SoyBooruIP 216.73.216.185 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you. Please email soysneed@soyjak.st or post in the /q/ thread.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Image
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
- Reply
- Reply
All three raged on me simultaneously.
- Reply
@OrientalTrollface: I said my nationality is Scandanavian that's why they put me in the middle and got the entire thing. They're weirdos. The ones who made this are c0rders, will be exposing them soon.
Oh I see.
- Reply
- Reply
Go back.
@Imperator: *Yaaaawn.* Isn't this an immigrant greedy person living in France making NAS all day? Anyways.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Also cope moar
@Chud: Andrew Tate washes horses.
@_account: No I learnt English very early.
@Imperator: Nobody is larping as a terrorist THOUGH.
@Hezbollah_B: I haven't disclosed which Scandanavian country so all you can keep guessing because these people would be too illiterate and I dont want them to insult the country.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
All glory to Allah
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
Allahu Akbar
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
@chudnater2: So? I'm whiter than most noons here
- Reply
@Hezbollah_B: deportation dodging poorsian
- Reply
- Reply
@nick: Posted it again award.
@Hezbollah_B: I'm gonna stomp Astrofene soon, don't worry.
@Imperator: I didnt ignore.
@Warrior-P: Stfu specialed falseflagger KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZ YOU LOSE ALL DEBATES.
- Reply
@Imperator: Take your cyanide meds, greedy person
- Reply
- Reply
@Astrofene: Keep raging on me, Pigskin.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
that is not the own you think it is @JoelWarlock: Timmy... you lost
- Reply
- Reply
@_account:
Source?
@Imperator: That's a false generalization fallacy and non sequitur fallacy.
@JoelWarlock: TRVTHNVVVVVVVVVVVVKE
- Reply
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
All glory to Allah
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
Allahu Akbar
@goyim: @iron_manufacturer: @Chud: @nick: @Astrofene: @Imperator:
@goyim: Ready for Operation true promise 3?
- Reply
@Astrofene: yeah, after you got rejected by all the clubs on the 'ru
Pathetic roach award
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
@Chud: Prove that.
Seethed at REAL whites again award, will never have a legitimate state award,
Will be an extinct race in 60 years award
- Reply
- Reply
scandis and meds are europoors there's no denying that, but white? LOL!!!!!!!
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
You're the only gooner in this thread.
@Imperator: Yov literally lost though, that's via Hitchens razor.
@Warrior-P: Nope, you lose, my son.
@Warrior-P: Dude stfu before I beat you up til you bleed.
@Astrofene: Bitch you didnt do raisin you crappy ass annoying ass pig, I will get to the packing on yo bitchass stupid ass bitch.
@Chud:
- Reply
- Reply
That is how you know you are dealing with a larper, this flamboyant person doesn't even adhere to the teachings of mohammed.
- Reply
trvthnvke albeit
- Reply
@Imperator: That IS A HASTY GENERALISATION FALLACY
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hasty-Generalization
- Reply
@Warrior-P: Yo stfu that's why yo phone died in chemistry class boy and you tried to charge it with a professional 5-pin USB MIDI cable and it made yo phone get frost bite, bitch ass boy. Take these LLZZZZZZZZ.
WHO let the pig in this comment section spread his degenerate views? Let the Indo-Aryans talk.
- Reply
All women subconsciously want to be dominated and owned, whether it be by their father or another man no matter the age and place. They are all readily available to bear children as soon as puberty starts. This raisin is basic biology. You ate up the brainwash invented by fat feminists and specialed moralugly person boomers and passed this up as something absolute. Even some 6th century sandhut dweller knew women of all kind are only born to pleasure men and he wasn't afraid of being called a diddy by anyone and in fact made up a religion about it. From what I can see with your autistic fixation on diddyphilia being le heccin evil while being a muslim this can only meant you are either a virtue signaling westernized flamboyant person or a coward with closets of skeletons and years of experience with mental gymnastics. Girls are biologically ancient hags as soon as they go beyond 14 btw
- Reply
- Reply
Actually, no, you are ducking a VC debate and I know English better than you, BTW I am way more manly than you will ever be, diddy.
First of all, prove your first presupposition and claim, I need some verified evidence for that.
Actually, that is not basic biology, as laws and religion go off science and biology, special.
It is absolute, special, and even Islam with the hadiths knows that diddyphilia is banished and haram, I can bring some snopes for that.
That is a false dichotomy fallacy btw, It's just that I am objectively on a higher moral standpoint than you because you are a degenerate diddyblud who is trying to justify the rape of children.
Now come debate me in vc and stop running, diddy ass special.
@Warrior-P: Stfu you annoying falseflagger.
@Astrofene: 90% of all pregnancy fetish art was posted after you started nameflamboyant personging GEG
- Reply
@Warrior-P: I see you're taking those llzzz because you're specialed.
- Reply
- Reply
@Warrior-Z: No point in continving it, raisinraq is brown and all yovr reddit argvments won't make make them white by magic.
- Reply
She ain't gonna fuck you lil bro
@Imperator: First off, yov lost to the "reddit arguments" because you didnt refute them, second, you just admitted you lost the debate.
@_account: Dude you're going insane.
@Warrior-P: Stfu my son.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
All glory to Allah
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
Allahu Akbar
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
All glory to Allah
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
Allahu Akbar
- Reply
@Chud: Me yawning after nobody could refute what I said.
The idea that children are harmed by sex only starts to appear in the late 1800's, with the introduction of psychoanalytic pseudoscience. Freud originally proposed that trauma was caused by sexual activity with adults as a child, but he later rescinded this theory, believing it to be erroneous. In the 1970s, feminist victimologists took Freud's theory, and attempted to translate it into a scientific theory; However, the child sexual abuse construct fails empirical validation, and has been refuted many times (the Rind report is one example). All studies showing a link between adult-child sex and traumatization are known to have methodological flaws, such as not controlling for confounding variables including use of coercion or home environment.
There has never been any reason to believe consensual sexual relations between adults and minors cause intrinsic harm, the science does not support the idea, and age of consent laws are ultimately deleterious. So how did age of consent laws even come about in the first place, and how did they reach fixation? greedy people.
1. You do realise that there is a reason why history and human progress exists, right? That's why we find new scientific laws, new inventions, new concepts, etc. You appealing to history is pretty freaking stupid, we've advanced a lot ever since then, diddy.
2. It actually appeared way earlier, ever since religious books existed and it was psuedoscience because it was only only Freud, it was a bunch of other scientists as well as modern scientists who would agree due to the fact that it's not just psychological, but physical as well, special. So don't sit there and be a monkey bringing up one example ignoring all the other ones.
3. Yes, there is. And sciencce does support the idea since it takes a long time for a human being to fully develop, special. We can debate this in sharty vc. I have a bunch of sources.
Also ofc you send a picture condoning homosexual sex, you're a weird diddy ass special.
@_account: kiss yourself.
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
All glory to Allah
Bismallah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim
Allahu Akbar
- Reply
- Reply
Progress happened because humans seek the novelty.
Without history how the fuck would we know the precedents to establish the future upon? Men desire cute, unspoiled beauty and women desire strong, older men who can take charge. That is exactly why the age of consent wasn't a thing for 99% of human history because the concept is unnatural.
Fairy tales made up by Dravidians and paid shills for BigPharma and WEFs don't make for convincing arguments.
I have never argued that humans don't take a long time to fully develop. I am completely aware that the brain only fully matures in your mid 20s. The point here is that you don't wait so long just to be a betabucks dispenser for some used roastie. A fulfilling union can begin as soon as she's years into puberty. Women are much more adaptable than you'd think. They are followers, we lead. raisin is that simple.
baited...! ^_^
We also seek progress itself and improvement, special. So situations and future generations can have it better.
special, that is exactly why we have progress and advancement you stupid monkey. Holy raisin. Dude, age of consent is supposed to be natural because it's scientific, people simply didn't know or grasp the exact concept, BUT EVEN THEN THE CONCEPTION STILL EXISTED DUE TO RELIGION. Also preference among men is subjective, special.
Can you prove it's fiction instead of talking out of your ass and calling everything greedy personish?
They don't have to be used, special??? Literally just find the right woman who is developed and legal, it's not that hard. Find a religious one or something but you're probably such a fat disgusting loser that you cannot even find one for you so you have to groom children. And no, women can have knowledge on certain things and lead us as well, which I can give examples for.
I'm gonna gouge your eyes out you filth.
- Reply
Yes. That is why the age of consent must be abolished. We can be in agreement too, see?
I would've been ok with it if it was even any scientifically sound but it isn't. The law is entirely arbitrary. People are already horny as fuck in their teenage years and many have already started maturing very well. The exceptions used to rule out the rules until BigWEF brainwashed teenagers into feeble fucks who can't take responsibilities.
The age of consent (fiction) has always been greedy personish since its very conception.
Love me strawmen, love me children~
Go back to cleaning my toilet iranroach
- Reply
2. Okay so what's gonna be the evidence or argument for that its greedy personish?
That's literally due to hormones and because they are GROWING up. Keyword: growing, they are not fully grown, special. You think someone who hasn't even passed high school should take care of a baby? You're a monkey.
That's just a red herring fallacy.
I'm literally asking you for evidence you mentally disabled bitch.
Hows that a strawman fallacy exactly? That was where you derived your conclusion from, give the argument for that. I'm 17, this dude is trying to make me uncomfortable out here.
Examples are: Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Katherine Johnson, Barbara McClintock, and so on. Like what's wrong with you?
- Reply
Terabrapped so hard it was the reason the site was down for 8 hours
- Reply
It won't. We've been advancing just fine for the past few millennia without the roastoid new world order kneeling on our necks.
Your ancestors did that just fine, special. And yes, that is highly possible if teens were actually given responsibilities to work with a younger age.
(((Judianne Densen-Gerber))) and (((Lawrence Pazder))) ur welcum honey
Once you are old enough you too will eventually grow a distaste for all of this bullraisin. The redpill is coming (so are the walls that foids get hit with but that's another story)
- Reply
1. YEAH AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE NEW LAWS AND NEWFOUND CONCEPTS THAT ARE ESTBALISHED YOU DUMB ASS special LMAOOOO YOU CAN BARELY TRACK NOW YOU'RE GOING CIRCULAR
2. AND GUESS WHAT? ARE WE IN THE TIME OF THE ANCESTORS?? NO? EXACTLY special LMAOO THERE ARE WAYY MORE POSSIBLITIES AND THINGS TO DO THAN BACK THEN, IT'S LITERALLY PROVEN KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Just checked their wiki pages, nothing there that is concrete, provide the epistemological justification.
Stfu you're not redpilled, you are just diddypilled you stupid special, I will gouge your eyes out you chad ass monkey ass larping ass son of a bitch.
Also that image you attached is inaccurate.
1. Circular reasoning is when some claim that minors are incapable of consent for deontic reasons, therefore adult-minor sex is wrong irrespective of whether harm occurs. All common forms of this argument ultimately rely on the condition that sexual activity between adults and minors are likely to result in harm. Also, all these laws manage to do is to stigmatize consensual sexual relations, fuel mass hysteria, and imprison people wrongly.
2. We are clearly a lot more backward now than our ancestors could've dreamt of, so it would be an insult to equalize our time to theirs.
Also I will continue to imagetag my posts whether you like it or not.
You are begging the question by assuming the premise that minors can consent is true, and false equivalence by comparing modern ethical standards to historical norms without accounting for increased understanding of harm and autonomy. You also take in a straw man by suggesting laws only stigmatize consensual relations while ignoring their protective purpose. special.
2. Yeah not at all, you can go ahead and prove that.
And no, your posts suck, diddy.
The biggest problem is that these laws schizo presumes baaaarely illegaaaaaaal 18 minute 1.273 nanosecond old children can't consent rather than the obvious fact that most women are specialed and can't consent. Age of consent laws, in its full glory, should have been restricted to just familial matters rather than the nose-controlled government, allowing parents to settle a score with anybody who brings disgrace and shame unto their family for having taken the sexual innocence of their child. Also, arranged marriage is keyed.
Just as in the past the age of consent had to be raised from the age of 13 to the age of 18, for the 21st century we need to modernize our understanding of the age of consent to reflect the changes in our society and advancements in neuroscience. As the current generation of adult children are not cognitive enough to give consent and usually have no way to financially support a family or their executive functioning fully intact (the brain grows till you're 26), we must raise the age of heccin consent to 26 or the diddybluds who's getting all of the fresh middle schooler pussies anyway running the deep state will win.
And yes, my posts are mondo cool.
- Reply
There is no legitimate reason to have laws preventing two consenting partners from engaging in sexual activity. The assertion that children/young people can't consent relies on the premise that sex has a unique propensity to cause harm, regardless of whether it was consented to, but no empirical data supports this claim (Rind 1998, 2022). The primary reason negative reactions occur, is due to intervention when adult-child relationships are discovered, and the harsh cultural taboo against diddyphilic relationships.
One possible reason that the CSA myth continues is the simple fact that women overwhelmingly rate past sexual experiences as negative, regardless of their age at the time. All retrospective surveys conducted to date find women rate adult-child experiences no more negatively than adult-adult experiences, which you should keep in mind next time some roastie whore complains about "muh abuser" (it's no different than when roasties complain about their ex-husband).
The idea that sex corrupts children, or causes psychological harm, is a uniquely Western view, which is entirely absent from cultures which do not have a taboo against diddyphilia. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about sexual activity between adults and children, even infants. Masturbation of infants by mothers and caretakers to relax the infant is surprisingly common among primitive cultures, and was even common in pre-modern Europe.
Polls routinely find ~20% of people in Western countries support abolishing age of consent laws, which is more support than homosexual marriage had at the turn of the century.
An ideal system to implement would be the system in place in the Netherlands during 1989 - 2002. Sexual relationships between adults and children were legal, unless the child, a parent, or a youth worker complained to the law, which would warrant an investigation. The Netherlands had no issues with this system, and it was only reverted due to US pressure.
- Reply
diddysexual relationships were accepted in far more societies than adult-adult homosexual relationships, and there are ten times as many diddybluds as homosexuals. Around 90% of modern humanity's problems are caused by greedy people or women, this world is fucked but you all refuse to see the trvth.
- Reply
@Chud: greedy peopleisters what the actual fuck... thanks for proving my point
On a related note, sexual activity shouldn't be treated as some extraordinary activity which requires "informed consent" to participate in. Parents routinely physically abuse their 5 year old children without their consent, and no one cares about it. Physically assaulting children is perfectly legal, whereas sexually pleasuring a child with their consent will land you in prison for decades.
marge
- Reply
To have 18 as the official age of consent risks normalizing exploitative sexual relationships in which the younger individual is barely legal age and the other individual is substantially older. We should raise it.
[url=site://post/view/87671#c570467]@greedy personishautismaward78[/url]: Je suis francais so it's close but not the same thing
- Reply
All of this just by bothering Warrior Z
- Reply