Wait untill they find out what AI does with their material…

My daughter says pokemon cards

S’about time. I am sick of 100 degree (F) days while living in Oregon… I can always put more clothes on, but only so much I can take off. /s

Maybe we could just require sites to label videos that contain various types of violent fetishs, and then give users a clear way to opt out. Or even make it opt in. That should reduce it from mainstream to more specialty content.

Having played a lot of raft with my kids, I can say I never would have thought of it for this. But looking back, yeah, there is a good deal of world building going on.

I don’t debate that people should have distaste for nazi tatoos. But illegal, I would say no, that is clearly too far in my book.

As for dolls satiateing anyone. I never intended to suggest they do. I asked, do we have evidence that they cause harm. And if not, how do we decide what should be banned despite a lack of evidence proving it harmful.

As for the requirement being the same as a ban. It’s really not. Cause just .ike they are doing, they can sell various parts separately, and let the user assemble. That is really hard to enforce. My suggestion isn’t perfect, but it is easier to enforce.

See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it’s just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?

I really don’t understand what you are saying. I was in fact looking to open a discussion on a personal freedom angle. But the specific topic here was just what got me thinking about it. “A guy with a megaphone”. I really have no idea what that is referring to.

I did suggest that all sex toy type products could maybe be required to have some dimension that clearly marks the item as representing an adult. That would be my suggestion. But I am still curious where people draw the line on personal freedom vs something that isn’t proven to be harmful. Drugs and such are another good example. Should people be allowed to do whatever dtugs they want, as long as they don’t drive or something. Alcohol actually follows that example. Guns do to. Lots of ways to frame the debate.

I can see how this whole topic can be kind of tricky. Not letting a free citizen have sex with a child like doll is kind of like arresting someone for thinking about committing a crime. I am generally of the belief that people should be free to do as they please as long as what they do doesn’t impinge on other people’s rights and such. But this is one of those border cases. Making it illegal without proof that it leads to crimes is questionable. But waiting for the proof means some children were abused, which is unacceptable as well.

Also, a guy could just buy one of those things that is lower torso and upper legs only. Nothing on it implies an age. So he can think of it as a child in his head. Yet making those illegal seems a stretch. Maybe it would have to be something like all sex dolls need to include enough parts to clearly distinguish them from children? But even that would be hard to truely define.

Somewhere close enough to the equator do have a decent amount of sun all year. But also close enough to mountains with snow and lakes and oceans. Then I would build a massive climate controlled dome. From that dome I would build high speed trains forme to get to the other places in about 15 minutes. I don’t like humidity or too much heat, but I do like a lot of sun and water. Snow is great for hot tubbing.

The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.

He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.

La cocuracha (or however it is spelled)

I enjoyed andor. The first 1.5 seasons were pretty solid. Then they started “discovering” characters who were in Rouge One and doingbtheir usual BS where we are all supposed to faint because someone we know shows up…

Thanks to you. I couldn’t remember more than the M and the C. And it was killing me. Hilarious show. Terrible on a few moral levels, but I never claimed to be a saint.

And ask yourself why did they stop caring? They needed more profit, and caring costs a lot. So they tried to lower the level of care to see if they could squeeze profits. Enshitification. The race to the bottom. Couldn’t compete with companies making a cheaper product long term. All are really caused by profit being the primary purpose of the company.

And as someone else pointed out, the brand got sold. If it was so successful, they wouldn’t have sold it. Clearly it wasn’t generating enough profit despite the quality.

Side note, I had one back in the day, those thing sure were solid at the time.

My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President.

I’ve never known any other way. Companies by definition exist to make profits, not to improve the lives of thier customers. Any business that truely has the interest of thier customers first doesn’t last long.

I agree with you, but my brain was like… there really is no way to verify employment when company no longer exists. That is just an interesting point to me. I suppose it could be relevant for people who work for more than just Hollywood. But inside Hollywood, I have heard that it is like you say, a lot of word of mouth. Probably enables all sorts of middlemen that trade in that kind of info.

Start looking for smart objective people to hire. I know enough to know that I don’t know enough to make decisions in a vacuum. At the end of the day, the president is the face of the government, but the people behind him are what should really matter.

We weren’t talking about preference, we were talking about scratching the itch.