Poor little ginger girl, she was a rare pearl in an ocean of brown. Sad smile on the "after" picture. And wtf, why does every breast removal procedure look like it was done with a chainsaw?
no evidence at all that those pictures show the same person
a) PER (by) SONOS (sound) implies BY, preposition (Latin pressus) - "partial procession in motion, hence differentiation", while sound implies the whole origin aka sameness.
b) EV'IDENCE, noun [Latin evidentia, from video, to see.] implies perceivable by senses, while suggested "picture" implies through the lens of TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.], hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural".
In short...artificial (suggested picture) tempts one to ignore natural (seeing perceivable), while giving those suggesting the power of consent to define, redefine and contradict the artificial at will.
no evidence at all that the person on the right is underage
The adhesive bandages represent a legal admission of concern about legal ramifications over showing underage nudity or showing nudity to underage viewers, hence a liability shield.
which option do you prefer?
OP'TION, noun [Latin optio, opto, to wish or desire.] implies ones choice of want over need, hence shirking response-ability (choice). I PREFER', verb [Latin proefero; proe, before, and fero, to bear or carry.] to keep bearing the response-ability (choice) to carry myself within balance by struggling to resist suggested want for perceivable need.
Bonus: "6:05 PM" (11) + "Feb 7" (9) for the 9/11 encoding, 33k likes, Paul Hookem (just like Saul did), and of course the rhetorical chutzpah to imply "you can cut the tits of a girl and pretend her to be a boy, but a mere bandaid is all it takes to legally define her as a girl in the court of public opinion".
Child abuse plain and simple.
Stop trying to be your kids cool friend and start parenting.
Do you think that the person on the right is a child?
So you're just upset that may not be a child in the pic...got it.
Tho i am glad u agree with me that this kind of mutilation happening to Children all over is disgusting.
No you fucking cretin.
I am asking if this person is a child.
If she's a child then posting nude pictures mean that op posted child porn.
Clear enough now?
You seem to be ok with op posting (potentially) child porn.
Ahh someone triggered? 😆
Why are u asking me what op posted dumbass?
Again, glad you admitted you're against this kind of mutilation of children.
So you think that the person is a child? Why don't you want to answer the question?
"If she's a child then posting nude pictures mean that op posted child porn".
What ITF does that have to do with me and my comment? I didnt post it, I commented that this type of mutilation is child abuse.
Which u seem to agree with...
So you do believe that the person on the right is a child?
Why can't you answer the question?
No, I am concerned that it actually is a child because that would mean that OP posted a nude picture of a child.
So, do you believe that this is a child?
Is it happening to children? How do you know? How do you know that the person in the picture is a child?
Are u denying thar minors are having these procedures done?
I don't know. Do they?
We know this is happening to minors.
Do u support mutilation of children?
Of course, I don't support that. So, do you think that the person on the right is a child?
$$$$$
And look how happy it seems to be!
I guess nobody told her she was gonna look like Zipper Tits Rick Moranis.
Poor little ginger girl, she was a rare pearl in an ocean of brown. Sad smile on the "after" picture. And wtf, why does every breast removal procedure look like it was done with a chainsaw?
How do you know tha the "after" picture is her?
a) want to explain ignores need to express.
b) inception towards death represents the "plain" of existence...Yo Momma had to "press" your life into it.
Ah, that one. That one is funny.
There is no evidence at all that those pictures show the same person.
There is no evidence at all that the person on the right is underage.
If the person on the right is underage then you are a fucking sick pedo sharing nude pics of a child.
So, which option do you prefer?
a) PER (by) SONOS (sound) implies BY, preposition (Latin pressus) - "partial procession in motion, hence differentiation", while sound implies the whole origin aka sameness.
b) EV'IDENCE, noun [Latin evidentia, from video, to see.] implies perceivable by senses, while suggested "picture" implies through the lens of TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.], hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural".
In short...artificial (suggested picture) tempts one to ignore natural (seeing perceivable), while giving those suggesting the power of consent to define, redefine and contradict the artificial at will.
The adhesive bandages represent a legal admission of concern about legal ramifications over showing underage nudity or showing nudity to underage viewers, hence a liability shield.
OP'TION, noun [Latin optio, opto, to wish or desire.] implies ones choice of want over need, hence shirking response-ability (choice). I PREFER', verb [Latin proefero; proe, before, and fero, to bear or carry.] to keep bearing the response-ability (choice) to carry myself within balance by struggling to resist suggested want for perceivable need.
Bonus: "6:05 PM" (11) + "Feb 7" (9) for the 9/11 encoding, 33k likes, Paul Hookem (just like Saul did), and of course the rhetorical chutzpah to imply "you can cut the tits of a girl and pretend her to be a boy, but a mere bandaid is all it takes to legally define her as a girl in the court of public opinion".