Topic: Minichan should take a firmer stance against pedophiles...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #12,562
...and their topics. Minichan, a website which allows posters of all ages, should take more seriously concerns about the safety of children using this site.
I propose that posters who attempt to use Minichan to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, be indefinitely blocked.
Wikipedia has already taken a stand. Why don't we have the backbone too?
I propose that posters who attempt to use Minichan to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, be indefinitely blocked.
Wikipedia has already taken a stand. Why don't we have the backbone too?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #225,467
how many children actually use this site
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,470
@previous (B)
Bobby2sox is one. Triptych, volcalon and Walter all young too. Triptych has already been preyed on by two pedophiles who regularly post here, and everyone knows who I'm talking about when I say that.
Bobby2sox is one. Triptych, volcalon and Walter all young too. Triptych has already been preyed on by two pedophiles who regularly post here, and everyone knows who I'm talking about when I say that.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,471
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,473
Fox !FXYGNx1XR. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,475
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,476
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,483
@previous (B)
You don't need to be in the same country to stalk and harass someone. Triptych is too nice to say anything.
You don't need to be in the same country to stalk and harass someone. Triptych is too nice to say anything.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,485
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,487
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,489
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,490
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,492
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,493
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,502
> implying making a fart joke = "preying on children"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,503
dreamworksage !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #225,506
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,531
As long as they don't go trying to groom underage users and request/post CP, I don't think pedophiles should be banned.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #225,532
@previous (H)
> As long as they don't go trying to groom underage users and request/post CP, I don't think pedophiles should be banned.
This. Also, constantly making threads about pedos and about pedo topics doesn't help either.
> As long as they don't go trying to groom underage users and request/post CP, I don't think pedophiles should be banned.
This. Also, constantly making threads about pedos and about pedo topics doesn't help either.
ltamake !!onnLC5KY8 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,539
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,541
If you identify as a pedophile, Wikipedia bans you?
Wikipedia just made my rape list.
Also, Matt Miller is not a pedophile. He is a heterosexual male adult. Don't just lump him into the same category because he targeted the one female who posted on his board. Being a pervert is not the same thing as being a pedophile.
Wikipedia just made my rape list.
Also, Matt Miller is not a pedophile. He is a heterosexual male adult. Don't just lump him into the same category because he targeted the one female who posted on his board. Being a pervert is not the same thing as being a pedophile.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,555
@previous (sluggy)
> If you identify as a pedophile, Wikipedia bans you?
Yes.
I suggest that requesting a ban for x should be a bannable offense lol.
inb4 im banned
> If you identify as a pedophile, Wikipedia bans you?
Yes.
I suggest that requesting a ban for x should be a bannable offense lol.
inb4 im banned
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,558
@225,541 (sluggy)
Because people who feel the need to identify as pedos in the course of editing an encyclopedia are the kind of people who would get into edit wars over the word pedophile vs. pedosexual and spam their propaganda all over the place.
Because people who feel the need to identify as pedos in the course of editing an encyclopedia are the kind of people who would get into edit wars over the word pedophile vs. pedosexual and spam their propaganda all over the place.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,560
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,561
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,563
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,566
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,569
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,570
@225,558 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Wikipedia has rules for article integrity. This is an unnecessary rule. This is a ridiculous rule. No one browses Wikipedia looking for children to molest. The stated reason for the rule is ridiculous.
Also, if retards decide they don't want to he called retards everyone bends over backwards to accomodate them. Pedophile has moved beyond the actual definition of the word. My housemate calls the 50 year old actor who married the fully develop 16 year old a pedophile.
Let pedophiles have a new word since the old one has been tainted with such hate that no one can come out as a pedophile without facing hate on a scale that is unparalleled. No one should be hated for being born differently.
For Pedophiles, don't ask don't tell has been a way of life. Lady Gaga isn't tweeting about that, though.
Wikipedia has rules for article integrity. This is an unnecessary rule. This is a ridiculous rule. No one browses Wikipedia looking for children to molest. The stated reason for the rule is ridiculous.
Also, if retards decide they don't want to he called retards everyone bends over backwards to accomodate them. Pedophile has moved beyond the actual definition of the word. My housemate calls the 50 year old actor who married the fully develop 16 year old a pedophile.
Let pedophiles have a new word since the old one has been tainted with such hate that no one can come out as a pedophile without facing hate on a scale that is unparalleled. No one should be hated for being born differently.
For Pedophiles, don't ask don't tell has been a way of life. Lady Gaga isn't tweeting about that, though.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,571
Why did you link to the thread about the 8 year old boy getting a sex change?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,572
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,573
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,576
@225,570 (sluggy)
Pedophilia is not a legitimate sexuality. There is no healthy, nonabusive expression possible of pedophilia. No one (outside of other pedos and some fucked-in-the-head sympathizers) will fight for it, and I think that's a good thing. Whether born with it or not, doesn't make much of a difference really, it's not a "difference" to be celebrated. Some people are born with predispositions to violence, psychopathy, whatever. We don't celebrate that.
No one wants to see wikipedia shitted up with pedo pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the self-identified pedos who caused this. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a pedo?
Pedophilia is not a legitimate sexuality. There is no healthy, nonabusive expression possible of pedophilia. No one (outside of other pedos and some fucked-in-the-head sympathizers) will fight for it, and I think that's a good thing. Whether born with it or not, doesn't make much of a difference really, it's not a "difference" to be celebrated. Some people are born with predispositions to violence, psychopathy, whatever. We don't celebrate that.
No one wants to see wikipedia shitted up with pedo pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the self-identified pedos who caused this. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a pedo?
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,577
@225,573 (A)
I didn't read the whole thread, but I thought that thread was about transgender individuals?
I didn't read the whole thread, but I thought that thread was about transgender individuals?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,579
@225,576 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Here, here!
I think the fact that MC can't take a stand like Wikipedia does, shows that we aren't ready to be a forum for anything other than shticks and shitposting. It's quite sad. I thought we were going to start seeing some positive changes, but I guess the community here isn't ready to take things forward.
Here, here!
I think the fact that MC can't take a stand like Wikipedia does, shows that we aren't ready to be a forum for anything other than shticks and shitposting. It's quite sad. I thought we were going to start seeing some positive changes, but I guess the community here isn't ready to take things forward.
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,580
@225,576 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
What I ultimately fail to understand is why they have to wear it on their sleeve, but I feel this way in regards to just about any group of individuals who always feel they have a strong persecution complex.
What I ultimately fail to understand is why they have to wear it on their sleeve, but I feel this way in regards to just about any group of individuals who always feel they have a strong persecution complex.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,581
@225,577 (O)
It was a smoke screen to try and justify sex with children. Even if you read jump (OPs) posts, that becomes painfully obvious as the thread progresses.
It was a smoke screen to try and justify sex with children. Even if you read jump (OPs) posts, that becomes painfully obvious as the thread progresses.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,582
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,591
@225,576 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
What the fuxk ever. I am not advocating it. I don't agree with child/adult relationships. I can't imagine a situation where the adult isn't using the child to satisfy their own sexual/emotional needs. A child isn't capable of being a partner. Even if someone loves another person, you can be using them. We accept this with adult relationships, but people have that innocent/ignorance complex with children.
It's all irrelevant. The biggest ethical crime one can commit is any type of sexual encounter with a person under the age of 18. It's already the most heavily punished crime. The argument of child/adult relationships is over. No one is going to be fucking your kids legally. stop fighting a war that has been won.
Treat everyone with respect based on their actions, not how they were born.
I've been a pedo as long as I can remember. I've always liked younger girls. I knew early in gradeschool. I knew when I was still shota. Even if it's developmental and not genetic, it's the same situation. You can't place such large hate on people for being different.
It's not helping children. It's hurting. You create a wall. The only place one can even safely advocate for not treating non-offending pedophiles like scum is the Internet, and even then only anonymously.
Pedophiles exist. Pedophiles will always exist. Pedophiles aren't recruited or made. As long as people continue to breed, there will always be pedophiles.
Its a natural occurrence. It happens.
This policy of zero tolerance towards pedos is very dangerous. Extremely few pedophiles will seek help before offending because of the danger of exposure as well as shame. My shame and fear of exposure (I never could be 100% honest with my therapist or go as deeply as necessary in my therapy) leads to a greater chance of offending. I have it in my head that my mindset will keep me from offending.
I know that's bullshit, though. People do crazy shit when interested in someone (call it love/infatuation whatever). I limit my access to children for a very specific reason. I know the minute any of my friends has a daughter, I won't ever see them again.
Blah blah blah, shit I've said a million times. Just treat people as human. Don't lump everyone in with the fringe militant portions. Pedophilia isn't religion. It's not a choice. Confront those who propose shit that isn't ethical. If someone says "there is nothing wrong with me trying to have sex with someone who hasn't even developed sexually yet" confront them. Call bullshit on their logic. That's good.
Don't be hating on everyone though.
What the fuxk ever. I am not advocating it. I don't agree with child/adult relationships. I can't imagine a situation where the adult isn't using the child to satisfy their own sexual/emotional needs. A child isn't capable of being a partner. Even if someone loves another person, you can be using them. We accept this with adult relationships, but people have that innocent/ignorance complex with children.
It's all irrelevant. The biggest ethical crime one can commit is any type of sexual encounter with a person under the age of 18. It's already the most heavily punished crime. The argument of child/adult relationships is over. No one is going to be fucking your kids legally. stop fighting a war that has been won.
Treat everyone with respect based on their actions, not how they were born.
I've been a pedo as long as I can remember. I've always liked younger girls. I knew early in gradeschool. I knew when I was still shota. Even if it's developmental and not genetic, it's the same situation. You can't place such large hate on people for being different.
It's not helping children. It's hurting. You create a wall. The only place one can even safely advocate for not treating non-offending pedophiles like scum is the Internet, and even then only anonymously.
Pedophiles exist. Pedophiles will always exist. Pedophiles aren't recruited or made. As long as people continue to breed, there will always be pedophiles.
Its a natural occurrence. It happens.
This policy of zero tolerance towards pedos is very dangerous. Extremely few pedophiles will seek help before offending because of the danger of exposure as well as shame. My shame and fear of exposure (I never could be 100% honest with my therapist or go as deeply as necessary in my therapy) leads to a greater chance of offending. I have it in my head that my mindset will keep me from offending.
I know that's bullshit, though. People do crazy shit when interested in someone (call it love/infatuation whatever). I limit my access to children for a very specific reason. I know the minute any of my friends has a daughter, I won't ever see them again.
Blah blah blah, shit I've said a million times. Just treat people as human. Don't lump everyone in with the fringe militant portions. Pedophilia isn't religion. It's not a choice. Confront those who propose shit that isn't ethical. If someone says "there is nothing wrong with me trying to have sex with someone who hasn't even developed sexually yet" confront them. Call bullshit on their logic. That's good.
Don't be hating on everyone though.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,592
@225,581 (A)
1. That girl isn't attractive. 2. I posted in that topic. Can't claim I'm OP. 3. I wasn't the one advocating child/adult relationships in that topic. That was a troll or someone derailing the discussion.
1. That girl isn't attractive. 2. I posted in that topic. Can't claim I'm OP. 3. I wasn't the one advocating child/adult relationships in that topic. That was a troll or someone derailing the discussion.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,610
just so I don't have to read the whole thing, has toaster posted yet?
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,611
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,613
@previous (sluggy)
except when I post about furry it's not entertaining or ridiculous, and it's mainly for fox.
except when I post about furry it's not entertaining or ridiculous, and it's mainly for fox.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,617
I'm not even going to read this thread :')
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,619
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,641
@225,558 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
> Because people who feel the need to identify as homosexuals in the course of editing an encyclopedia are the kind of people who would get into edit wars over the "born this was" vs "choose to be gay" and spam their propaganda all over the place.
> Because people who feel the need to identify as homosexuals in the course of editing an encyclopedia are the kind of people who would get into edit wars over the "born this was" vs "choose to be gay" and spam their propaganda all over the place.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,642
@225,570 (sluggy)
> Wikipedia has rules for article integrity. This is an unnecessary rule. This is a ridiculous rule. No one browses Wikipedia looking for children to molest. The stated reason for the rule is ridiculous.
>
> Also, if retards decide they don't want to he called retards everyone bends over backwards to accomodate them. Pedophile has moved beyond the actual definition of the word. My housemate calls the 50 year old actor who married the fully develop 16 year old a pedophile.
>
> Let pedophiles have a new word since the old one has been tainted with such hate that no one can come out as a pedophile without facing hate on a scale that is unparalleled. No one should be hated for being born differently.
>
> For Pedophiles, don't ask don't tell has been a way of life. Lady Gaga isn't tweeting about that, though.
100% truth
> Wikipedia has rules for article integrity. This is an unnecessary rule. This is a ridiculous rule. No one browses Wikipedia looking for children to molest. The stated reason for the rule is ridiculous.
>
> Also, if retards decide they don't want to he called retards everyone bends over backwards to accomodate them. Pedophile has moved beyond the actual definition of the word. My housemate calls the 50 year old actor who married the fully develop 16 year old a pedophile.
>
> Let pedophiles have a new word since the old one has been tainted with such hate that no one can come out as a pedophile without facing hate on a scale that is unparalleled. No one should be hated for being born differently.
>
> For Pedophiles, don't ask don't tell has been a way of life. Lady Gaga isn't tweeting about that, though.
100% truth
Anonymous L triple-posted this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,648
@225,576 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
> Pedophilia is not a legitimate sexuality.
Just because you said so?
> There is no healthy, nonabusive expression possible of pedophilia.
omg lol. You can't prove something wrong by appealing to the fact that it's wrong. Are you completely devoid of logic?
> No one (outside of other X and some fucked-in-the-head sympathizers) will fight for it, and I think that's a good thing. Whether born with it or not, doesn't make much of a difference really, it's not a "difference" to be celebrated.
Replace x with fags, niggers, catholics, protestants, jews, heretics, infidels.
> Some people are born with predispositions to violence, psychopathy, whatever. We don't celebrate that.
So wikipedia should ban people for birth defects? lol listen to yourself!
> No one wants to see wikipedia shitted up with pedo pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the self-identified pedos who caused this. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a pedo?
Ban all homosexuals and ask them not to be angry at us, but at the self-identified homosexuals who caused this with their fag pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a faggot?
> Pedophilia is not a legitimate sexuality.
Just because you said so?
> There is no healthy, nonabusive expression possible of pedophilia.
omg lol. You can't prove something wrong by appealing to the fact that it's wrong. Are you completely devoid of logic?
> No one (outside of other X and some fucked-in-the-head sympathizers) will fight for it, and I think that's a good thing. Whether born with it or not, doesn't make much of a difference really, it's not a "difference" to be celebrated.
Replace x with fags, niggers, catholics, protestants, jews, heretics, infidels.
> Some people are born with predispositions to violence, psychopathy, whatever. We don't celebrate that.
So wikipedia should ban people for birth defects? lol listen to yourself!
> No one wants to see wikipedia shitted up with pedo pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the self-identified pedos who caused this. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a pedo?
Ban all homosexuals and ask them not to be angry at us, but at the self-identified homosexuals who caused this with their fag pseudo-civil rights bullshit. Why in god's name would you need to tell the wikipedia community you're a faggot?
Anonymous L quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,650
@225,591 (sluggy)
One day people will strike the tree of evil at it's root - the state. Marvin's whole argument is based upon statism. I can't wait for this evil to be eradicated.
One day people will strike the tree of evil at it's root - the state. Marvin's whole argument is based upon statism. I can't wait for this evil to be eradicated.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,656
Statism is superior in every way.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,657
@previous (R)
Statism = Coercive force (theft and violence).
Liberty = No coercive force (no theft and no violence).
Statism = Coercive force (theft and violence).
Liberty = No coercive force (no theft and no violence).
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,660
@previous (L)
We have flourished under statism. You have no legitimate evidence that your anarchy rip-off is better.
We have flourished under statism. You have no legitimate evidence that your anarchy rip-off is better.
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,661
@225,656 (R)
Anonymity's useless when you make it clear who you are.
I need a macro for this.
TO THE MLP
Anonymity's useless when you make it clear who you are.
I need a macro for this.
TO THE MLP
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,663
!VoCaLoNunI replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,664
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,666
@225,650 (L)
It's because of people like you. You go to concerts with little girls. You are a time bomb waiting to go off.
Tell me this, if your loli tried to kiss you, would you stop her? I don't think you would. I don't know if I would stop. It would be hard if I was attracted to her, but I think the response would kick in to stop her before I really got to think about it. If I was romantically attracted, as you are, I doubt I would stop her. My adrenaline would be going, my heart would be racing, and once I felt her warmth I would be unable to stop. It's what a person wants/needs. In the moment I think discussions of ethics and morality are gone. A kiss freely given is a good thing. It's exactly what is wanted.
How will you prevent this? Dont assume loli wont make the first move. Boundaries have been broken down. These girls today aren't the same as yesterday. They are fueled by the Internet and TV shows that show sexy kids (really adults playing children).
You made Wikipedia hate me.
It's because of people like you. You go to concerts with little girls. You are a time bomb waiting to go off.
Tell me this, if your loli tried to kiss you, would you stop her? I don't think you would. I don't know if I would stop. It would be hard if I was attracted to her, but I think the response would kick in to stop her before I really got to think about it. If I was romantically attracted, as you are, I doubt I would stop her. My adrenaline would be going, my heart would be racing, and once I felt her warmth I would be unable to stop. It's what a person wants/needs. In the moment I think discussions of ethics and morality are gone. A kiss freely given is a good thing. It's exactly what is wanted.
How will you prevent this? Dont assume loli wont make the first move. Boundaries have been broken down. These girls today aren't the same as yesterday. They are fueled by the Internet and TV shows that show sexy kids (really adults playing children).
You made Wikipedia hate me.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,679
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,682
@previous (L)
All evidence points towards crime increasing in libertarian societies. Statist governments work to reduce crime, libertarian ones let it happen.
You libertarians are all the same, you can never face facts.
All evidence points towards crime increasing in libertarian societies. Statist governments work to reduce crime, libertarian ones let it happen.
You libertarians are all the same, you can never face facts.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,684
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,687
Oh, you!Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,693
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,695
@225,666 (sluggy)
@225,684 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
1. Pubescent individuals are not children.
2. I have been asked out by girls before and said no.
3. I am a virgin and that won't be changing soon.
@225,684 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
1. Pubescent individuals are not children.
2. I have been asked out by girls before and said no.
3. I am a virgin and that won't be changing soon.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,702
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,709
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
i googled hoss assuming he was some pedo but now i assume you meant boss
i googled hoss assuming he was some pedo but now i assume you meant boss
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,712
@225,693 (L)
That's rich coming from a libertarian. Statism has always worked, please atop trolling.
That's rich coming from a libertarian. Statism has always worked, please atop trolling.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,715
@previous (R)
The argument for liberty is based upon logic, ethics and morality. Liberty can't be sustained or denied with evidence, because liberty is not a solution per se, but enables solutions.
The argument for liberty is based upon logic, ethics and morality. Liberty can't be sustained or denied with evidence, because liberty is not a solution per se, but enables solutions.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,716
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,718
@225,715 (L)
You have no evidence because statism is superior. Just admit it and save yourself the embarrassment.
You have no evidence because statism is superior. Just admit it and save yourself the embarrassment.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,722
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,723
@225,718 (R)
The evidence that statism fails is all around us. War, poverty, theft, repression, and slavery.
The evidence that statism fails is all around us. War, poverty, theft, repression, and slavery.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,740
oh_look_its_this_thread_again.jpeg
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,779
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,789
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,795
Can I just ask what the obsession with gender is in sexuality? Why is sexual orientation (defined as as attraction to a particular gender) so revered? Why is gender considered more relevant than any other characteristic?
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,830
Lol pedos rights
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,843
Anonymous W replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,867
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,877
Anonymous W replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #225,987
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,330
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,334
Let's be honest, only pedosexuals can speak on inter-generational relationships without any bias.
It's dishonest and quite frankly disgusting to claim inter-generational relationships are at all harmful. If two people love each other, what harm could there be? Obviously, there are physical barriers to some expressions of love, but not being ready for one form of expression of love does not mean you aren't capable of expressing love in other, healthy ways.
Society creates shame.
It's dishonest and quite frankly disgusting to claim inter-generational relationships are at all harmful. If two people love each other, what harm could there be? Obviously, there are physical barriers to some expressions of love, but not being ready for one form of expression of love does not mean you aren't capable of expressing love in other, healthy ways.
Society creates shame.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,335
Lrn2 Lonesome Dove
Anonymous Q double-posted this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,336
@226,334 (sluggy)
> Let's be honest, only pedosexuals can speak on inter-generational relationships without any bias.
lol'd
> Let's be honest, only pedosexuals can speak on inter-generational relationships without any bias.
lol'd
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,337
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #226,341
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
spending time together. Enjoying favorite activities. Reading poetry to each other. Talking about our feelings and dreams. Anal training. Shooting picture and video to upload to the Internet.
spending time together. Enjoying favorite activities. Reading poetry to each other. Talking about our feelings and dreams. Anal training. Shooting picture and video to upload to the Internet.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)