🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@waltercool Fair. Though im not sure why one would expect them to have any comment on opposing them at all. Its not their obligation to oppose things that have nothing to do with them.

That said it is important we understand the seperation between a MAP vs a rapist who targets children (consenting or otherwise). MAP can often refer to a person who has sexual attraction to minors but recognizes this as inappropriate and does not express it and often seeks therapy to help overcome it. Many MAPs do not feel initimate relationship with minors is acceptable and would never engage in it (nor view porn of that nature). When we talk about MAPs of this type I think acceptance is appropriate since we should not judge someone for the urges they feel when they use a strong sense of morality to determine their actions regardless of their urges. In fact to shame someone for inappropriate feelings, particularly feelings they are going to therapy for and making an outward effort to suppress, would only cause the situation to get worse.

I wonder if parents who teach their kid to smile a certain way, specifically encouraging them to "show their teeth" realize just how photogenic they are raising their kids to be. Whenever I see an adult smiling that on a camera it looks so bizarre and forced it takes a willful effort me to not show the cringe on my face.

Ya'll out there looking like this.

@waltercool FYI the image is fake and the LGBT foundation's logo was photoshopped onto it. They made an official statement against the image when it first surfaced in 2019:

https://www.lgbt.foundation/pedosexual?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=vnvI9T300J8CYESmrcPe9UShXk4NPAblEszVzYhUn8Y-1636050558-0-gaNycGzNCFE

Pros of having chest hair: finding popcorn in it hours after you ate for a surprise snack!

@khird not I, sorry.

@twann

In practice so would I. But most people in europe refuse to use SMS for the cost so the problem is there regardless of what I want.

@Casinoslcohol

@barefootstache Its clear they arent a company with any large momentum. If it has employees at all its likely a small handful. They have not released any products and may just be a company of 1 person. None of this would make their claim to a trademark any less factual however if they registered it.

@Fishou@ludosphere.fr How is that suspicious? I mean its obvious that the company hadnt lauched yet and is in a startup state, perhaps a startup where the owner is the only employee. Why would that make it suspicious that they own the trademark, considering they had the site since 2014 at least.

A company of 1 is still a company in the eyes of the law.

@barefootstache lies, stop spreading that fake news!

A newton is both a person, a cookie, and a unit of measure. The dude gets around.

Damn you newton!

#Isaacnewton #newton #history #physics #STEM #Science @Science @funny #funny #joke #humour #humor

@Fishou@ludosphere.fr yes this is true, they are a startup without a product. But as I understand it that doesnt define a trademark. They have had the meta domain since 2014 and presumably registered a trademark around that time. So even if they havent released their product yet I would imagine in the eyes of the law they are still in a good place to challenge it.

@trinsec

https://old.reddit.com/r/insanepeoplefacebook/comments/qlq69f/insane_people_facebook_but_its_actually_facebook/hj5cf0s/

@stardenver haha yea :)

@trinsec Who knows. But I am not liable for if they make shit up. I am just sharing their claim, and they at a minimum have the domain since 2014 so seems reasonable they are telling the truth. Beyond that its not my responsibility to play detective.

Taking it with a grain of salt is of course a good move, im doing the same.