow and worthless sex, I don't believe gay relationships should be considered "successful", let alone gay relationships between used up old men and incompetent loser little boys.

I definitely agree with your point about brutality though. If a child gets groomed a certain way, it's entirely possible that the kid won't end up fighting sexual acts, with no physical brutality necessary.

Consensual and successful gay relationships between a royal lord and underaged boys?