There's HTTPS and it's free.
If we use some codes that indicates us, like hex codes with 16 length or something like that each person generated it somehow, that problem will be resolved too.
Somebody else can submit a premise or argument on behalf of your profile.
This is irrelevant. You can submit your premise without your cookies too. Let's imagine, you just need to type your username in the "submit-a-new-premise" form in this website (arguman.org), and argument will be sent for your username.
You generate the ads basically. They are shown based on your preferences. If you install an ad-sanitizer or something like that, that problem will be resolved too.
the main argument and this premise would be meaningless.
you need to heavily moderate the content for; - advertisements - predominance of majority which needs moderation account that leads to authentication
If we make them editable by everybody connected to the page, there will be no need for an authentication. As same as in wikipedia.
Bruh, just look at a dictionary. It's a word with multiple acceptable definitions. So it just depends on how you define gender, and oftentimes people differentiate it from biological sex. Almost everybody will agree with you if you argue 2 biological sexes, so if that's what you mean just be clear.
Holy shit you guys are stupid
由於香港地小山多,只有這個方法才能大量造地
"When we forget pain, or underestimate it, or talk about people 'getting used to it', we are really so far losing sight of what the universe, which we wish to conceive adequately, really is."
Negative utilitarianism is a form of negative consequentialism that can be described as the view that people should minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or that we should minimize suffering and then, secondarily, maximize the total amount of happiness. *Negative Utilitarianism*
gpoempo derived from mpoempo ieskipieski compound with diezieski and diezieski nüöbæegśi derived from nøebiegśi