

There is no doctrine condemning you to punishment for not being naked.
There is no doctrine condemning you to punishment for not being naked.
Yes, feminists want to force people to be naked in public, as seen in the feminist Republic of Iran. Oh wait no, people got beaten to death for not wearing a veil there.
Banning this is as dumb as mandating it.
Holy shit. This is insanely profound. Not dehumanizing his targets but acknowledging their humanity and therefore, their responsibility and the gravity of the thing he is about to do.
This wasn’t a raving mad man stabbing or shooting the nearest, most Jewish looking person, this seems to have been a targeted shooting.
Nah, just realized he actually isn’t xD
That’s because he is CG5 Michael Reeves
Edit: I goofed
You wanted him to break him out?
Nah, ai slop should stay in the facebook boomer corner and die.
Unfortunately, his UG work in the field of linguistics turned out to be really bad.
Universal Grammar states that all of the knowledge about languages is already in your brain when you’re born. The only thing that happens in language aquisition is figuring out which parameters are in what state: If your mothertongue is German, then the parameter “has case system” is switched to “yes” and the parameter “has tone system” is switched to “no”.
The idea is that there is some parameter that is set to yes in ALL languages. But everytime such a parameter is put forward, we find that it isnt the case actually.
The next problem is its eurocentrism. Languages, through the lens of UG, all have to have similar parameters as Indo-European languages. Whenever languages do not fit that model, the first instinct in UG is to press it into that model, which leads to stuff like invisible affixes, invisible words and even invisible subjects.
Instead of analyzing a language on its own, forming new categories to understand the mechanics of the language, UG tries its hardest to computerize and systematize languages.
Love how an attack on russian soil is somehow a provocation. Mfers, you are at war. Sorry to inconvenience you.
We need bombs.
Literal Lyndon LaRouche talking point.
Zionists were both for and against this agreement. Some Zionist leaders opposed this agreement, because if a british company paid Nazi Germany, it would break the boycott of Nazi Germany that had been initiated by Zionists.
We can hate Zionism for a lot of things, we dont need to steal talking point from literal nazis.
Can i delete someone else’s post?
“This figure does not include humanitarian or military contributions” Which is the main part of european contributions, ircc.
Working class doesnt drive an 82.000$ Car.
Grand ol Projection
I do not see your point? The iranians also live in a country with slavemasters on the money. Slavemasters that deems women and religious minorities as lesser beings, a status that is codified into law. Not to speak of the Kurds.
Enough reason to not engage with a person.