Oyoy
Spatula
- Feb 2, 2020
- 741
Licenses are required for less important resonsabilities. That is an argument for it. The argument against it would be that gov would decide and then poor people wouldn't procreate.
We wanted to share a quick update with the community.
Our public expense ledger is now live, allowing anyone to see how donations are used to support the ongoing operation of the site.
👉 View the ledger here
Over the past year, increased regulatory pressure in multiple regions like UK OFCOM and Australia's eSafety has led to higher operational costs, including infrastructure, security, and the need to work with more specialized service providers to keep the site online and stable.
If you value the community and would like to help support its continued operation, donations are greatly appreciated. If you wish to donate via Bank Transfer or other options, please open a ticket.
Donate via cryptocurrency:
Gospel, man.I've heard this discussion before a few times. I can honestly see both sides to it. I think big government already has enough control though. You know they'd abuse this system and find a way to tax us even further.
License to be, given all the crap I've seen, does seem good, but the catch is like basically the others have said. And we all know people will just have sex without thought of getting pregnant so there wouldn't be a license. Actually short of mandated vasectomies of all men, with then approval to get it undone (because it'd be re-done after a period, or would possibly have to), there'd be no 'guaranteed' way to stop it... even then they'd have to store some of their 'seed' (as some say lol) just in case they became sterile after over the years.
IdiocracyOnce condoms were invented only stupid people reproduce.- it's from a movie.
If people really like children they wouldn't have them.Having biological children, while there's a single person living in poverty (or a at the very least until there are orphans) is the most narcissistic thing you can do. Gotta spread them genes.