Time immemorial. Shakespeare is full of cuckold jokes, look for mentions of horns.
I’m so confused.
That is the ONLY age at which you know EVERYTHING! It is all downhill realizing you don’t know jack from there.
That’s the nutso part (well, one of the nutso parts), they DO think they are thinking for themselves. They think it’s the rest of us who are all being brainwashed by the “Zionist media”! These assholes think they are speaking truth to power…
And people wonder how racist bigots in the 1970s could mistake Archie Bunker for a sincere and flattering portrayal of their beliefs and values.
Just keep your weiner away from the little hole the birdy comes out of every hour.
One of the finest movies.
Daily Stormer? Really?
Someone who picks a name such as the “Daily Stormer” fits in one of two categories:
Seriously under-educated. Unaware of the historical context of the term “Stormer” (knowing what “Der Stürmer” is probably requires knowing a foreign language?), or of what it led to in the past.
Seriously in favour of perpetrating a Holocaust-level genocide. In other words, a public enemy.
Both are problems that have traditional, well-tried solutions.
Though, educating group 1 will just give you racists who think that using Nazi terminology is inappropriate because they only want to enslave and not exterminate other races.
These people more often than not will be able to list off numerous personal reasons why they think Hitler was full of good ideas and was fully justified in his hatred.
These are the kind of people who feel persecuted for not being allowed to kill minorities in the streets.
These are the kind of people who choose the name “Stormer” deliberately because of its historical connotations and wear it proudly, much like the racists who fly the traitor’s flag.
Go play, boy, play. There have been,
Or I am much deceived, cuckolds ere now;
And many a man there is, even at this present,
Now, while I speak this, holds his wife by th’ arm,
That little thinks she has been sluiced in’s absence,
And his pond fished by his next neighbour, by
Sir Smile, his neighbour.
I’ve said it before, just replace “witches” with “liberals”.
That’s similar to Britain, although 16/17 year olds need parental consent if they aren’t in Scotland.
What concerns me far more is
So, group 2 then?
If their plans of killing minorities in the streets are not yet far enough along to justify arresting them, how about a divide-and-conquer approach? There are plenty of regular racists that could be our allies against insane murderers. I want the racists who think apartheid is a pretty good idea to still try very hard to distance themselves from people who want gas chambers.
It is Alabama, after all.
Looking through teen marriage laws by state, I’m astonished at how many allow marriages at 15 and under. UNDER? Geez. I mean, yeah, extra rules apply, including getting a judge to sign off on it, but really?
Clearly black middle school boys impressing white girls are part of black-men-taking-white-women-industrial complex. That there is no marriage involved won’t comfort the white boy in middle school who is ignored by the girls meant for him.
If you visit the Daily Stormer-- and seriously, there’s no need to do so-- you’ll discover that their logo contains elements
of the German Reichsadler as well as a caricature of a “hooknosed” Jew. No point in dancing round the subject-- they’re Nazis and proud of it.
When I was growing up in Delaware, the age of consent was 12 (I think it’s now up to 14.) The concept of “jailbait” was really strange to encounter; back home, anybody who’d passed typical puberty age was legally allowed to make their own decisions about sex.
Sure, in historic reality, it mainly meant that most people were farmers who didn’t need formal education, and if a woman was old enough to get pregnant she was old enough to be barefoot in her own kitchen, but it was at least some acknowledgement of personal autonomy.
IMO children, at least teenagers, should be able to engage in contracts such as marriage. Provided that they are afforded the same protections as other people. But, considering the corporate landscape, I concede that protections against abusive contracts have generally not been great for anybody lately.
If you believe marriage should be based on instinctual sexual desire, then great.
If you think there might be more to life than that, allowing people without a fully-formed prefrontal cortex to develop their brains to adulthood before making lifelong decisions is the better way to go.
That’s a big “if”, since I generally do not trust instincts as decision-making bases for much of anything! By “protections against abusive contracts”, I meant the ability of no-questions-asked divorce, and protections against personal abuse that contemporary married people are guaranteed. Although I do very much respect people committing to marriage as a true lifelong relationship, the various safety measures in place are for when this doesn’t work.
This makes it sound compulsory. Having the right to do it recognized in no way implies that people aren’t allowed to be cautious and/or take their time.