Author Topic: UK trying to force research sites to prove their users are 18  (Read 7746 times)

lmao the age of consent in the uk is 16 anyway so why do you need to be 18 to watch research?

if this is all you have to provide in response to that statement, then i think you should stop arguing with these kindly folks OR use actual statistics from actual sites
i'm the one explaining why research has an age limit. you're the one explaining why "wrong!!" and not even explaining why

see you're the one whose handicapped here, because you aren't even expressing an opinion- you're just here to rile stuff up and leave. that's a way better reason to call someone handicapped then "i disagree with him and i'm not going to explain why"

lmao the age of consent in the uk is 16 anyway so why do you need to be 18 to watch research?
i dont know but i personally think the age to watch research should also be 16
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 06:23:58 AM by PhantOS »

i'm the one explaining why research has an age limit. you're the one explaining why "wrong!!" and not even explaining why
people have already said before in this thread that you're pulling statistics out of your ass
read earlier

people have already said before in this thread that you're pulling statistics out of your ass
read earlier
you're not providing any statistics. in fact, you're providing nothing to the discussion. the 'people' you speak of is the usual contrarian inh, ike and you, who exist solely to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.


you're acomplishing nothing by saying that over and over again

saying that over and over again

over and over again

PhantOS has been pulling stuff out of his ass alot recently, like in the mediafire thread.
He's being handicapped. I could care less if he disagrees with me.
these recent posts are pretty handicapped too.




despite people telling you over and over again to stop posting, you continue. i guess repetition doesn't faze you

you're acomplishing nothing by saying that over and over again.

i could say the same thing about you in your drama thread starfish

i could say the same thing about you in your drama thread starfish
Go away. That's unrelated.


Go away. That's unrelated.

so was the mediafire thread and yet you brought it up

so was the mediafire thread and yet you brought it up
I brought it up because it was similar to what he did in this thread, made up statistics, this time about how there are apparently lots of child research actresses on the deep web.

I brought it up because it was similar to what he did in this thread
your posting history and 10+ drama threads are also similar to what you said here. yet you declare it unrelated on the grounds that "nuh uh!!!"

stop trying to derail the motherloving thread for no reason. you aren't agreeing or disagreeing with anything because you dont have any proof/claim/statistics so why the forget are you trying to start stuff? if you wanted the attention so desperately why didn't you beg your dead parents or some other bullstuff
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 06:36:04 AM by PhantOS »

I brought it up because it was similar to what he did in this thread, made up statistics, this time about how there are apparently lots of child research actresses on the deep web.

i brought up your stuffty attitude and hypocrisy in the drama thread because it's similar to you bringing up drama here for no real loving reason other than to throw gasoline on a fire

someone already said the same thing you started with, but you just parroted the same thing with the unnecessary mediafire addition

how do you know about this
there's a whole onion website dedicated to child research actors and their names. either way, it's not relevant as a statistic but more of an example.

if you want to know why people do this, it's because children are vulnerable to ideas. i'm not going to dig through the 100000 abstracts that exist on child psychology because it should be well understood by now. it's the same reason why gambling requires an age limit. same reason why smoking, alcohol, driving, and every other potentially dangerous activity or mindset that people tend to abuse is restricted to smarter, more mature audiences.

the government isn't afraid of teens jerking their meat or fiddling with their clit. they couldn't care less about that. they mainly care about the potential prostitution it may cause, especially when combined with the lack of love education. there's so many issues that arise due to lack of love education, including diseases, unwanted pregnancy, rape, and a whole other slew of problems. if parents want to let their child be exposed to research, they will manually verify it themselves. it's 100x better than them stumbling across researchographic content by themselves
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 06:42:02 AM by PhantOS »

there's nothing immoral about watching research. however, research is a public health crCIA. research addiction is a big issue for a lot of people. chronic procrastination stunts hormonal growth in your body, leading to lower love drive and failure of certain secondary love characteristics. it promotes misogynous and misandrous behaviors that reflect on interaction with future partners, etc. all of these are behaviors that vulnerable people can adopt. children are notorious for having addictive personalities as their brains are growing and latch on to behaviors. allowing children to experience these bad behaviors is an objectively bad decision

you could argue that it shouldn't be the government's concern what people do in the privacy of their own homes. that same argument could be applied to the government banning cocaine, excessive abuse of children, and tons of other things that can be potentially harmful for families. research isn't as severe as the aforementioned, but it can definitely be considered one in the eyes of the law

if you want me to provide statistics for any of this, forget you and your sister. google why research is bad. it will take you less time to educate yourself than it will take me time to educate you
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 06:53:46 AM by PhantOS »