@Haggisyum@policylaila What is a "trusted provider" to you exactly?
Do you know anything about this or are you blindly assuming age verification platforms must be secure?
@KatelynTweeter It's crazy to me that we can't all just agree that religion is a scam with no evidence.
It's often the pro-forced birthers without critical thinking skills.
@JackieD86388657 The irony is that you've a greater chance of a GE if Burnham wins than if he loses.
It's still almost zero, but you're just lying to make yourselves feel better.
@CYoung33937@GorkaPintado18@lbrewer190@NHS It's the safe solution, which is the logical solution.
The pharmacy made an error, not reissuing medication which has left their possession and could have had anything happen to it is safe.
All you idiots would be up in arms if a pharmacy did this and someone got seriously ill.
@GorkaPintado18@lbrewer190@NHS Throwing away medication which may be tampered with or have reduced efficacy for the subsequent person prescribed it.
Yes, it is. Moron.
@JoeDeezy13@lessgunk@xonphused When you're lying about there being evidence for your magic sky man, that's where the issue is.
Accept the reality that it's a belief system based on circular evidence which always returns to "Well, the bible says..."
Believe quietly or provide solid evidence.
@imario2@userds5050@lbrewer190@NHS Do you think the seal is this mystical force that can't be bypassed?
It's one layer of protection for a product that requires certainty of its safety and handling to dispense.
This isn't a hard concept.
@duncangregory65@lbrewer190@NHS So you admit it's logical. Great. If you want abrasive, stick that Israel flag up your arse.
"Anti-woke, unapologetic, toxic male" - Yet here you are crying about abrasiveness and disrespect, shut the fuck up ๐คฃ pathetic fragile wimp.
@imario2@lbrewer190@NHS Tamper seals don't make it impossible for medication to be tampered with.
When you have a product that can quite clearly be a case of life or death, a pharmacy would be moronic to trust it.
@SEANfromALTY@scottygb ... And the Telegraph criticised them for doing exactly that in 2010, now they're criticising them for not doing it.
Is reading difficult for you?
@LK_gardens@BuenoForMiami@NYFilmFan You are quite literally mutilating a penis to avoid the 'risk' of something happening that can easily be prevented by practising basic hygiene.
So no, it's not ludicrous. What's ludicrous is thinking it's an acceptable course of action without specific medical need.
@LK_gardens@BuenoForMiami@NYFilmFan There's also a minor risk that the circumcision could lead to complications. Therefore it isn't always positive in favour of circumcision.
Preventative surgery for a problem that likely won't exist is unnecessary, we don't shave hair to prevent lice despite a higher prevalence.
@LK_gardens@BuenoForMiami@NYFilmFan In populations with basic hygiene, the differences in infection rates are minor. Routine circumcision isn't done in the UK and we aren't rife with infections.
It's an entirely apt comparison, an extreme preventative surgical measure in the name of 'hygiene'. Illogical.
@LK_gardens@BuenoForMiami@NYFilmFan You can be perfectly clean without a circumcision.
Shall we remove fingertips to avoid having to clean under nails? Remove teeth to aid oral hygiene? Amputate earlobes to aid cleaning?
Or teach kids personal hygiene rather than elective surgery?
@LK_gardens@BuenoForMiami@NYFilmFan If a parent wanted a child to have Botox, breast implants, lip filler or liposuction, you'd be totally on board with that too?
You know, regular 'cosmetic surgeries'. Or do you agree we don't need to be changing the aesthetics of children, especially not their genitals?