themeatbridge

Yeah, if you're quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you've crossed the rubicon of decency.

This is one of those technical distinctions where if you're making the distinction, you're already on the wrong side of everything.

Was he the one who was a piece of shit? Or was that Crick?

Yep, it's the "probably" that creates the ethics conundrum. We won't know how to improve the process without testing the process, and we cannot ethically create "test" humans like that scene in Alien Resurrection where all the failed Sigourney clones are sitting in jars, suffering and begging for death.

sudo chown ./castle;/titles;/sexlaves

What? In my metaphor, Democrats are the nets made of sometimes poop, and Republicans are the turds. Was that not clear?

Yeah, sure. Gather the guillotine and meet me in the town square.

"No one will ever replace my husband, but..."

-words uttered by no faithful widow, ever.

Those kids are not pure enough for his constituents. He will deliberately lose custody and then whine ahout how the system is biased against fathers.

"Is that right? I had heard an alternate theory..."

You're definitely wrong, and I know more about this than you do.