So I wonder… Are the same people who call you a pedophile for not being okay With Big Mouth on the air… will they also call you a pedophile for calling for this show to be pulled?
Oh yeeeah, 11 year old tight asses wiggled around, unf! No no no, it's not pedophilia, it's humm, being progressive!
Seriously, *they* need to soften the population, in the era of internet too many things can be discovered. In order to enjoy the next pedo island sans the possible scandals and jailtime, they just need to make child sex more accepted by people.
Let's not forget that in the 60's - 70's at least in Europe (dunno about USA), prominent people were advocating for legalising pedophilia. It's not something that "could never happen".
What you perl clutching conservatives and woke liberals are missing is that this is a french movie from a woman whose stated purpose was to teach people that they need to stop making value judgements based on their own ideas and just listen to the children.
The whole point of the movie is that the Muslim parents were trying to tell her how to live and society was trying to tell her how to live but the only thing that the girls on the team cared about was that they were friends having fun.
By getting all butt-hurt that they are dancing or trying to force your religious ideals on the companies that stream the movie you are demonstrating EXACTLY what the problem is she is trying to highlight: To a child, twerking is not sexual, it's just dancing. It's just fun.
If you aren't a pedophile it shouldn't be sexual to you either. So all you people freaking out - You have a problem.
And you seem to think real things are imaginary.
It's like when there evidence is clear & right in front of you yet you act like it's not even there.
Also … why does my being a Christian trigger you so much? >>3585454
Is there a way to promote that same or a similar message WITHOUT twerking 11 year old girls? Pretty sure there is.
Once again you're making the argument that if you have an issue with sexualization of children then You're the pedo?
That makes no sense at all.
The diet of fully debunked Fox News talking points that you base your life on are not evidence.
The person who shot the film in the first place is making the argument that adults forcing adult standards on children, be it religious or sexual, is a problem.
Children are innocent. They are just dancing. They just doing gymnastics. They are just swimming in a pool but all of these things can be considered "Sexualized" activities by pearl clutching conservatives because those conservatives see children as sexual.
>>3585454>To a child, twerking is not sexual, it's just dancing. It's just fun.
That's exactly WHY it's wrong. Children are young, naive, and can't always tell when they're being exploited. Twerking is objectively sexual. It is wrong to sexuality kids. This isn't a religious ideal, and any culture who disagrees with it can fuck off back to where it came from until it matures enough to interact with civilized ones.
If this was just kids acting amongst themselves, fine whatever, but they're being put on display for adults, encouraged by adults.
It's fucking post modernist retardation, thinking all cultures are valid, that it's just another point of view that's equally valid to your own. No, fuck off, you're wrong.
You can take your test and shove it straight up your ass. This isn't just "gymnastics" this is twerking.
If anything our kids getting aren't ENOUGH exercise. Gymnastics is fine, swim team is fine, but we're not talking about swim teams or competitive gymnastics, or soccer league here… We're talking about literally explicitly sexualized dance moves.
WHY push these ideas on kids? I mean hell we have people on this board already placing bids wich one's hotter & you're acting like it just "doesn't exist" and we just "accept it" and act like nothings happening & we're just "imagining things".
Sometimes I think you people are literally evil. No amount of evidence is ever good enough. Not even when it's right in front of your faces.
The only reason people like this is because it's made by a niggress. (or if they're a pedo).
If this was made by a white man it would've been cancelled in an hour by the hypocritical SJW cuntfucks.
Okay, so from this interview excerpt by the film maker, it appears to be more about the exploitation of naive children and >>3585454
is just retarded.
>During my research, I saw that all these young girls I’d met were very exposed on social media. And with new social codes, the ways of presenting yourself change. I saw that some very young girls were followed by 400,000 people on social media and I tried to understand why. There were no particular reasons, besides the fact that they had posted sexy or at least revealing pictures: that is what had brought them this “fame.” Today, the sexier and the more objectified a woman is, the more value she has in the eyes of social media. And when you’re 11, you don’t really understand all these mechanisms, but you tend to mimic, to do the same thing as others in order to get a similar result. I think it is urgent that we talk about it, that a debate be had on the subject.
Looks like the film maker succeeded in starting a debate!>>3585454
To a child, poledancing in a private booth with a grown up wouldn't be sexual either. And it's AOK so long as the dude doesn't touch her!
Yeah… no, just no.
>>3585482> The only reason people like this is because it's made by a niggress.
I believe the politically correct term is "nigger sow".
I bet the Twitter MAPs are going nuts right now.
"MAP" = "Minor attracted person". This is how pedos identify themselves to other pedos on Twitter.
>>3585454>The whole point of the movie is that the Muslim parents were trying to tell her how to live and society was trying to tell her how to live but the only thing that the girls on the team cared about was that they were friends having fun.
Muslims fuck kids. Their prophet fucked kids. They bring that to western countries. ((((media))) makes movies about fucking kids.
>If you're against fucking kids, you're an islamaphobe!
>>3585471>Children are young, naive, and can't always tell when they're being exploited.
Kids, no matter what they are doing or wearing or saying, are in no way arousing to normal people.
You see them dancing as "exploitation" because you find it arousing.
In the same way, no one looks at a shoe and gets a raging hard-on unless they have a weird foot-fetish. It's just a shoe to everyone else.
The fact you think it is scandalous proves that you
have the problem, not the kids.
>>3585476>They invited kids to go topless!!
Yes, because boys go topless all the time and if you are a trans-person who wants to experience life as a boy and be accepted as a boy, they wanted you to be able to do that.
I realize now that you must have been one of those fat kids who always wore a shirt in the pool to cover up your man-titties and that's why you find the idea so shocking.
>>3585477>Sometimes I think you people are literally evil. No amount of evidence is ever good enough. Not even when it's right in front of your faces.
No one cares. We don't care if people are gay or bi, or trans or sexually identify as an pansexual attack helicopter. No one cares!
We do us. They do them. Everyone can find someone to be happy with. Your problem is that you think everyone should be as hateful and judgemental as you.
That's why the world doesn't make any sense to you. You're the only one running around with a heart full of hate and anger while the rest of us just have better shit to do with our lives than care who sticks their dick in which hole.
That's like saying it's possible to have sex with them without it being sexual to them. That's the fucking problem, you pedo apologist.
Fucking dances where you gyrate your hips and pelvis are inherently sexual. Makeup designed to simulate arousal is inherently sexual. Mimicking the motion of sucking a dick is inherently sexual.
These aren't things that are up for debate. They are not up to the perception of each individual viewer. They are inherently sexual, and the fact that the kids are being encouraged to do these actions without that understanding is abuse.
>>3585519>That's like saying it's possible to have sex with them without it being sexual to them.
Are you having a conversation with the voices in your head again? That made no sense.
>Fucking dances where you gyrate your hips and pelvis are inherently sexual. Makeup designed to simulate arousal is inherently sexual. Mimicking the motion of sucking a dick is inherently sexual.
Listen to you, you sound like a Q-anon nutjob. THERE ARE SECRET MEANINGS IN EVERYTHING!!! IT'S ALL A PLOT TO PROGRAM EVERYONE TO BE PEDOPHILES!!! HYPNOTIC HIP MOVEMENTS AND MIND CONTROL MAKEUP!!!
Stop being retarded. Just stop.
To normal people nothing
a child does is sexually appealing.
They could twerk naked, covered in oil, while deep-throating a banana and it wouldn't be sexual because normal people don't see them as sexual beings. That's a you
>>3585520>ad hominem from a retard
If you need clarification, just ask.
>They could twerk naked, covered in oil, while deep-throating a banana and it wouldn't be sexual because normal people don't see them as sexual beings. That's a you problem.
The actions themselves are sexual, and they should not be performed by children, let alone for it be encouraged for children to do by adults and for the entertainment of adults.
I'll repeat that again because you are slow. The actions themselves are sexual. It doesn't matter who or what performs the action. Things that should not be sexualised should not be performing these actions.
They're only sexual because YOU view them as sexual. If YOU think it's a sexual thing then hate to tell you, you're a pedo too.
Go drown in the contents of the pony cum jar, 3B
>>3585528>Twerking is inherently sexual kids shouldn't be allowed to do it!
Really? All twerking is sexual? All Twerking turns you on? Want to test that? https://youtu.be/jYeoE_xoy4w?t=1
This twerking isn't sexy to you because you don't have a clown fetish. Children twerking are sexual to you because you do have a child fetish.
That video gave me a clown fetish tbh.
No, retard. Just because something is sexual doesn't mean it turns everybody on. That doesn't mean it isn't sexual.
Are you turned on by anal fisting? For the sake of argument, lets say you don't. Would you then deny that fisting is sexual then?
Actually thinking further, I'd say you prove my point even more.
Twerking clowns make you uncomfortable for the same reason twerking kids would make normal people uncomfortable, because it sexualizes something that is not supposed to be sexy.
It is the jarring connection between clowns and sex that provokes a response here.
>>3585520>To normal people nothing a child does is sexually appealing.
Interesting. There are normals and abnormals.
I suppose you'll tell us that pedophilia is caused by a defective gene and so is a birth defect ; because any other cause would make your argument wrong.
If people can become pedophiles, say from watching too much lolicon mangas and sliding down the slope to consumption of real photographs of children rape, then your argument is crap.
>>3585570>Are you turned on by anal fisting? For the sake of argument, lets say you don't. Would you then deny that fisting is sexual then?
Yes, now you are starting to see the truth. Anal fisting isn't sexual to most people, only to people who have a weird fetish for it.
In the same way clowns and kids twerking is not at all sexual because we don't have a fetish for kids or clowns.
>>3585571>Twerking clowns make you uncomfortable for the same reason twerking kids would make normal people uncomfortable
Again, your projecting your
feelings onto everyone else. Most people just find a twerking clown funny or stupid. Most people don't have a fear of clowns so they don't get repulsed by them twerking. That's a YOU
thing just like being turned on by kids twerking is a YOU
Most people are not like you. People are not uniform. We don't think like you or feel like you. We have our own opinions and standards and the majority of people don't get turned on by kids - ever.
>>3585582>I suppose you'll tell us that pedophilia is caused by a defective gene and so is a birth defect… scientists are still arguing over it but for the most part, yes.
There have been too many studies where male children of pedophiles have never even known their father but turned out to be pedophiles just like dear, old dad.
Most researchers will agree there is likely some biological component to pedophilia. There is just too much evidence to ignore.
Some studies in 2019 showed it may have to do with the development of the brain. Create the right conditions in the brain while it is developing and what would be normal sexual exploration between young people for everyone else becomes the foundation for pedophilia in people with the proper conditions. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0326-0
If a dog humps your leg and you aren't turned on by it, is it not sexual? Is there nothing sexual in nature with a dog trying to have sex with your leg?
The same applies to twerking. Whether or not you recognize it as a sexual display, doesn't change the fact that it is one.
Whether or not you understand or consciously recognize that lipstick is meant to simulate the rush of blood that indicates arousal doesn't change the fact that that is it's purpose and that it is inherently sexual for that reason.
So would you be comfortable around your Grand ma twerking?
What about your boss at work?
That's the same as when faggots tell you that if your uncomfortable with them flaunting there sexuality at you & your family, then you must also be gay.
That argument is shit. Always has been.
>>3585602>If a dog humps your leg and you aren't turned on by it, is it not sexual? Is there nothing sexual in nature with a dog trying to have sex with your leg?
You are proving my point! To you the act of the dog humping your leg isn't sexual. To normal people the dog humping your leg isn't sexual. To the DOG it is sexual because they are trying to establish dominance over you.
In the same way, children being children are just children to everyone else. It's you
who see them as sex objects which is why you get offended.
>>3585604>So would you be comfortable around your Grand ma twerking? What about your boss at work?
I wouldn't care either way because I don't see them as sexual beings. My boss is an old man, my grandmother is an even older woman. I don't have a sexual attraction to either kinds of people.
Do you get it yet? Do you see the pattern? You think kids twirking is something to be upset about because it makes you feel uncomfortable being turned on by kids twirking.
>>3585606> then you must also be gay.
If a gay person being gay in front of you makes you uncomfortable then you are feeling sure something you don't want to feel! To normal people, when we see a gay couple we just don't care because we're not butt-hurt snowflakes like you.
Okay, so lets extend your logic a bit further. So rape is fine then, because if the victim doesn't find it sexual, then how can it be sexual abuse? Rape can only exist if the victim is at least a little in to it.
The act of putting a penis in a vagina isn't sexual if neither party is attracted to the other.
Are those right?
Being gay is fine. No one's talking about that. We're talking about faggots. When people take it the point of absurdity. "Normal people" are bound to feel uncomfortable, sometimes even other gay people.>>3585607
"Normal People" don't mind a dog humping their leg?
What groups are you hanging around where the "normal" reaction to a dog going to town are their leg is to just "let it happen"?
Isn't that where the term "knee jerk reaction" came from in the first place to stuff just like that?
The "knee jerk" reaction to a dog humping your leg is the "jerk your knee" to get'em off.
It's never been "normal" to just let a dog hump your leg.
>>3585610>So rape is fine then, because if the victim doesn't find it sexual, then how can it be sexual abuse?
Congratulations! You just figured out what psychologists have been saying for DECADES. Rape isn't about sex or sexual gratification it's about taking someone's power away from them. It's about vengeance and white-guys with tiny dicks taking out their frustrations on women. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.
Congratulations on finally catching up to 1980s! Keep thinking! We'll make a lefty out of you yet.
>>3585612>"Normal People" don't mind a dog humping their leg?
Normal people don't like it because it gets their clothing dirty and the dog knocks them off balance but it isn't a moral objection. They aren't uncomfortably turned on by the dog humping their leg. They don't start internet crusades to ban all dogs because they don't want to risk a dog jumping on them and people finding out they enjoy it. To normal people it's not a big deal.
In the same way kids twirking isn't a big deal. We don't care. Let the kids have fun. You're the one freaking out about it.
>explore her femininity
Even if you think this show isn't sexually exploitative of little girls, shaking your ass like a fucking hood rat is how girls explore their femininity now? Was ballet and Girl Scouts not good enough? The absolute state of Western Civilization.
>>3585615>Was ballet and Girl Scouts not good enough?
Calm your jimmies white-boy. People still do those things too. Not everyone has to like only the things you like.
So sex isn't inherently sexual by your definition.
I don't think your definition works very well.
If rape was just about power, Bill Cosby wouldn't have stuck his pudding pop in after he drugged those women. Drugging them would have been enough. But according to you it's not even rape, because the women weren't aware of anything sexual happening. Because they were unconscious.
Your problem is you are linking all concepts together without bothering think at all about them with any depth.
Anything that adults do which could be seen as sexual are automatically sexual even if kids are doing it but these concepts do not link together in a healthy, normal mind.
Kids can dress like a hooker and twirk all day long and it's still not sexual unless you see kids as sexual. Most people don't. There is no connection between child and sex so no matter what the child does, it is never sexual.
Because you've twisted the definition of "sexual" in such a way that sex itself isn't always sexual.
Define the word "sexual" please. I need to hear what yours is exactly
>>3585625>Sex isn't a sex act.
According to serial rapists, it's really not. There are some fascinating studies where rapists in prison have talked about what they get out of rape and it wasn't the orgasms. They were addicted to the power.
One man famously described rape as "Trying to beat women to death with his penis because they saw him as ugly."
Several serial rapists have said that they didn't find the rape satisfying unless the woman was crying or unless they could force her to have an orgasm because they know if you can force them to orgasm while you rape them that really
fucks them up for the rest of their lives.
Rape isn't sex, it's violence being done using sex. That's the difference.
>>3585627>Define the word sexual.
I use it in the standard use: activities connected with physical attraction.
Kids dancing doesn't make normal people want to fuck them. Kids dancing also don't make us feel uncomfortable because we have nothing to fear or be ashamed of. We have no urges we are trying to suppress.
If seeing a kid twerking makes you uncomfortable, that discomfort means you feel guilty or self-conscious about how that kid is making you feel attracted to them.
Normal people don't feel that. It doesn't even register for us.
I'm not saying that you're a bad person for feeling repulsed by kids twerking. It's better than getting a raging hard-on and fucking your daughter or something but you also shouldn't drive yourself crazy by expecting everyone else to be as repulsed by it as you are.
Your instinct to protect children from the things you feel is a good instinct but most people don't have those feelings so most people never feel the urge to protect children from them.
of, relating to, or for sex
I assert that twerking is related to sex on the grounds that it is a display of ones hips, a body part generally associated with ones ability to bear children, a signifies of reproductive health.
Therefore, twerking is sexual.
You see the world through this lens where you think everyone is evil because they don't seem to want to protect children from the monsters that lurk in the hearts of men.. but most men don't have a monster.
That's just you and a very small minority who mostly turn out to be republicans because conservatism is based on fear of the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
You are all obsessed with stopping the evil you think is all around you but it's not.
Most people aren't like you. Most people aren't hateful or violent or creepers who get turned on by children and dogs then feel ashamed about it.
That's why no one takes conservatism seriously. You're all trying to slay the dragons that only exist inside yourselves.
>>3585633>I assert that twerking is related to sex on the grounds that it is a display of ones hips, a body part generally associated with ones ability to bear children, a signifies of reproductive health.
By that logic walking, sitting, riding a bike and sleeping are all sexual acts meant to lure you in and make you want to fuck kids.
They aren't. You just want to fuck kids. There is no amount of propriety which will make a kid not attractive to you because you want to fuck kids.
If every kid wore a full-body burka you would start being aroused by burkas because you would imagine what the kids looked like under it.
There is no action or inaction which will prevent a child from turning you on because you're a pedo.
You're a decent pedo who doesn't want to hurt kids, which is great! But obsessing like this isn't healthy for you.
But by your definition any form of attraction causes something to become sexual, does it not? Innocuous walking can be sexual by your definition, can it not?
And I'd agree to a degree, however we have to also consider how often these things occur innocuously as opposed to for purpose of sex.
Bike riding for example, usually not done for the purpose of attracting a mate, although I don't doubt it has happened at some point in time. Not all too sexual, but I mean maybe it's an above zero value.
Twerking however, I would liken to the mating dance of a while animal, an overt display of fertility. Sure, some people probably do it for innocuous reasons, but you can't deny it's sexual nature.
>>3585637>But by your definition any form of attraction causes something to become sexual, does it not? Innocuous walking can be sexual by your definition, can it not?
Any action can sexual when it causes attraction in a person. Yes. That's a
person not everyone.
Again, you are taking concepts which only apply to singular cases and applying them to everyone. But everyone is not the same.
People riding bikes can be sexual for a few people but it won't be for the majority.
Kids twerking can be sexual for a few people but it won't be for the majority.
Anal double-fisting lesbians can be sexual for a few people, but for the majority it won't be.
The majority are very vanilla, simple people.
Fuck wife, make baby, make more baby, die old, surrounded by kids who don't appreciate all the shit you went through for them. This is the life goal of most people. No where in there is room for caring about kids twerking because it's a non-issue for us.
It's not that the world is full of evil who doesn't care if kids get hurt. We just don't see evil everywhere and we aren't on guard for it 24/7 because we don't have those impulses.
Think of it like someone who was in a war. They will come back from war and be constantly on guard for the rest of their life because they have a killer inside them and that fight or flight instinct is always on. They see potential enemies everywhere even when it's just the mail man. To normal people, these soldiers seem disturbed because we can't see what they see.
In the same way, because you are attracted to kids and you don't want to be, you see everything that *might* make people like you feel attracted to kids and you want to kill it dead. You see evil all around you that we just don't see because we don't have those feelings.
It doesn't mean society liked people fucking kids. It doesn't mean that there is a grand conspiracy. It just means most people don't understand what it's like to feel like you feel so they see your fear of anything that might trigger you as some kind of conservative hysteria.
I've worked a lot with homeless vets and conservatives have a lot in common with them. Both groups live in fear of enemies which only exist in their mind.
I some times think that's why the left seems to alien to conservatives. We don't live in fear. We embrace facts and truth and reality and when something is bad we try to fix it, we don't hide from it.
That kind of life would be absolutely terrifying to your average Trump voter who just wants all the bad things in life to magically go away because the orange man said so.
Your problem is your bombing this debate.
You keep trying to feed us these mental gymnastics to weasel out of admitting that children are being increasingly more sexualized & pedos are absolutely loving it.
You're projecting so hard & every one can see it.
You've gotten to the point where you've pretty much said
If you're uncomfortable with Grandma twerking & giving lap dances in front you…. this basically means you want to fuck grandma.
And flat out said… Rape apparently isn't even a sexual act.
So Here's a fucking essay to explain why up is down & down up.>>3585636
& now you're at the point where literally any one who sees through your bullshit is apparently also a pedo? >>3585639 >Kids twerking can be sexual for a sh few people but it won't be for the majority.
YEAH… and that's why a lot of people are like HEY WE DON'T LIKE THIS. Get this off our netflix. >>3585641
I some times think that's why the left seems to alien to conservatives.
You don't seem "Alien" you seem arrogant brain washed fat huffing petulant assholes. People are getting sick of your shit. I was lefty to for a long time, but me & many many others are waking up & because your hypocrisy has become so blatant we can't ignore it any more.
>We don't live in fear.
The hell you don't! That's all you people do is act afraid. All day every day. Fear & pomposity. What the fuck do you think is up with all this protesting and rioting & tearing down local businesses & public monuments is form? FUCKING FEAR. People AFRAID that Trump is going to be the next Hitler. You're afraid of flags, "offensive" squiggles, of hats, of people challenging your world view. It's why their critics so often get shut down & deplatformed before they've even had a chance to speak.
>We embrace facts and truth and reality
You embrace emotional platitudes,
Lies that make you feel better
and a false reality of perpetual victim hood & shitty ideas that don't work.
>and when something is bad we try to fix it.
When something is bad, it seems like you go out of your way to make it worse.
we don't hide from it.
Says the people who invented the college "safe space". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiighhhht.
>>We don't live in fear. We embrace facts and truth and reality and when something is bad we try to fix it, we don't hide from it.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Thanks, best laugh I've had all day!!!
Not sure why you're replying at me with that.
Sorry it was meant as a reply to >>3585542
How is that a mic drop if you don't drop the mic.
Ha "vets" they're just mass murders by another name.
>>3585669>YEAH… and that's why a lot of people are like HEY WE DON'T LIKE THIS.
And you are welcome to whine about it all you want but your tiny minority of pedos who feel guilty because you get a hard on from children twerking aren't very likely to convince them to cancel the show. You would need some kind of force you could activate to help you, some kind of organized group of fanatics, one might call it a culture of cancellation.
Being afraid of dangerous, violent, thugs is sane. But if you notice, she is up in his grill telling him how it is because she doesn't live in fear, she faces it. She has balls way bigger than most conservatives.
She's all up in his grill telling him "how it is" because she's there backed by everyone else at the demonstration.
It doesn't a large amount courage to stand up to person who isn't even being particularly threatening especially when your backed by a huge crowd of people.
If she's acting like that & telling him she's afraid of hats & going off on these nonsensical tirades about how we should pay more attention to emotion rather than logic and facts…
… she is clearly afraid and she's loosing her grip on reality.
>>3585690>She's all up in his grill telling him "how it is" because she's there backed by everyone else at the demonstration.
And so was he. He had people on his side as well, what's your point?
She's right, those hats are the new KKK hood. People stay away from anyone who wears one because it's a sign of mental instability to put one of those on your head.
A clear sign of mental instability is being a afraid of a hat.
A clear sign of mental instability is initiating violence over a hat.
A clear sign of mental instability is claiming that
>Rape is not a sexual act. >Normal are okay with a dog humping their leg.>If you're uncomfortable with kids being sexualized it means your a pedophile.
Bro YOUR mentally instability.https://youtu.be/JLGZ-M9qsIs
i'd bone every single one of them except the first one. nigga thats a potato.
And hey, it's not pedophilia if the kids aren't in to it. It's just violence akin to giving them a black eye or something.
They aren't afraid of the hat. They are afraid of the kind of people willing to put on the hat. Just like you are afraid of the kind of people who are willing to fly the flag of ISIS.
Wearing a MAGA hat shows the world who you are, a dangerous, mentally unstable, moron. You are either a rabid racist yourself or you think hanging out with rabid, racist, man-pigs is cool.
Either way, no one wants to be around you. Your kind are not welcome in America. We've had three wars about this, you lost them all.
Kill all liberals, for all liberals are pedophiles
>>3585723>Kill all liberals, for all liberals are pedophiles
you misspelled libertarians
libertarian pedos too, sure
but its liberals trying to push this. normalize it.
You both misspelled communists.
Yeah… Glad you share'd that. I'm glad you agree with me.
>A clear sign of mental instability is being a afraid of a hat.
>A clear sign of mental instability is initiating violence over a hat.
So at least we can agree on that much. Just like some one who attacks Sikhs over a hat,
attacking some one over a hat … is a clear sign of mental illness. Good to see we're on the same page.>>3585721>They aren't afraid of the hat. They are afraid of-
So … basically …. they're still afraid… of people… wearing the hat… So it's still the fact that hat is being worn… it's … still the hat that induces the fear & they're still afraid.
A fear that is not grounded reality but perception. Is called an irrational fear & is clear sign of mental ill
3 wars? Not Sure what you're talking about. I'd assume you mean the WW2 & American Civil war not sure what the third one is, but I wasn't alive or participated in either of those. Attributing your critics to invisible enemies in wars long since passed. This is also clear sign of mental illness. You know who else lost a war & big time? The Native Americans… lol.
The way you people just assume your mental illness is the norm is another sign of mental illness. It's also ironic that you chose a gif of a guy flailing wildly at work and yelling at a co worker to demonstrate just how not mental ill you are.
Gladly. You see … An Authoritarian regime cannot prosper under our constitution as it stands today. There are to many checks and balances. Too many institutions in place to keep the other institutions from gaining to much power over the people and over on another.
How do Authoritarians resolve this? Our system of checks and balances must be eliminated. There can no longer be a 2 party system.
You take a dominate narrative and push it to it's extreme. Incite division discontent and chaos. Create a problem, provide the solution… Push that the only solution is violent revolution. Take over the state & then put greater & greater power in the hands of the state & say that it's the will of the people. You disarm the public & empower criminals.
Liberals are easily offended, short sided, & easy to manipulate.
Communist know this & use it to their full advantage. People generally hate Nazis. They are the Archetypal societal boogie men, so you simple have to attribute anyone who questions the dominate narrative to said Boogiemen & normalize political violence towards dissenters.
We've seen this happen time and time again & now it's happening in the U.S.
We're at the messy violent revolution stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og
There was a time when I thought this was cartoon was old fashioned and out of touch. Seeing the where we are, I think it is possible more relevant today than ever before.
The fact you think Anti-fascists support China, Cuba and totalitarian communist states, of any kind shows how detached from reality you are.
>>3585794>How do Authoritarians resolve this? Our system of checks and balances must be eliminated. There can no longer be a 2 party system.
You mean like literally sending in troops to overthrow cities, murder civilians, and take your political enemies out of power by labeling them terrorists? That kind of totalitarian solution because that's what Trump is doing right now.
Do I think a group of communist revolutionaries would support communist shitholes? Yes.
Antifa is a name, not an accurate description of their goals.
>>3585806>The fact you think Anti-fascists support China, Cuba and totalitarian communist states, of any kind shows how detached from reality you are.
That's only because YOU think they share the same idea about these assholes as you do. You can't believe any sane and rational, well-informed people could condone such regimes - and you think antifa are sane, rational and well-informed. Ergo, antifa does not support China, Cuba, and the rest.
The problem is that the antifa does not share your thoughts. These people idolize these regimes not because of what they are, but what they represent: anti-western, anti-capitalism. These people are not operating on a level of reality, but on a level of idealistic symbolism. The reality of oppression and real fascism in these countries is either fascist propaganda, or justified through some rhetorical gymnastics, or just inconvenient details to be swept under the carpet. After all, in the US you beat negroes!
They are willfully ignorant just like the person who wears a Che Guevara shirt they bought from a fashion store, for a political statement.
Or, before you even get to the point of conversation about whether China is evil, you're called a fascist and beaten down to the curb for the possibility that you might conflict their narrative.
Yeah… Like sending in Black Bloc Antifa/BLM rioters to come in to tear down cities & Federal Court houses & businesses large & small & try to blind the police, throwing molotov cocktails & firecrackers & otherwise trying to murder them & rioting for months on it.
When a group does things like that… Yeah… ya know… they tend to labelled as terrorist, because that's exactly the kind of thing Terrorists do.
And then when the Law enforcement respond … AT ALL… narrative from people like you is
"OMG! LOOK HOW OPPRESSED WE ARE! HOW CAN THEY LABEL THEM AS TERRORISTS?"
>>3585812>These people idolize these regimes not because of what they are, but what they represent: anti-western, anti-capitalism.
You keep saying this but it's not supported by any actual truth. It's just propaganda you keep hearing from other people like you who repeat it because they heard it from people like you.
It's a circle of bullshit you all keep telling each other. I doubt any of you have ever once had a real conversation with an Antifa activists much less gotten a group consensus on issues.
Stop believing everything you read in conspiracy rags online. Antifa are not communists. Black people are not violent thugs. Joe Biden is not a socialist. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to end capitalism.
The level of delusion on the right is just staggering.
You would think that by now, after all this time, 3B would finally realize that his lies don't work.
I'm posting from my cell phone right now, when I get home tonight I will post easily-found pictures and videos of groups of Antifa waving the hammer-and-sickle communist flag, Joe Biden openly admitting that he is a socialist, and violent negroes boasting out the brains of 5 year old white toddler boys for no reason.
>>3585870>when I get home tonight I will post easily-found pictures and videos of groups of Antifa waving the hammer-and-sickle communist flag…
Ok, let's play that game then. You think all Antifa are communists because you once saw someone waving a communist flag. So, by that logic all right-wingers are Nazi and KKK right?
After all, there is hardly ever a right-wing event, including Trump rallies, where there isn't someone wearing a swastika and/or a KKK hood.
You throw a tantrum like a baby when we say you're all racists because you side with racists but then you say we are all communists because some communists support left-wing policies.
So which is it? Are you all Nazi? Are you all racists? Are you all KKK? For the absolutism to be true for our side it has to be true for your side as well.
You can't have it both ways, Karen.
>>3585816>When a group does things like that… label them terrorists.
Tell you what, you can label Antifa as terrorists right after you do the same for the proud boys, every one of those red-neck armed militia groups who show up to terrorize people about mask laws, abortion clinics, or protecting confederate monuments.
Oh, what's that? You don't want to label those people who are actually MURDERING people as terrorists?
Don't worry, if Trump declares Antifa terrorists now we'll do the proud boys and the rest when Biden wins.
Go ahead, pop that cherry. See what happens. Republicans always open Pandora's Box and Democrats always use it to destroy them. You guys are so fucking stupid it's comical.
>>3585875>Ok, let's play that game then.
Play that game? YOU'VE BEEN PLAYING THAT GAME! What the hell are you even talking about? So basically by admitting Antifa is a Anarcho-communist terrorist organization, You're going to what?
Do the same thing you've been doing since 2016 any ways?
YOU'RE ALREADY PLAYING IT. The hell are you even talking about?
Almost every article I've read traces Antifa's roots back communism & BLM has GONE ON RECORD as saying that they are trained Marxist.
They are both VERY CLEARLY communistic in nature.
>>3585876>Tell you what, you can label Antifa as terrorists right after you do the same for the proud boys, every one of those red-neck armed militia groups who show up to terrorize people about mask laws, abortion clinics,
You mean the actual peaceful protest? The one's without damage or person?
>or protecting confederate monuments.
Equates protecting monuments authorized and approved by city & state governments as "terrorism" but smashing windows and burning down federal court houses isn't… funny how that works.
>Oh, what's that? You don't want to label those people who are actually MURDERING people as terrorists?
Murdering people? You mean people standing in traffic? WHO?!? Who was murdered exactly? Besides people standing in the way of vehicles?
You mean then shootings carried out by lone crazy people? Sorry Not Sorry, but a lone gunmen acting out of their own accord and going on shooting rampage is not the same as group of people that actively promotes & engages in, and initiates political violence.
>>3585966>Almost every article I've read traces Antifa's roots back communism..
>Almost every article I've read.
Have you tried reading something that wasn't from a right-wing gossip rag? How about, and I know this is a wild idea for you, you look at events and judge for yourself without having someone tell you what to think?
Objectively, you are wrong.
BLM and antifa are not a communist or Marxist movement. It is a movement about ending the abuse of American citizens at the hands of a violent government. Something I would think you could get behind.
For some reason you are willing to call the people protesting the unlawful execution of citizens by a corrupt government terrorists when we do it but if the government tells a farmer he can't let his cattle graze on government land for free and he gets together a militia to SHOOT AT FEDERAL AGENTS you call that guy a hero.
I wonder what the one difference is between the people you call patriots and the people you call terrorists.
Hmmm.. let me think.
Ironic you'd use a Sith Twi'lek to represent how you're one of the "Good guys". Says a lot about your state of mind.
I'm getting the impression they don't actually "Hate Nazi's" or "Hate Fascists". That's just they're goto guise to justify anything they want.
It seems like that what they actually hate is peace & a functional society. They're bored, & desperately crave validation, since their are not enough Nazi's, KKK and white supremacist to go around & since these are types are already the archetypal boogie men they just figure fuck it. Let's just take it to the next level & see how far we can take it.
>>3585974>It seems like that what they actually hate is peace & a functional society.
So your hypothesis is that everyone who isn't a mindlessly obedient worker who will accept any abuse the government throws at them must
by mentally ill?
You are the king of cucks. I have never met someone who wants to be told what to do and think more than you.
You can't for even a SECOND think for yourself and I bet I know why. You have fucked up your life so hard, failed everyone around you so often, you would rather be a slave than take responsibility for your own life like an adult.
>>3585974>Ironic you'd use a Sith Twi'lek to represent how you're one of the "Good guys"
Actually I just thought she was hot eye-candy but since we are talking about her let's use her as an example. She and her master as Sith and I assume they have lots of other people who work with them to achieve their goals but those people are not Sith. Some are bounty hunters, some just want power and so forth and so on.
Just because someone works with
a Sith doesn't make them a Sith just as BLM protestors standing beside a group of A.C.A.B. communists in a shield wall doesn't make them members of A.C.A.B. or communists.
Some times, people who don't agree 100% on everything do work together to achieve a goal they both agree on.
I know that seems unthinkable to you, because you're in a cult that demands 120% loyalty, but normal people, who aren't in a cult, work together for mutual interests all the time without needing to be in totalitarian lockstep.
>>3585973>Is it because I'm black?
No… it's because you LIE. You lie to yourself, to everyone else, you believe in lies, you eat sleep and breadth lies. Lying is your goto play card. I know you're lying, you know you're lying, everyone else knows you're lying. But even when the lie is plane as the nose on your face you keep up the facade regardless.
Take this hot dog. This is not how you make a hot dog. No one in their right mind would a serve a hot dog like this to another person unless they were deliberately trying to get a reaction.
BUT (the modern day liberal may argue) why not? Only a bigot would act like they KNOW how a hot dog should look.
Who's to say if there is objective standard. How long have we been held down be our fascist societal standards of hot-dog preparation.
Even though we all know … this is NOT how to prepare a hot-dog.
Every time a lie is debunked, tell two lies, when those are debunked tell 4, then 8 and keep going until your enemy just can't keep up any more.
>BLM leaders have stated on record they are trained Marxist. WE KNOW they are … doesn't matter just keep lying about it.
>Cuties, rated M for mature audiences. A movie about 11 year old girls… exploring their sexuality despite their families values… seems like something a pedophile would approve of… There are known pedophiles on netflix staff this is ALSO on record. How you respond? You lie and dream up this long non-since explanation that we can all see right through.
Yeah that's another common tactic. They like take something you say and completely misinterpret it and then say something completely different than what actually said, then say that this new thing is what you actually said. No, I'm saying you're a lair and we can all see it.
So how exactly would you have me "take responsibility for my own life like an adult"?
Join the fight to tear down America? Pierce my face, dye my hair, dress in black bloc & smash out some windows?
Spray paint some buildings?
Yeah…. that doesn't seem very responsible or adult to me. >>3585977>Just because someone works with a Sith doesn't make them a Sith
It makes them an extension of the sith agenda… stop lying.
> just as BLM protestors standing beside a group of A.C.A.B. communists in a shield wall doesn't make them members of A.C.A.B. or communists.
Wait… A.C.A.B is a slogan, it's not a group or movement. BLM is a movement, it has leaders & organizers. Antifa is a movement, it has leaders and Organizers however disorganized and autonomous they may be. A.C.A.B is just slogan & common graffiti tag.
>because you're in a cult that demands 120% loyalty
What cult I am in? what the fuck are you even talking about? I'm a guy, I'm not a "member of 4chan" or "member of Anonymous" or "Registered Republican"
What "cult" exactly do think I'm in that demands my total loyalty?
>>3585978>Even though we all know … this is NOT how to prepare a hot-dog.
This is not how you
prepare a hotdog, true, but why can't
it be how someone else prepares a hotdog?
Does it hurt anyone for the hotdog to be made this way?
It's not the most efficient way to make a hotdog but it's still a hotdog with all the parts of a hotdog.
See, you are illustrating your problem. You think what you consider correct is the ONLY acceptable way to do things.
You scream about how SJW and establishment democrats want to make everyone be like them but that's also what you do.
You want your cult's teachings to be the only teachings. You want the world to be subservient to your cult because in a world where whiteness give you inherent value it makes you ever so slightly better than the minorities.
You'll be a willing slave to the wealthy above you in the hierarchy if it means you get to make slaves out of people bellow you in the hierarchy.
That's why the left pisses you off so much, we don't want anyone to be slaves and that is just inconceivable to you.
>>3585982>What cult I am in? what the fuck are you even talking about?
You think you're not in a cult? So far this month you have said that America is being overtaken by pedophiles, communists, BLM, Antifa, and everyone who you don't like should be labeled a terrorist group.
You get a hard on for the idea of a second civil war where you can go out and murder commies.
You probably are at least 30% sure that Covid19 is caused by cell towers. You don't think it is, but you're not willing to rule it out because you keep hearing people say it might be true.
You're on board for letting Covid run wild and kill 2%-5% of America so we can develop "Herd Immunity" even through you're not sure that's really a thing but the idea of all those people dying makes you think that maybe the world would be a better place.
You are, in every way, detached from reality and you don't want to change. You LIVE for conspiracy theories. You are in a death cult. You want people to die. You want to kill them.
You THRIVE on feeling like a victim.
As long as you feel like a victim you can use it to justify being cruel to other people and you would rather be dead than a decent human being.
That is who you are.
No harm in doing your hot dog any way you like. Just don't scream that you are oppressed when people don't recognise a hotdog and refuses to call it that.
Stonetoss is wrong about that one, and I remember that I already explained to you the whole being gay thing.
Being gay is related to womb hormones and comes from the brain wiring, also known as the fraternal birth order effect (more male offspring from same father increase the chance of homosexuality).
This is a population control and genetic diversity control (aka reducing inbreeding) mechanism that allows for flexibility (no males vs males that can reproduce but choose not to).
This mechanism is older than humans, even older than mammals.
You DON'T choose being gay, it's somewhat common (~2-5%) and it has nothing to do with abuse.
I don't know a single person that has been sexually abused as a child, but I know several gay people. And I'm gay, and guess what, I haven't been abused either.
I'm not in a death cult & I don't celebrate violence.
But was I wrong? Is getting shot not what happens when fuck with people with guns?
Guess the easy solution to that is take away all the guns then. Then you can believe this AND also not be in a death cult.
>>3586015> and everyone who you don't like should be labeled a terrorist group.
Not what I said.
>You get a hard on for the idea of a second civil war where you can go out and murder commies.
Projection much? I'd really things to remain calm, but God damn, These people won't stop rioting and antagonizing people and businesses. I'm not happy about it, but yeah, we are clearly being pushed into a conflict.
>You probably are at least 30% sure that Covid19 is caused by cell towers.
That's a lot of assumptions about what I believe. I don't know or care about that. I never mentioned anything of the sort your just piling shit on at this point.
>but the idea of all those people dying makes you think that maybe the world would be a better place.
Once again you're projecting & it's obvious.
>You are, in every way, detached from reality, and you don't want to change. You LIVE for conspiracy theories. You are in a death cult. You want people to die. You want to kill them. You THRIVE on feeling like a victim.
As long as you feel like a victim you can use it to justify being cruel to other people and you would rather be dead than a decent human being. >That is who you are.
Are sure this is me you're talking about not yourself?
>le assmad cunt steals someone else's name to post his butthurt trash
It's either Autismtome or Slutla-Na. Get your throat knelt on.
The majority of the planet earth thinks that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism.
The majority of earth thinks that climate change is real and a crisis.
The majority of earth thinks that socialized medicine like single payer medicare for all is the best way to do healthcare.
The majority of earth thinks black people shouldn't be getting gunned down by racist cops.
The majority of earth thinks that most of what you think is true, is crazy talk, but you look at that, you look this overwhelming tsunami of facts, data, opinion, history, and science and choose to believe that it's all a massive conspiracy and everyone is a liar.
You live in a bubble where all you see is people like you telling you that you're right, it is a conspiracy and you can't even see it.
Poly, you should watch Season 4 Episode 5 of Star Trek the next generation. It's called Remember me.
After you watch it, think about it how it applies to your life.
that's neither a majority of earth or even a majority of the viewers of that trailer
1,300,000 is bigger than 32,000.
The hell are you even talking about?
Cuties can still be awful and bad, and you can still be a terrible person with bad ideas. Neither are mutually exclusive.
approximately 20.1% of the viewers, which is not a majority
Yeah, I know that.
Most people don't leave a like or dislike or comment, they just watch a video and move on to something else.
Most people tend not to provide any input.
But of the people who did leave feedback, the majority left dislikes.
Read the comments if you want.
There are 136,224 Comments do you'll have to excuse me if I didn't read every single on of them. But of the ones I saw on the first page the majority of them are negative.
That doesn't have shit to with shit.
Ad populum, nigger.
if god didn't want children looking so sexy I think she would have told us to put them in burkas
>>3586513>I don't like seeing children sexualized for the same reason Chihuahua Connoisseur does not care to see Chihuahua's sexualized.
you want to keep all the sexy children for yourself?
>>3586517>i am srs post this r srs meme
How about a big ass fucking YES because fuck the world.
>>3586513>blatant attempts at normalizing Pedophilia.
The idea that people can "Normalize Pedophilia" is in and of itself, crazy. It's the same kind of logic that says video games cause mass shootings, horror movies cause stabbings and books cause women to die from overusing their brains.
Through out history there have always been people like you who whine and cry and act like you are on a crusade to save the innocent but you just want to feel better about yourself without facing any real struggle.
You never stand up to real injustice. You never fight real problems. You only pick the battles you think you can win with the least amount of effort.
Pedophilia was seen as normal in the days of the Roman Empire, look it up. So, it has already happened, where a major society found it acceptable, and did not object.
>The idea that people can "Normalize Pedophilia" is in and of itself
you know people regularly married 11 year olds as early as 200 years ago right…And in ancient Rome it was normal for Teachers to have young boys as sexual partners in exchange for mentorship? Absolutely not saying they should have been doing that shit but of course pedophilia has been normalized before and unfortunately could be again.
[b]GET AWAY FROM THE INTERNET!!! I'M CUTTING IT DOWN RIGHT NOW!!!!![/b]
Adult Christians men are marrying 12-year-olds today but it doesn't make it normal or acceptable to society and nothing is going to change that.
>but 200 years ago…
200 years ago people hardly ever lived to be 30 and 1 in 3 women died in childbirth. Life was cheap and people died for reasons people didn't understand seemingly at random. They started breeding as early as they could because the girl might mysteriously drop dead at any time.
We don't have these problems today.
Literally what does your post have to do with mine? You rattled off historical knowledge that any 13 year old knows for what?
The most accurate extrapolation I can come up with is that you're saying lower life expectancies excuses a man being able to ejaculate inside a child for the purposes of reproduction? That's horse shit because you can't force arousal like that. There was also NO necessity to breed. There have been plenty of humans, way more than we need in fact, for 2000+ years.
Want to try again, pedo?
>>3586791> It's the same kind of logic that says video games cause mass shootings, horror movies cause stabbings and books cause women to die from overusing their brains.
NOPE! It's not same at all bro & you know it. You're fucking delusional if you can look at what's happening in the world around bury your head in the fucking sand & act like it's just not happening.
It very clearly is. I act like I'm on a "crusade"? When I see it I'm going to speak up about it. I'm not sure why that bothers you so much or that constitutes as a "crusade". What's pathetic is your attempt to justify sexualizing children with blatantly false equivalency.
I came to this show so many times that my dick went in strike.
Those juicy twerking cunnies are just so hnnnng
Fucking racists are the only ones who don't find these girls hot!
>>3586791>The idea that people can "Normalize Pedophilia" is in and of itself, crazy.
Most people will always have a natural aversion to pedophilia, that is correct. What "normalizing" pedophilia means is allowing the sexualization of children in the media to the point where you're lampshading actual pedophilia.
Basically, a child is not a sexual thing to a normal person. It's just a child no matter how you dress them up, or even if they're nude. However, we know there are people for whom this means something more than just a nude child, which makes them dangerous. Normal people might find it funny or cute, while the pedophile finds it sexually compelling, and one of the best indicator of a pedophilic offenders is collecting such imagery.
When we allow the sexualization of children, we are creating plausible excuses, which allows pedophiles to pass as normal for longer and find more opportunities to molest children.
And does Grand Theft Auto normalize mass murder?
We don't criminalize thought in free countries. We scrutinize and ridicule bad ideas, but we will only disallow or criminalize actions.
>>3592206>And does Grand Theft Auto normalize mass murder?
It doesn't normalize mass murder to the point that we'd be lampshading mass murderers.
>>3592206> we will only disallow or criminalize actions.
Such as distributing real or simulated child porn and child-sexual imagery.
Art = speech = thought
A drawing is merely the expression of an idea. Distributing it is no different than distributing written book.
Don't even try to equate it with actual child abuse or photos taken of actual child abuse.
Furry porn is another great example of a thing that most people don't give a shit about because they don't find it sexual in any way but some people who do find it sexual and that makes them uncomfortable crusade against it.
If you hate furry art, you're a closet furry.
If gay porn offends you, you're a faggot in hiding.
If Cuties makes you uncomfortable, you're a pedo in denial.
It's all the same pattern of behavior.
So is that why Antifa are the way they are?
They're so obsessed with Nazi's because they're closet Nazi's?
Actually, in a way, yes! Antifa see fascism and hate it because they are tired of people oppressing them so they want to oppress the oppressors.
In the case of fighting Nazis though, that's a good thing because if Antifa gets to force it's will on everyone, it means everyone gets treated with respect and dignity and those who don't follow this basic rule get thrown out of society and are forced to go to hell (Florida) to be with the other barbarians.
Both groups want to force their will on others. The Nazi want to do it to hurt people. The Anti-fascists want to do it to stop fascists from hurting people, but both people are forcing their will on the other side.
So in 3B's insane power fantasies, Florida becomes the gulag? lol Why not Alaska where the it gets fucking cold and miserable and there's bears and giant mosquitoes?
>In the case of fighting Nazis though
There are no Nazis. They're all dead now. Antifa are just a bunch of confused children barking at figments of their own imaginations.
>>3592210>Art = speech = thought
Freedom of speech doesn't actually exists in the way you're implying. It's just an argument for not suppressing the discussion before a matter can be decided on.
Distributing child sexual imagery is not an exercise of speech or thought, but merely satisfying your fetish for children. In terms of free speech, distributing the imagery is not even necessary for the argument. Trying to abuse the concept to keep pushing things that people don't want, beyond the point of discussion and argument, is another form of tyranny by disregarding the social contract.
Not being allowed to distribute child sexual imagery is like being shouted down off of your soap box once you've already repeated your speech twice. It's a topic that is thoroughly explored and it always comes down to the point that it shouldn't be allowed, and the only people who disagree are the pedophiles and the nihilists who wish for no rules so they could do whatever they want.
And on the question of going against popular judgement:https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-unhealthy-behaviors-trigger-brain-responses.html>Unhealthy behaviors trigger moral judgments that are similar to the basic emotions that contribute to our ability to survive.>The study, which can be found in Science Advances, shows that unhealthy behaviors trigger brain responses that are similar to those prompted by bad smells.
We are physically and instinctively disgusted by unhealthy behavior, which is why we judge it as immoral. This ability is of course "adjusted" by our genetics, which is why certain individuals can break the rule, but overall the normal moral judgement across the entire society should reflect our evolved sense of survival and millions of years of avoiding unhealthy behavior.
This is why the individual judgement of any one person carries little weight, while the overall judgement of the society is what forms a natural law.
>>3592274>It's just an argument for not suppressing the discussion before a matter can be decided on.
Outside of math, nothing is ever decided on, nothing is above questioning, and even then we still allow people to say dumb shit like 2 + 2 = 5
It is an expression of thought, no different than speech. It doesn't have to express an argument or political opinion to protected. It is protected by mere virtue of being an idea from someone's head, something which directly harms nobody.
Now you can discourage the idea all you want, you can argue the case against it to those who will listen all you want, but you have absolutely no right to prevent someone from expressing an idea or to inhibit anyone from seeing or hearing that idea should they wish to.>>3592275
That rationalizes your position, however it is irrelevant to the argument.
>>3592280>Outside of math, nothing is ever decided on,
Oh, so that's why we don't have any laws or rules whatsoever, because no conclusions can be made on anything. Good to know.
>nothing is above questioning
Again, to question the legality of something doesn't require you to do the illegal.
>, and even then we still allow people to say dumb shit like 2 + 2 = 5
Because it doesn't matter that you're dumb. Lots of people are. Yet when they're criminally dumb, it starts to matter - after all, we don't let any psychopath wander the streets killing people because they're just "expressing themselves". Same thing with pedophiles.
>>3592280>however it is irrelevant to the argument.
No it's not. What you're arguing is that things can never be decided, while I'm saying that you cannot change the fundamental nature of the human species.
Normal people will always find pedophilia to be wrong because it is proven to be unhealthy by millions of years of evolution, and they will find child sexual imagery for the point of porn to be valueless. You will never get the support of the majority, and it will only ever be allowed by accident or negligence, so no matter how much you try to "speak" among your fellow pedophiles by distributing imagery, it is only preaching to the choir.
Continuing on the same point merely proves your insanity. It is like you're a cleptomanic trying to insist that private property doesn't exist just so you wouldn't be jailed and locked up when you practice your compulsion.
On the point of pedophilia itself, there are four general types:
1) The psychopath/sociopath opportunist
2) The mentally retarded/childlike
3) The abused-as-child
4) The "true" pedophile
Type 1 doesn't even use child-sexual content for anything else than deliberate anti-social purposes - because it is forbidden. Type 2 should not be given access to the material because they don't understand why you can't diddle children and you shouldn't give them the idea. Type 3 has ego issues and is ill-served by the normalization of child sexual material because it is playing into their victim/abuser mentality. Type 4 is just compulsively or delusionally interested in children, typically to the point of just playing lip service to society on the point:https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychopathology-and-personality-traits-pedophiles>One finding that has robust support is the tendency toward grossly distorted thinking.3,4,12 Pedophiles commonly experience their sexual urges as ego-syntonic^. Presumably in an effort to justify behavior that is widely socially condemned, pedophiles frequently rationalize, minimize, and normalize their sexual interaction with children, sometimes to the point of delusional ideation. Relatedly, several studies have noted high levels of schizotypal and other cluster A personality traits in this population.
^(ego-syntonic: in harmony with or acceptable to the needs and goals of the ego, i.e. child sexual contact is the goal and desire of their lives.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egosyntonic_and_egodystonic> Many personality disorders are egosyntonic, which makes their treatment difficult as the patients may not perceive anything wrong and view their perceptions and behavior as reasonable and appropriate. For example, a person with narcissistic personality disorder has an excessively positive self-regard and rejects suggestions that challenge this viewpoint. This corresponds to the general concept in psychiatry of poor insight.
In other words, the typical true pedophile has a mental distortion which makes them unable to understand the point of why pedophilia is harmful. It is exactly like having the strongest conviction that 2 + 2 = 5.
Now the question is, does insanity like this fall within the realm of free speech in the first place? If you are talking nonsense, are you saying anything in the first place?
On the point of rationalization and distortion:
> nothing is ever decided on
This is a clear case of what's called a "slothful induction fallacy". It is an example of the kind of mental gymnastics that a pedophile might go through in order to avoid admitting reality, to explain things to be upside down:
>Slothful induction is the exact inverse of the hasty generalization fallacy. This fallacy occurs when sufficient evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is true, but someone fails to acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something unrelated entirely.
In other words, it's the refusal to wake up and smell the coffee, because of some lingering doubt or ambiguity that still remains that could maybe support other conclusions. This also happens when the person has run out of arguments, but wishes to stall the discussion by appealing to technicalities like, "Okay, but really morality is just a social construct so it's not universally wrong to fap to naked children."
Yeah, but you go and try to construct a society where it isn't and report back how it went.
>>3592281>we don't let any psychopath wander the streets killing people because they're just "expressing themselves". Same thing with pedophiles.
See that's an action. We don't punish people for THINKING about killing someone unless they are provably planning to commit the crime. If you were to draw a picture of some fictional person being killed, that's not a crime, nor can it be taken as proof you plan to kill.>>3592288
Nothing is ever decided on *to the point where it is unacceptable to question,* to the point where we deny any new evidence or discussion on the topic.
>>3592289>See that's an action.>>3592209>Such as distributing real or simulated child porn and child-sexual imagery.
>Nothing is ever decided on *to the point where it is unacceptable to question,*
That's changing the argument/backpedaling.To question the legality of something doesn't require you to do the illegal. We can talk about the issue without having to distribute child sexual imagery, which disqualifies the latter as a matter of free speech.
I already replied to that.>>3592210>A drawing is merely the expression of an idea. Distributing it is no different than distributing written book.
It wasn't even a long post. I guess you're too busy fighting a strawman. And don't lump in real child porn with drawings. That's fucking retarded.
>>3592289> If you were to draw a picture of some fictional person being killed, that's not a crime, nor can it be taken as proof you plan to kill.
If you were to draw a picture of some real person being killed AND distributed that picture around, that could be taken as a proof you plan to kill or that you incite others to kill the person. This doesn't necessarily need to involve any particular person; you may for example draw a certain ethnic group of people being killed. Disseminating such pictures could be considered a hate crime or incitement to violence against the group of people.
Now, do you consider children to be real?
I already replied to that. >>3592274>Freedom of speech doesn't actually exists in the way you're implying. It's just an argument for not suppressing the discussion before a matter can be decided on.
Merely repeating an idea is not discussion, just repetition. Your argument might hold once, such that you are not condemned for showing a child sexual image a necessary number of times to make a point.
Continuing to distribute the imagery to people who already agree with you (other pedophiles) no longer falls within the excuse of discussion, argumentation, and free speech, and is merely serving your fetish.
>And don't lump in real child porn with drawings. That's fucking retarded.
For the point of the argument, it doesn't matter how you express your pedophilia. It is not an argument about whether the drawing is of a real subject, but whether we should normalize sexual imagery about children, and the latter is accomplished regardless.
And I already responded to that. We're going in circles. Speech should be free because speech is incapable of causing harm. It doesn't matter if it's political or not.>>3592297
It does matter. One involved the actual harm of children where a crime did take place. The other is merely an expression of an idea.
Now, one could argue that while production of real child porn is a terrible crime, that the possession of it should be legal in the same way a video of a murder is legal to possess. On a level of principle, I may be obligated to argue in favor of the right to possess child porn. Although that's not something I personally care about. I personally don't care to possess it, but how principled would I be if I only argued for things that benefited my interests. Not a hill I'd likely be willing to die on, though. I'm not going to argue that point further, but dispute it if you want.
>>3592297>it doesn't matter how you express your pedophilia.
Would you rather them fuck real kids?
If not, let them have their porn.
You sound like a fan of all things totalitarian. Thought crime, illegal opinions, criminal ideas, dangerous fucking drawings. This is insane.
I do not care to adjust laws and legality of things to my emotions or preferences; thinking on the whole society level, I am a taxpayer and to me the question is always: do I really view something as dangerous enough to finance its repression while foregoing some other goods that can be obtained with the same tax money?
In case of real child rape, I agree to finance the repression. With drawings, opinions, ideas and speech I do not. I honestly do not see how child porn hurts anyone, at least the proof here is so weak and elusive that I simply would rather spend my tax money on other things as opposed to prosecuting child porn possession. By the same logic, I see no point in criminalizing necrophilic porn, documetary war footage or murder videos. Whether someone likes them or not is irrelevant; the only question is, can you conclusively demonstrate they cause any harm I should care about to the point of spending my taxes on repression. The answer is no. Criminalizing child porn because you believe it somehow causes some harm is exactly the same as criminalizing videos showing murder because you believe they cause harm.
Let's be honest, the average person, when thinking about pedos and child porn, is entirely irrational and illogical and wants to ban and prosecute literally anything even remotely reminiscent of these things, just becase. Because emotions. If we apply the same 'logic' to many other things, the inadequcy of such measures is going to be obvious. Yet people do not se this. The whole fuss about pedophilia is not just a subcase of a general approach to dealing with thins at the state level; it is a completely isolated and morally-charged topic in its own right that gets totally divorced from any other topics and issues. We live in a world where pedos and child porn are a subject of mass hysteria akin to witch hunt.
I, however, do not support any moral panics and witch hunt and I see no rational reasons for banning the possesseion of real child porn, to say nothing of goddam drawings. And neither do I agree to criminalize animal sex, corpse-fucking or any depictions thereof.
The difference between a video of a murder and a video of a child being raped is the child grows up, realizes what happened to him or her, and almost certainly wouldn't want to be reminded by a video on the internet showcasing every intimate detail of a scarring event. A dead body, on the other hand, could not care less about videos on the internet. Also, censoring cp removes some of the incentive to make it. Makes it harder to sell, so child molesters can't profit from their crimes.
I don't know about that. Videos of most crimes aren't illegal, nor is it illegal to show them to or by other means remind a victim of a crime of their victimization.
Now sure, protect the child victims while they're still children, but I'm not sure that protection should extend to adulthood on a legal level.
I know the rational for making it illegal, that it "removes the incentive," but why is this different from any other crime? I don't think being sexual is enough, as an individual can sexualize literally anything. That's not a safe distinction to make.
Some people can get off to watching murder. Does that incentivize murder to be committed and videos of it to be sold? What is the difference there as far as incentives go?
>>3592341>Also, censoring cp removes some of the incentive to make it. Makes it harder to sell, so child molesters can't profit from their crimes.
Also, it creates a powerful incentive to produce it and still sell for immense profits precisely because it's illegal and thus hard to produce. Just like drugs.
has a point. I don't see any difference either. Again, it seems people are just triggered by child sex more than by child murder (why?) since videos depicting children being murdered never receive even 1/100 of the attnetion child porn does. The public is disproportionately and inexplicably more triggered by anything sexual+children than literally anything else+children.
Russian serial killer Anatoly Slivko filmed many hours of hanging young boys, then beheading them, dismembering, drinking blood, etc. This was even shown on TV as part of documentaries about the case. No one ever tried to make these videos illegal. But god help you if you show a vided of a naked girl, holy fuck, it's so much worse than dismemberment.
>>3592341> wouldn't want to be reminded by a video on the internet showcasing every intimate detail of a scarring event
How many people will have seen these videos and will have met the very kid shown therein? What are the chances, seriously? What are the chances the person as an adult will be even able to find these videos himself if if he tries to do it? It's like looking for a drop of ink in the ocean that was let in there 15 years ago.
>>3592351>Some people can get off to watching murder. Does that incentivize murder to be committed and videos of it to be sold? What is the difference there as far as incentives go?
Well, for murder videos you need a new victim each time. For making cp, child molesters can just rape the same child over and over to produce new videos. Also, murder comes with a steeper penalty and is harder to get away with. If a murderer wants to profit from their impulses, they're pretty much limited to contract killing.
Also, I reckon the demand for cp is much higher than for snuff films. I mean, who is going to pay specifically for murder when there are plenty of images and videos of people dying in horrific accidents?
>>3592362>they're pretty much limited to contract killing
And robbery ofc.
What about child marriage?
Does there exist a market demand for videos of committing any other crime?
I bet if there was a bunch of people willing to pay good money for videos of real carjacking, they'd ban them too.
So i guess the Netflix boycott didn't happen?
No it happened. Netflix lost a lot of support but not enough to go out of business.
Yes. Netflix is in incredible financial pain.Netflix reported that for the full year 2020, the company brought in 37 million new subscribers, a 31% jump from the year before. But another of its announcements may have helped boost Netflix's stock on Tuesday: The company said it is "very close to being sustainably [free cash flow] positive.""For the full year 2021, we currently anticipate free cash flow will be around break even," the company said. "We believe we no longer have a need to raise external financing for our day-to-day operations." This is good news for investors who have worried about the company's debt, content spending and overall growth going forward.https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/media/netflix-earnings/index.html
They had a spike in cancelation for about 3 days then everything went back to normal and Cuties is still streaming on Netflix because once people watched it they realized it was a stupid controversy over nothing.
It was mostly conservative nutjobs who canceled and then resubbed a few weeks later. Funny how the people who were most upset about it are the people who live in the places they fuck their kids the most often.
Why is it rated M ?
i look at antifa the same way i look at nazis, except i never see nazis anywhere.
i've also come to the conclusion that antifa really really really like the idea of bootlicking. no, they want to be the boot that is being licked. antifa loves cops because without them, antifa would look like a bunch of scrawny whiny short thugs. non-scary, ultimately sexually confused, rainbow coloured, drunk, cartoon watching, big corpo bootlicking upper-middleclass bourgeois thugs.
>>3601424>>because once people watched it they realized it was a stupid controversy over nothing
It wasn't a stupid controversy over nothing. Twerking on its own is kinda pushing the fucking limit of good taste, now do it with 12yolds and you get people cancelling subscriptions.
If Cuties wants a pedoey vibe and
get away with it, they could take a few lessons from Made in Abyss. 10/10 series and movie, but pretty sure whoever made it has looked at things one's not supposed to look at.
>>everything went back to normal
Because the idiot box is pretty dull without Nonceflix.
>>3601554>Twerking on its own is kinda pushing the fucking limit of good taste…
By "Good taste" you mean "white taste".
Being white doesn't make your opinion more valid or important than anyone else's.
Btw y'all should definitely watch this.>>3601557>>by "Good taste" you mean "white taste"
Oh yeah, the ancient ritual ceremony dance of shakin dat booty. Give me a fucking break. No, you fuck off. Are you even serious? It's ridiculous we're even debating this.
a wise white man once said this about twerking.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPMrSflhNLk
I don't have any problem with twerking, but making little kids do it, especially on tv, is like taking the worst parts of beauty pageants and turning up the dial. You know those kids are being groomed by their parents in a way no better than a pedophile would.
How much dick do you think Desmond is Amazing gets every week?
I assume you're talking about something from the Cutie show. I've never actually watched it.
I'm really not all that interested in anything sexual involving actual irl humans, regardless of age. Like I said, I don't mind twerking, but I never said I have any interest in it. Its just a little sick to have someone who hasn't even started puberty doing dancing that is obviously sexual in nature.
K twerking's black? Then show consistency and protest Cuties for having white kid shaking their butt in heinous cultural appropriation.
Desmond is Amazing is this perpetual slow-mo trainwreck if anyone is wondering.
Honestly drag queens make us gays look stupid fuckin hell man. Also this guy is like 11. At 11 I was playing with cars and legos and shit.>>3601560>>beauty pageants
Can't wait to hear this moron's >>3601557
take on it, cause dressing your child up like a fucking streetwalker and parading it around is mainly a "white" thing. Not one bit less disgusting than black kids twerking. Almost like it's got nothing to do with race. Almost…
Wow. Thats actually more cringey than I imagined. Thats surprising.
I almost want to collapse this thread, but theres a small part of me that wants to see how people defend this.
>beauty pageants are a white thing
Thats why I mentioned them. Always cringed at them, and anyone with half a mind cringes at child beauty pageants, its a trope in shows that they're so bad. Kinda wanted to take off the racism edge of the sword here.
It's not anything sexual unless you are a pedophile in which case any film with children in it is erotic to a freak like you.
It's a movie about a Muslim girl who rebels against her upbringing by joining a twerking group with other children and the results of that rebellion. Barely worth watching. Much to do about nothing.
I could say a lot of things of that nature "looking at people in full latex pony gear is just fun and games, unless you sexualize them"
Its a moot point.
This was discussed before in length here "but to kids its a game it's not sexual, if you are aroused you're a pedo".
That Desmond kid knows what he does gives hard on to some adults, the 12 year old twerking kids too know it's sexual, unless they grew up with the amish or something.
Now have 5 years doing it, ok it would just be fun and innocent games to them. Cuties is not.
Uhm guess I'll ask again since it was completely ignored.
If it's not sexual nor intended to be sexual… Why is it rated M?
>>3601628>If it's not sexual nor intended to be sexual… Why is it rated M?
Because ratings are given by people whose job it is to look at any given price of media and ask, "What will the most stupid, ignorant, extremist, conservative, wackos think of this movie?" and label it accordingly.
The rating system was designed to appease the worst people in the world so they would shut up.
So I argued that it's not sexual unless you are attracted to kids and your counter-argument is that is it sexual because a 12-year-old is doing it but it would just be kids playing if a 5-year-old was doing the same thing?
So your counter-argument is that I'm right. You just proved it's sexy to you because you see 12-year-olds as young adults and 5-year-olds as non-sexual beings.
How about it's rated M because it is sexual, you know it is and you're just making excuses?
>>3601625>Oh it would be fine for 5 year olds.
Didn't think that one through very well did ya?
No, my point is that it's sexual when the kid is in age to know it is. 12 year olds totally are aware, unless you lifted them from the middle of Amish country.
5 years old wouldn't know, so to *them* it would not be sexual. To non-pedophiles it would be tasteless to make them do this and to pedophiles it would be sexual and arousing.
This is all to address the argument that "it's fine, it's childrens, they don't know better, to them it's innocent. There's nothing bad about kids twerking"
My point exactly.
>>3601652>You just proved it's sexy to you
A 12 yo is not naive anymore, they know it's about sex even if they don't know what sex is exactly, so it's a problem of pushing sexuality onto children at the excuse of entertainment. It's the same as why you don't dress you kid in a gimp costume for Halloween to play "Pulp Fiction". Once they figure out what it REALLY means, it's gonna fuck them up one way or another. It's gonna fuck you up because other people know what it means, and they know you know, which reflects on your identity and personality, and your future in your community. You're always going to be that kid who dressed up like a whore and shook your ass on television.
A 5 year old just doesn't get it. For them it's just shaking your body in a funny way, which is innocent, which is fine. Nobody expects you to understand at that point because you're just barely over learning not to shit your own pants, or what words mean.
He's not wrong. I remember going into middle school and unlike elementary all the other kids would talk about was sex sex sex. In elementary it was all about cartoons and video games.
>>3601803>To non-pedophiles it would be tasteless…
You still don't get it. You find 12-year-olds twerking repulsive because it turns you on and you don't like being turned on by 12-year-olds.
If you were really a non-pedophile, you wouldn't care if the kid was twerking because it's just a kid having fun. The fact you have a problem with it, the fact you have this guttural, instinctual, repulsion to it means that you're a pedo.
It's the same reason all those preachers on TV who bash the gays end up getting caught sniffing cocaine off the cock of a rent-boy. You wouldn't be upset about it unless at least some part of you is turned on. You just wouldn't care.
>>3602220>it's just a kid having fun
If it was just a kid having fun, it would not be a production on Netflix.
>>3602220>the fact you have this guttural, instinctual, repulsion to it means that you're a pedo.
Or the other alteranative: sane.
By your logic, being turned off by shit means you really really really want to eat shit. So, why aren't you eating shit already? Are you ashamed you like shit?
I don't find it repulsive. I find it objectionable. These kids are victims and it's sad ; they are probably fed progressive propaganda by their parents and ended up doing something sexual in a movie. They certainly know it's sexual, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that their mind has been so warped by their parents' teaching that some find it exiting that they could arouse some adults, just like that other kid Desmond.
It'll follow them all their life ; for their classmates these girl will be "the ho that shook her ass in that movie", etc.
Tl;dr. That's child abuse.
>>3602285>By your logic, being turned off by shit means you really really really want to eat shit.
Your analogy is flawed because everyone does
have an instinct to eat. If you leave a dirty diaper next to a baby they will 100% shove shit in their mouth. There is no instinct to prevent it. We learn that it's bad. We learn not to do it.
want to fuck kids and some of them have been conditioned by society to see that as so abhorrent they are repulsed by it, but the instinct is there for them.
to fuck kids, they have learned it's better not to and that is why they are repulsed but that repulsion is a response to the desire they know is unacceptable. If there was no desire, there would be no repulsion.
Kids just wouldn't register as anything sexual - positive, or negative.
Yeah no matter how many times you explain it still doesn't make it true.
>>3602386>If you leave a dirty diaper next to a baby they will 100% shove shit in their mouth.
That's because babies try to experience the world by shoving things in their mouth - the hands and the lips are the most sensitive touch organs. It has nothing to do with eating: babies can't see well, their brains aren't yet processing sounds well, so their interaction with the world happens by touching things.
And shit tastes like shit - it even smells like shit. The baby will instantly learn that and avoid it in the future. They don't need to be taught by parents or society not to eat shit.
Case in point:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_3CFTTERNo
The toddler's reaction is natural: shit smells and it makes you gag. Likewise, normal people seeing child abuse get repulsed and upset because it goes against your instincts as a human being.
If anything, YOUR lack of natural aversion towards sexualizing children shows that either you are a pedophile or a sociopath, and you seem to be generalizing your own lack of reaction to be normal, which leads to the rationalization that it must be the society that brainwashes people into hating pedophilia - which is a general feature of autism: the lack of awareness of other minds besides your own.
Plus, there's one person on this board who keeps consistently adding irrelevant images and memes to go along with their posts, who is a self-admitted autist, who used to post child-sexual imagery during the russian porn spam on the excuse that if you black-bar the genitalia it's "no longer child porn", and who is known for their reverse or nonsensical logic regarding anything.
>>3602434>The baby will instantly learn that and avoid it in the future.
And the same is true for pedophiles. They might try sticking their dick in a child and see it freak-out and stop but they are learning
that it's bad behavior. They still want to stick their dick in the child. They learn not to.
See that toddler retch over the smell of shit?
It works like that. You don't even need to try and stick your dick in a child - the first time you even get the idea and the thoughts and emotions that arise from considering, "hmm.. what if I had sex with a child", gives rise to negative thoughts of disgust and shame. That's the smell test for pedophilia - that's how we have evolved to respond to the very concept of it, the same as how we naturally gag at the smell of excrement, or feel nauseous at the sight of someone else vomiting.
Only pedophiles and other retards without functioning brains have to try and learn the hard way why it is wrong.
>>3602459>negative thoughts of disgust and shame
It's a taught behavior and purely socio-cultural, not natural. Visit any countries that haven't been brainwashed by the western's stigma on sexuality.
These kids would go out fucking donkeys without anyone forcing them to https://youtu.be/4Ah0eb8fkPM?t=44
And this is valid for almost every country who haven't been tainted by the white man.
But donkeys are not children, or people - not the same instincts apply. You're switching goalposts.
Devil's advocate here. I've read about a tribe where they believed that the sperm is given from adult to kid. So they had anal sex with the male kids as they approached puberty.
There was no inherent disgust there. And since it's perfectly acceptable and normal in their culture nobody is mentally of emotionally harmed by it
Related link : https://hybridtechcar.com/2014/02/06/10-shocking-sexual-traditions-tribes-peoples-world-10-photos/
And kids in those countries still grow up to fuck kids.
How desperate and sad your low self-esteem must be that you have to depend on your culture or skin color to give you any value as a person. Pathetic.
Diamond hands make themselves magnificent.
If you think culture and skin colour are synonymous, you might be a racist.
Culture is who you are, an communal ethic you choose to follow. It is not an innate immutable trait.
I'm still laughing at people getting offended over joked about jews claiming racism lol Jews are and never were a race a religion built on the foundations of the Palestinian people which are a race and not a religion.
No one ever accused racists of being intelligent.
Correct. Look at Joe Biden.
he is a moron that believes in intelligent design
but you're right, he is a racist
That moron has an IQ measured over 200.
Hmmm….And Tesla (the original Tesla not the Musk "wannabe Tesla") was absolute certain speed of light was about 400000km/sec and Einstein was wrong.
Tesla had an presumed IQ of 235 or more. That did not make him right about everything. Despite leading the field in certain disciplines.
Sidis ? 275…..and published like 1 book about distribution of colors and numbers on tram tickets or so I have been told. have not looked this up so maybe I just did a Tesla =)
Be that as it may, he's still by no measure, a moron.
What's wrong with intelligent design?https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-create-smallest-ever-viable-genome-204056229.html
400ish genes for a living organism that can reproduce.
A gene is a string of 400ish amino acids.
That's a string of amino acids 160000 long to get an organism that basically does nothing but living.
And it all assembled by chance in the primordial soup, and then - and this would be the most believable part - evolved to form all lifeforms.
>>3602791>IQ between 195 and 210>Occupation: Horse rancher
Either IQ means very little or this guy has wasted his intelligence.
It's a little of both.
If there was a "designer," why'd he or she (or it) fuck up so badly?
99% of the plants and animals that were on Earth died out.
please don't waste your time using logic/reason on people that refuse to play by those rules
The chances of life appearing from a chance combination of raw chemicals is so vanishingly tiny that if you use Ocam's razor, a God creating it is more probable.
>>3602960> that basically does nothing but living.
That's not the simplest possible organism, but the simplest possible bacterium that we know of.
It's still massively complicated compared to the simplest imaginable life forms, because it builds a cell wall and cilia for movement, and some basic information processing for searching for food etc.
If the food comes to you and the environment is pleasant enough that you don't need a protective cell wall, the actual simplest organism could be vastly simpler still. Down to the point of having just a simple bare strand of DNA that copies itself from amino acids floating by.
And yet, here we are and god isn't.
Meanwhile, while you morons were obsessing over 'Cuties'…
>>3603042>>a chance combination of raw chemicals
It's not entirely by chance. Lab experiments showed that carbon-based molecules can increase in complexity based on repeated cycles of something that causes chemical reactions (ex. irradiation by sun, irrigation with water, water drying out and repeat). And phospholipids automatically form membranes due to polarity.
Basically you have a primitive cell wall and a bunch of molecules that go in and out and have all kinds of reactions with each other.
At least one of the four building blocks of RNA has "spontaneously appeared" in trace amounts in lab experiments and we've only ran the experiment for less than a hundred years and in a very limited space.
Given a billion years and who knows how many trillions and trillions of square inches of surface to work with, getting that one molecule that assembled the first self-repeating RNA chain isn't that unlikely. And then it slowly spreads everywhere and gets more complex or more refined (whatever helps it survive) with each step along the way. First cells must have been virus-like (unable to maintain a stable internal environment on their own) and things progressed in the order one would expect them to. "Properly alive" single celled organisms, Prokaryotes (more bacteria-like) and Eukaryotes (more cell like). Then multicellular organisms. Then animals. Then mammals etc. And man is a mammal. So keep that in mind too.
This is like 5th grade biology, I shouldn't have to explain this.
So, basically the daft leftist >>3603094
happens to be right on this one, though he can probably not explain why without looking it up on wikipedia, because he in typical leftist fashion only learned that it is so, not why it is so. That's why you got a mocking "and yet…" instead of an actual explanation.
But don't argue this any further, you already lost.
>>3603168>>blocks of RNA has "spontaneously appeared" in trace amounts in lab experiments
Note for morons: during the reaction cycles, it didn't just stand there doing nothing
>>3603168>That's why you got a mocking
No, the reason is like you said>I shouldn't have to explain this.
Because like I said >>3602984>please don't waste your time using logic/reason on people that refuse to play by those rules
You are only right because it's lulz.net and not youtube comments or some normie forum.
Just cause it's mindbendingly stupid doesn't mean people don't believe it with all honesty. I mean I was raised hardcore religious, there was a point where I had to compare what I was taught with some other things that I was taught and have a good think about it. Some folks, especially older ones never learned any better. Some of the younger ones never took that time to have a bit of a think.
But you're right. It's virtually impossible to go through this fandom without having a dozen fedoras tipped at you if you bring up god, so one should be familiar with the arguments. I know he knows better.
He's probably just trolling, but I'm using his comment as a vehicle to both refresh people's knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution, something that I love doing AND shit on you, also something that I love doing, so posting it works on both levels for me.
I was just being edgy with my reaction images, I don't actually support socialism of any kind. International or national. Cause they always end up with secret police, camps and gaudy parades for the dictator. No thanks.
>>3603168>Given a billion years
This is correct. Basic statistics from college. A near impossible thing that is subjected to near infinite sample selection size becomes a certainty.
So life is actually quite easy to start. Whats difficult, and requires lots of energy and resources of a wide variety, is multi-cellular life forms.
Truly varied multi-cellular life forms requires a highly competitive environment - natural selection. Everything that exists today is the result of billions of generations of unrelenting violence.
Life, probably even sentient life given enough time is probably inevitable on planets that can sustain complex carbon-based molecules.
Humans themselves are kinda a bit of an accident though. Some ugly-ass primates got too smart for their own good cause it benefited them and here we are, their offspring.
And it's gotta be carbon because the only other molecule that is close enough to do the job, silicon, is too heavy and has a much limited ability to form useful molecules.
<lemme scream bigot cause that's an argument.
Nice of you to ignore the specific
"NO PARENTS OR GUARDIANS PERMITTED" included. This sounds like any fucking pedo cult ever. >fat kids
People wear shirts for swimming regardless of fitness.>muh males
Because men don't have breasts, which, on any kid not 10 or younger, is something that should be hidden for both public and self-modesty. There is a reason nudist beaches are specifically separate areas.