Essentially a balloon that replaced some of the sponge like structure that fills with blood to create an erection. It’s pretty popular with the paralysed so they can still have their own kids the old fashion way and some still have feeling down there but not venous control to cause things to happen.

Fun fact often times the inflator is put in your bean bag and you essentially squeeze an artificial testical to pump it up.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/penile-implants/about/pac-20384916

Push down on the short side of the tab and just behind the two lumps on the lid, it should go “kathuck” and the top comes up off the lid so you can pull it free.

Consider for the moment that he’s rolling his face off so he’s just doing what comes natural and makes him feel warm inside.

It does make sense and the issue here isn’t communal service periods but for making it only the young which “by chance” makes it so almost everyone who had any hand in it wouldn’t have to do it ever.

If it were every citizen had to do some form of labor for some period I don’t think anyone would have much of an argument.

The dollop episode 472.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1Hkhctuxa2IdZki0oQ6UFe&ved=2ahUKEwip2O_k7OSKAxUTv4kEHbCVJGsQjjh6BAgaEAE&usg=AOvVaw2REEkTbT4OgFe4ttxHINA1

They can’t in this case.

In your example they essentially used the same basis as felony murder (which I don’t agree with but whatever) in that they do not know who did pulled the trigger and made the enhancements threat but there’s no argument both were there.

In this case there’s only one person there during the shooting and that’s on video, it physically and logically could not be two people and therefore two convictions are unlikely to hold.

Automatically? No, almost nothing but enhancements are automatic.

What I hear you saying it is not just possible but probable.

Sure. But you said there isn’t a mechanism for it, there clearly is.

Reversed, released, overturned are all the same thing and happen literally daily. Where did you get your information that a conviction can’t be changed?

Ed: reading your source it hinged on the crime technically being capable of being committed by multiple people and this one clearly can’t be.

They can once they release that conviction but it goes to show ineptitude and malfeasance which casts doubt on any further attempt to convict someone. And yes it would, shadow of a doubt is a high standard and a second conviction is a huge amount of doubt.

Factual innocence is different, it’s a positive defense for literally any criminal charge.

I think that’s exactly where it’s going. Get convicted, real killer confesses and the state can’t pursue a crime they’ve convicted someone for.

Sorta. They’re pointing out the fact is the default is straight, if you want to scream it at people well that’ll cost you some money.

It’s dumb, super petty and ultimately inane as are most identity politics. I get the point to an extent but anything to either extreme gets a bit grating and irritating.

Fun stupid as opposed to what? Stern stupid?

Right. Is this your first time encountering an anarchist?

Left. The word you’re looking for is correct, right is an affirmation or direction. Nothing, I want you to explain your belief system so you can see it in front of you and go "well that’s kinda fuckin stupid huh?.

Undoubtedly so I have no doubt.

Idiots tend to laugh a lot so, par for the course I suppose.

Doubt all you’d like it’s not an argument and you didn’t know me well enough to think anything more or less. But do go on.

Am I? I tend to refrain from calling people monkeys because of the obvious implied racism.

Not at all, there are better forms of haven’t government and given this interaction in 100% proof anarchism doesn’t work.

I told you to fucking read because you didn’t before the edit dipshit, you can’t retroactively act less stupid simply because you edited after the fact. I know what to tell you though, stop crying.

Right is an affirmation of receipt, yes no or maybe are the possible answers and you didn’t choose any of the above and still failed to explain.

Anarchism exists yes, that didn’t imply you are an anarchist you could be part of any similarly idiotic idealist nonsense.

If it’s a battle of wit, you’re losing.

Not at all.

• I said anarchism is dumb, you took it personally which is pretty strange honestly. *160, get at me. I’ve explained my position, you’ve made fun of me. What exactly you’re deducing my intelligence from is at best a curiosity at worst simply made up. *See I don’t dislike you, I’d rather a conversation about how school children laugh at anarchists for the stupidity of their ideals. Similarly, you’ve been the crybaby bitch here and you’re doing it now which is amusing. *Add racism? Like I said, you have to be doing Nazi bingo or something. *I don’t get people banned crybaby and you probably wouldn’t get banned for it no matter how much that might play to your edge lord proclivities.

*Edit= sounds like crying about an edit to me.

There’s your explanation then.

No you weren’t, you clearly don’t care or you wouldn’t be playing the troll in another comment chain. Also, no I’m not a conservative and anyway it didn’t make sense in context so it was clearly an error. Again, you tried to make light of the situation and stuck your foot directly in your mouth.

I already did that, fuckin read dude it would solve a lot of these issues.

Yes or no being explainations is what? A new concept to you or something.

So you’re a douche, you could have saved the inane exposition.

I did, you should read again.

https://lemmy.world/comment/13281517