You must log in or # to comment.
will exacerbate harms they are trying to prevent &
Why the pretense that this has anything to do with “harms” to children?
Because that is the excuse that governments use to push for more surveillance. “Who doesn’t want to protect the children? Are you some kind of evil person?”
Are you some kind of evil person?
No, I’m a person who has access to the internet and can find actual data for myself.
Which is what the liberal status quo would like to prevent, of course.
Crazy to warn people of the exact thing they’re trying to achieve.
Do you hate the earth? Have you not even considered the fuel this would save? Or would you prefer billionaires be flying all over the Pacific to rape kids?
The fact is, in a post Epstein world the child supply is disrupted. While the space finds equilibrium there’s going to be a lot of redundancy and inefficiencies while new suppliers work out kinks in their operations and find competitive niches. If you would rather rich people get on private jets and fly to remote islands than sourcing local children, and moving the smaller less luxurious bodies much shorter distances, why is that? These people are trying to go green. Let them. Or do you want climate change?
Thanks I hate it
Oh you hate sourcing the things you consume locally? You think CEOs and politicians in america should only rape Chinese and Australian kids, just to maximize private jet miles flown, when there are perfectly abusable children as close as the nearest city’s local slums? Children on the Mississippi river and gulf of america who can be moved to you on barges for almost no energy? Even groomed on the boat?
You think there needs to be jet airplanes and ocean crossings involved literally every time a child is raped? Are you just trying to differentiate yourself from the Catholic church? Is this a Klan politics thing?
