deleted by creator

deleted by creator

From Bing originally. It carries a CC license.

I prompted, edited (like extra ears, strange helmet accessories, logos being off), printed, assembled, and added/changed details once it was glued to a board.

I’ve given up on trying to decide if AI images are mine. Otherwise, have at it.

Posted by me.

I didn’t need a study to tell me that. See, back in 'nam there were no studies, no lettuce, no cars. We did what we did and we knew what we knew.

To be pedantic, all other things being equal, like quantity sold. Riiiiiight?

Oh that makes more sense.

You two were made for each other. If you were both dolls, now is when you’d start kissing.

This subbranch starts with a “/s” comment; it isn’t clear what is supposed to be sarcastic and instead reads like earnest illogic. There’s no spacing distinction between sarcasm and not, so is the entire comment sarcastic?

Then you jump in with a serious reply that immediately starts providing evidence for an unstated claim, which you presumably believe is “obvious.” The first girl is introducing the context of schools. Are you sticking with that or switching to the different context of public? If you’re pivoting to the general public, then you’re off topic.

Then the first girl replies as if she made an argument. She also doesn’t acknowledge you (maybe) changing the context to public. She seems to be fixated on exposing children who are in school to material unrelated to the curriculum.

As a note, the first amendment is context dependent. For example, shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is not covered; this is because it would likely lead to injury via a stampede. A realistic re-enactment of a Jew being tortured and executed by a foreign government being performed for children at school might not be covered.

Then comes hurling of insults.

Eww, gross.