With everything we know about Trump at this point, it’s probably a good thing that we don’t have pictures of him playing with Barron.

Now why do you think that would that be a thing that he’s worried about?

Are you looking for “Protect my credit card number” anonymous, or “protect my whole identity” anonymous? The latter is going to be a lot more difficult, as most merchants will want to know exactly who they are billing, and lying about that gets into the realms of legal fraud.

My dog is a nudist at home. She only wears her collar outside. We don’t have to worry about her slipping out, I can leave the door wide open and she’ll stand there staring outside, but she won’t leave.

Edit to add; I guess it would be helpful to say why. Two reasons. One; we noticed that she tends to scratch at her neck when her collar is on for long periods of time, like it gets itchy there. Experimenting with leaving it off, we found that she seemed more comfortable. Two; she has a crate that she’s allowed to go into if she needs a safe space. It’s enclosed (has a cover) and that can be helpful if she’s anxious. We don’t want her in there with a collar on in case it catches on something.

The Total War series isn’t exactly turn based. The large scale strategic stuff is, where you position your armies and run your economy, but all of the battles are real time (with pause / ability to slow down time).

Bold, hot, and entirely correct.

The good news is that pretty soon there won’t be any foreign tourism to the US, so no one will have to enforce this.

Courts decide. They look at broader context, eg the overall framing and intent of the bill. There’s debate and argument, and where necessary there are appeals until it goes to the supreme court. In this case, they’re not just going to look at a specific paragraph but the whole text of the law and what it’s stated intent is.

I’m aware. My comment was a joke, but to be serious about it, murrsuit sex / porn is exceedingly niche, in no small part because, yeah, that shit is really fucking expensive. And, consequently, really expensive fucking.

Even within the furry community as a whole, only 10% report it being a sexual kink. And cartoon furry porn vastly outweighs photographic (There is some venn diagram split here, granted, since some people who don’t identify as furries still enjoy furry porn, but it’s not exactly a huge one). So, yes, you are technically correct, it does exist, but we’re talking about a subset of a subset of a subset.

It’s less “prop up” and more “are”. Also most research science. If you like vaccines, thank a furry.

I grew up in a village whose name roughly translates to “Bob’s place by the stream.”

“I love stupid people” - Donald J Trump

The only ambiguity is that stated directly in the text; “is or is likely to be mistaken for”.

And again, the thing it has to be likely to be mistaken for is a film or photograph of a person performing a sex act on an animal. Not “something like an animal.” Not “something with animal features.” Animal. One word. Period.

That means if you showed the image to an average person on the street they would be likely to believe it was an actual photo or video of someone doing actual sex acts to an actual flesh and blood animal. All of those conditions are clearly spelled out in the text of the law. It’s really not vague at all.

The only reason they even put the “is likely to be mistaken” for part is because we’re now at the point where AI can generate photographic images that aren’t actually real photographs.

And if someone is out there painting photo realistic art so good that no one can tell its not real, and they’re using that to recreate believable depictions of bestiality, well, yeah, the law is meant to criminalize that too. If it would fool the average person into thinking its a real animal, yes, that counts. But the average person isn’t going to look at Judy Hopps and think “Oh my God, that’s a real actual bunny rabbit”, so I’m really not clear on what it is you’re worried about here.

No, I’m interpreting “photographic” to mean “photographic.” There’s no interpretation needed, the word has a specific meaning that is entirely valid in this context. The question is, why are you trying to interpret “photographic” as meaning anything else?

So what do we reckon Putin has on this guy?

Listen, you had my upvote already, your impeccable taste in music is not required here :P

(seriously, no argument with any of what you’ve said here. 10/10, nailed it)

Besides, who actually fucks in a full fursuit? That shit is crazy expensive.

but they did develop a strategy that worked until the invasion of the USSR.

Not really. What they did was to repeat a strategy that had been refined by generations of Prussian generals. Blitzkrieg was a fancy propaganda term for “Prussian manoeuvre warfare.” It wasn’t a new invention. Now, they get credit for realizing that the tank could be a key component in making manoeuvre warfare viable again, though that largely derived from the shock they experienced at having their defensive lines broken by tanks in WW1. But to their credit, they were at least forward thinking enough to realise that the next war would be unlikely to bog down into a defensive stalemate like WW1 had. However the notion that Nazi Germany was inventing some exciting new method of warfare out of nothing is patently false. In fact the overall level of mechanization in their military was dire; throughout the entire war, many German divisions were moving all of their supply by horse and cart. Also “worked until the invasion of the USSR” basically deletes the War in Africa in its entirety. Germany certainly had some successes there, but also some notable failures, and ultimately they were not able to achieve any of their strategic aims on that front. In short, Blitzkrieg worked until it came up against an enemy that wasn’t desperately unprepared for any kind of war at all. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of its success as a strategy and more an indictment of the massive geopolitical failures that allowed the war to occur in the first place.

No, they didn’t. The Nazis were every bit as much of an incompetent mess.

Their generals largely sucked; they did as well as they did because their main opponent - France - shit the bed unbelievably hard, having made all the wrong preparations to fight basically the wrong war. Poland got pincered by two great powers at once, Czechoslovakia held out far longer than they should have given the differences in military power. The Nazis made some smart choices here and there, such as going through the Ardennes, or the decision to put radios in all their tanks, but their strategic and tactical “brilliance” was entirely invented after the fact, mostly by the generals themselves in their autobiographies where they were given free reign to blame every bad decision on Hitler.

Economically, their success was entirely down to running a plunder economy. They basically wrote a whole lot of cheques they couldn’t cash, then looted Czechoslovakia and Poland’s treasuries to foot the bill.

They were every bit the gaggle of squabbling incompetents that this administration is. They just had really good propaganda. This is always what fascism looks like. It’s an ideology that uplifts the incompetent, by design.

God, Strange New Worlds is so good.

Its wild seeing Star Trek that isn’t embarrassed to be Star Trek.