I agree, this is basically an attack at many individuals.

Atleast, the meme mentions “sex offenders” which is more accurate than pedophilia.

So essentially contextomy.

There has been a spitfire of such deceivingly titled articles being posted here within the past couple of days.

You’re sabotaging your own argument here. You stated full body autonomy to be a right to then dismiss that within this statement.

Also,

no one should be forced to let anyone else use their uterus

Tell me, how does this relate to your current argument?

I’m against encouraging teenage pregnancy

Encouraging teenage pregnancy isn’t the problem. The problem is the encouragement in general. As said, full bodily autonomy - it should remain a right for all.

Has the power to level power entire cities

How is that a hot take? Pedophilia isn’t related to politics at all, its a mental disorder. It doesn’t take opinion to judge its “correctness” as it is factually incorrect; as stated by DSM5 and other papers.

The most fallacious statement spoken by the fascist scum.

Treat it as an accompanying argument rather than arguing a point for your sake. Its just a different perspective exceplifying the point by focusing on the impacted group.

More gen alpha might use AI because they’re young and keep up with trends more

That’s not entirely true. There are cases where gen alpha students revolted against AI usage. One of the incidents was about the usage of Chromebooks which forced students to use AI - bottom line is, people where upset.

I agree. Op reasoning is flawed in many ways: both the relation to generations, and the assumption that people who do x are destined to do y.

The most infuriating part of this statement is the supposed relation to generations. It is yet another discriminatory behaviour which usually goes under the radar. Just like it happens within sexism, op has needlessly correlated things to age.

I can definitively agree on the explanation stated infering the second point. However, it is an aspect which needs further clarification, like op said: “someone else’s skin” is usualy interpreted as human directed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/someone). This essentially introduces double meaning within the argument.

In terms of vegetable tanning your best knowledge is correct, it costs more as it requires substantially more time thats why it is only used for higher end or artisan leather. Additionally, I have stated synthetic tanning which is comparable to vegetable, but not as bad as chromium.

& the original person’s comment about chromium-salts looks spot-on, & was ignored by your counter.

In regards to that, can you provide relevant information which details it?

While the conclusion of this argument is valid your premises don’t follow a logical sequence. Firstly, leather is defined as a material obtained from rawhide which is tanned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather) - this is real leather, there is no need for calls to ignorance here.

Secondly, what do mean by referring to “someone else’s”? Because the common usage for such statements usually mean human, not non-human animals. This essentially looks like an emotional appeal at this point.

Thirdly, you state that it is common for leather to be coated in plastic. While this is technically correct - as large portion of the market is composed of reusing scraps, it dismisses leather production from virgin rawhide and processes using vegetable or synthetic tanning which don’t need plastic for the resultant product.

But can we talk about how lasseiz faire we used to be about children online security.

“Lasseiz faire” online security was applicable to all individuals, it wasnt directed to a specific group. It also makes no sense to look at what we used to do when online totalitarianism and discriminatory segregation is arguably causing more significant damage to everyone involved.

The packaging was just a taster for what’s to come, I.e. discrimination leading to fascism.

I agree, social media is harmful for all, no matter the age. We shouldn’t be destined to further segment and disfranchise individuals solely because they’re “inferior”, based on age or any other discriminatory factor - the thing is, who is the victim and who is the abuser in this case? Because the situation at hand seems like the victims are getting punished for the wrongdoings of the abuser.

This is where we are at, the corporations flipped the script, and we as a society gulped it all down, tightening the handcuffs around the wrong hands.

But besides the point, relating to the logic within your statement, who are you trying to ban here? Because you mention both “everyone” and “them” - which consequently makes it ambiguous, which introduces double meaning.

Also, the system is not predatory, there are simply predators in the system

I’m just going to leave it at that. Glorifying capitalism is onething but adding discrimination to the mix, and the insifignificance of experience, and the apparent need for fascism to protect the kids and eliminate the need for parenting is absurd to say the least.

The fact that predators are enabled to flourish within the system, while minorities are suppressed and their rights stripped is exactly why that statement is invalid.

Yep, it really seems that all that money goes into coehersion so everyone uses their proprietary format. It is hard to actually come across high quality video releases that are in AV1 - even if you prefer the loyalty free nature of AV1.

But in terms of hardware, AV1 is getting more popular. For one, it is a relatively new format.

Thats what ambiguity enables, a logical fallacy that allows evil corpos to do as they please. And thats basically capitalism, or even feudalism at this point.

To be fair, having experience in OSes from childhood is certainly a life lesson to the upcoming years within teenhood and adulthood. I’m not undermining this attribute, as within a world of complexity, having any experience already puts you further than most.