But, if there is a push for pedophilia, expect it to come from the religious right. After all they are ones who are mostly caught diddling little boys. If pedophilia were to go mainstream, they would benefit the most. Feminists on the other hand see pedophilia as just another manifestation of male sexual privilege.

(07-10-2014 02:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I challenge anyone here on this board to become close to a gay man (as many as you can, feasibly) and ask them about their first sexual experience. What you will learn will shock you.

Up until recently, I worked in a government medical field. A lot nurses on staff. If they were male, they were gay, and they were flaming.

When I was younger I was much more 'live and let live' about homosexuality, but after 15 years of working with flaming queens, they myth that they're just like you and me is bullshit. They're degenerates, and their thinking if fundamentally childlike, specifically, pre-awareness of peer norms that develop during puberty.

Since I'm introverted and stoic when I'm not faking some level of extroversion for game purposes, people decide I'm a good listener, and start talking without any kind of filter for some reason. It's almost like hearing confession. I have simply had it all said to me all overheard it all by now.

Gay guys simply have no propriety filter. If it turns them on, they want to fuck it, social judgement be damned. It doesn't matter if their target is heterosexual, or they're in a public toilet, or even a blood-relation.

The amount of gay guys I've overheard discussing either childhood abuse and sexual relations with or attraction to brothers, cousins, and uncles horrified me. Enough that it seems to be normalised in their culture for them to be so free about it. Even worse: their own fucking fathers come up in conversation a lot with other gay guys. WTF?

When your culture is based on degeneracy and ignoring taboos, I guess the sex gradually has to get more extreme to keep getting their kicks. They're children who can't tolerate frustration of their desires, so if you have a disapproving male figure + withholding of appreciation then filter that through a gay hamster, they're going to want to fuck it to win approval. Who is more unimpressed by a flaming son than a disapproving dad?

Whenever I'd express confusion or disgust, I'd be pooh-poohed away with 'Oh you breeders just don't understand our culture'.

The big social media scandal here last week was a rugby league player photographed pissing in his own mouth and shared over twitter. Strangely, my facebook feed was flooded with condemnation by the 'equality now' girls saying how 'disgusting' and 'filthy' it was, which confused me no end.

Eventually, I said "Hey, I'm curious. Can you girls explain just what it is you think gay guys do together, cause you're all about celebrating that and gay sex if far filthier than a drunk guy pissing on himself."

The conversation was interesting. I think women think gay men think exactly like women so the sex is all passion and emotion and rose petals or something. It's like women think gay guys are all cute like sassy pets, and, to a very real degree, sexless, at least in terms of animalistic, 'dirty' sex. Maybe they read them as not masculine enough for them to imagine them doing that. Not sure.

After a while, I lost interest in the back and forth, ('Do you think your neighbours aren't fisting each other?), but signed off with "Food for thought: do you know it's so common for gay men to have abused their arseholes with fists, cocks and dildos to the extreme that their arses have prolapsed, that rather than be ashamed that their insides are now on their outside, they have started calling the damage a 'blossom' - as in a rose blossom - to make it seem like a desirable and envious trait for gay guys to have." I told them to google it if they didn't believe me. (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT GOOGLE THIS).

How do I know this? Because my gay workers freely-talked about this during casual conversation in the workplace, being so socially-awkward that they thought this was entirely-appropriate to do so.

I don't hate gays. They're just more like children I'm uninterested in babysitting. They're largely self-segregating and have little interest in the straight world beyond fame / celebrity culture, or sportsmen with their shirts off. Their basic drives are sex or approval. Hell, I'm all for gay marriage, so everyone can stop pretending its a vital issue for a sexually-promiscuous group uninterested in monogamy, when it's really just the lesbians hiding behind the gay men to get their way. Give them marriage, then they can discover just how fucked they are by divorce laws. Hey, they want equality.

Still, I think the 'live and let live' types need to see that gays aren't cute little pets like what television shows them they are.

From Houellebecq's The Elementary Particles:

Quote:As he chewed his vitamin-enriched cereal, he thought about the Faustian nature of sexual pursuit, its vampirism. For example, Bruno thought, people are wrong to talk about homosexuals. He had never- or very rarely-met a homosexual; on the other hand, he knew a great many pederasts. Some pederasts- thankfully, very few- prefer little boys; they wind up in prison for a long stretch and no one ever talks about them again. Most pederasts, however, are attracted to youths between fifteen and twenty-five. Anyone older than that, to them, is simply an old dried-up asshole. Watch two queens together, Bruno liked to say, watch them closely: they may be fond of each other, they may even be affectionate, but do they really want each other? No. As soon as some fifteen-to-twenty-five-year-old ass walks past, they will tear each other apart like panthers; each will rip the other to pieces just for that tight little ass- so Bruno thought.

(07-10-2014 06:54 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  But, if there is a push for pedophilia, expect it to come from the religious right. After all they are ones who are mostly caught diddling little boys. If pedophilia were to go mainstream, they would benefit the most. Feminists on the other hand see pedophilia as just another manifestation of male sexual privilege.

By your reasoning, would the religious right also be pushing for homosexuality since it's boy rather then girls that they are diddling?

(07-10-2014 07:46 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 02:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I challenge anyone here on this board to become close to a gay man (as many as you can, feasibly) and ask them about their first sexual experience. What you will learn will shock you.

Up until recently, I worked in a government medical field. A lot nurses on staff. If they were male, they were gay, and they were flaming.

When I was younger I was much more 'live and let live' about homosexuality, but after 15 years of working with flaming queens, they myth that they're just like you and me is bullshit. They're degenerates, and their thinking if fundamentally childlike, specifically, pre-awareness of peer norms that develop during puberty.

Since I'm introverted and stoic when I'm not faking some level of extroversion for game purposes, people decide I'm a good listener, and start talking without any kind of filter for some reason. It's almost like hearing confession. I have simply had it all said to me all overheard it all by now.

Gay guys simply have no propriety filter. If it turns them on, they want to fuck it, social judgement be damned. It doesn't matter if their target is heterosexual, or they're in a public toilet, or even a blood-relation.

The amount of gay guys I've overheard discussing either childhood abuse and sexual relations with or attraction to brothers, cousins, and uncles horrified me. Enough that it seems to be normalised in their culture for them to be so free about it. Even worse: their own fucking fathers come up in conversation a lot with other gay guys. WTF?

When your culture is based on degeneracy and ignoring taboos, I guess the sex gradually has to get more extreme to keep getting their kicks. They're children who can't tolerate frustration of their desires, so if you have a disapproving male figure + withholding of appreciation then filter that through a gay hamster, they're going to want to fuck it to win approval. Who is more unimpressed by a flaming son than a disapproving dad?

Whenever I'd express confusion or disgust, I'd be pooh-poohed away with 'Oh you breeders just don't understand our culture'.

The big social media scandal here last week was a rugby league player photographed pissing in his own mouth and shared over twitter. Strangely, my facebook feed was flooded with condemnation by the 'equality now' girls saying how 'disgusting' and 'filthy' it was, which confused me no end.

Eventually, I said "Hey, I'm curious. Can you girls explain just what it is you think gay guys do together, cause you're all about celebrating that and gay sex if far filthier than a drunk guy pissing on himself."

The conversation was interesting. I think women think gay men think exactly like women so the sex is all passion and emotion and rose petals or something. It's like women think gay guys are all cute like sassy pets, and, to a very real degree, sexless, at least in terms of animalistic, 'dirty' sex. Maybe they read them as not masculine enough for them to imagine them doing that. Not sure.

After a while, I lost interest in the back and forth, ('Do you think your neighbours aren't fisting each other?), but signed off with "Food for thought: do you know it's so common for gay men to have abused their arseholes with fists, cocks and dildos to the extreme that their arses have prolapsed, that rather than be ashamed that their insides are now on their outside, they have started calling the damage a 'blossom' - as in a rose blossom - to make it seem like a desirable and envious trait for gay guys to have." I told them to google it if they didn't believe me. (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT GOOGLE THIS).

How do I know this? Because my gay workers freely-talked about this during casual conversation in the workplace, being so socially-awkward that they thought this was entirely-appropriate to do so.

I don't hate gays. They're just more like children I'm uninterested in babysitting. They're largely self-segregating and have little interest in the straight world beyond fame / celebrity culture, or sportsmen with their shirts off. Their basic drives are sex or approval. Hell, I'm all for gay marriage, so everyone can stop pretending its a vital issue for a sexually-promiscuous group uninterested in monogamy, when it's really just the lesbians hiding behind the gay men to get their way. Give them marriage, then they can discover just how fucked they are by divorce laws. Hey, they want equality.

Still, I think the 'live and let live' types need to see that gays aren't cute little pets like what television shows them they are.

Something in here is going to show up on that new RVF greatest hits. https://twitter.com/rooshvforum_txt

I found the babysitting comment pretty funny.

If any of you seriously think pedophilia will be legalized, you need to go outside and just push a child down in public and watch another human beings animal brain come into action. It will frighten you straight.

The difference between letting two men bone each other and having your child molested is astronomical. There is no comparison, except in the irrelevant theoretical world where loose concepts unattached to hard reality can be woven in a way to make possible the impossible.

Here’s reality. A man finds out his son was abused, then blows his brains out.




Here’s another, a man on a mission to kill sex offenders gets caught after a score of two.





IF a law ever went through for legalizing pedophilia, you’d see vigilante justice go off the charts.

(07-10-2014 07:46 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  ....
The conversation was interesting. I think women think gay men think exactly like women so the sex is all passion and emotion and rose petals or something. It's like women think gay guys are all cute like sassy pets, and, to a very real degree, sexless, at least in terms of animalistic, 'dirty' sex. Maybe they read them as not masculine enough for them to imagine them doing that. Not sure.

After a while, I lost interest in the back and forth, ('Do you think your neighbours aren't fisting each other?), but signed off with "Food for thought: do you know it's so common for gay men to have abused their arseholes with fists, cocks and dildos to the extreme that their arses have prolapsed, that rather than be ashamed that their insides are now on their outside, they have started calling the damage a 'blossom' - as in a rose blossom - to make it seem like a desirable and envious trait for gay guys to have." I told them to google it if they didn't believe me. (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT GOOGLE THIS).
.....

I 100% agree with this post (including the parts I deleted). I think most hetero men have two innate reasons for being averse to homosexuality. First, there is the simple biological disgust and the sense of an unnatural act taking place. Even seeing two men holding hands strikes an immediately unnatural chord, like smelling a fart. Secondly, I think most men understand that, if men were actually allowed to have sex with anybody, at virtually any time, at virtually any place....then civilization would soon crumble because men would simply stop working and just fuck all the time.

And that's pretty much what I have observed. Most gays I know have a shitty work ethic (one aging "twink" I know is in his mid thirties and shamelessly lives off of his mother, who, bizarrely, adores his effeminate, gossipy comportment) and they tend to be leaches on society.

As far as the women go, I have an ongoing e-mail correspondence with a girl I used to work with. She is in her early thirties and is admittedly and unapologetically asexual, as are so many of the girls in their 30's that I know. She's living with a beta kiss ass white knight who immediately comes and "defends" her whenever I neg her Facebook feed (for my own fun, not to lead to sex). She is asexual, but told her beta provider that he could cheat on her when he went to Vegas for the CES (he works in electronics), but he said he would never do that to her.

Anyway! She is a rabid Social Justice Activist, and she knows that I'm a Christian. So she won't stop derailing otherwise enjoyable e-mail pen pal letters with her scizophrenic obsession with gays and gay marriage. (Her Facebook wall is one endless stream of "OMG! OH ON THEY DI'INTs!!!" about some innocuous criticism of gay marriage.) Well, I gamely stand up for tradition in the letters, but I make my points to her in one or two sentences and try to move on. But she just won't have it - she's obsessed with gays and wants all men to pledge subservience to all of the USA's gay mantras. A couple of weeks ago, I said that the USA government forcing Mormon and Christian bakers to cook for gays is a violation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (prohibition on "involuntary servitude", slavery and indentured servants). This really set her off, and this is what she wrote:

Quote:The reason people care about gay people is that they are persecuted. I've seen it first hand. Gay people are more likely to commit suicide. Gay people are shunned by their family's, can be fired by their employers...you know the arguments. There's no use in my going over them. People give a fuck about human rights. If that bothers you, so what? If gay people were treated just like everyone else, they would not deserve any special attention, but while LGBT people are being beaten and killed just for their sexuality, special attention is deserved. It's the same as the civil right's movement in the 60s, not that you support that either. You morality in regards to homosexuality comes from a book that is never gong to change [NOTE: The Bible] and support gay people. However, myself and most people I choose to associate with look at the world objectively and decide what is actually right and wrong for ourselves support adult's rights to do whatever they want to each other as long as they are both consenting.

And before you even go there.... No, someone being forced to bake a cake for a gay person and get PAID for it, when they would bake the same cake for a straight person is not slavery. It's called being forced to not discriminate. It's insulting to anyone who has ever been enslaved in the history of humanity for that comparison to be made.

I've mostly shut my mouth, when you've said some of the most absolute disgusting things I've heard people say. [NOTE: Gay men are more likely to be pedophiles; black and white people are different.] And I am not hyperbolizing.... But it is really offensive, and I'm really frustrated and ethically torn as to whether it's even okay to have a friendship with someone who feels that way. I think diversity is beautiful and wonderful. You use countries like Israel and China as examples of success, and I would never want to live in or even visit those countries. MANY close people to me are gay, and it seems to me like you think that white people [NOTE: I kept making fun of white yuppies' homophilia] just get on this band wagon because it's cool and not because there are actual REAL live human beings with REAL FACES who are gay. These are our friends, siblings, cousins, children, parents. They aren't just some idealized androgynous couple on TV or that we see when we are shopping. They are the people we talk to when we are sad, they are the people we talk to when we are bored or want to bitch about something as mundane as having to call the cable company. They are every day regular people and they are treated like shit. They are compared to pedophiles by people like you and it's unethical for me not to say anything.

Her letter also had about a dozen URL links to pro-gay news stories. Note that last paragraph, how she seemed to be writing for a political speech. Even in regular, real world correspondences such as this originally friendly e-mail echange, SJA's use political verbiage and stylings. They are as brainwashed as anybody in a Siberian gulag.

(07-10-2014 07:46 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  How do I know this? Because my gay workers freely-talked about this during casual conversation in the workplace, being so socially-awkward that they thought this was entirely-appropriate to do so.

It was around 20 years ago that I first heard the word "mangina." It wasn't in reference to male feminists, wimpy men or white knights like it is today. It was from a gay coworker who was referring to his asshole.

Some of them would actually take offense if you asked them to keep it to tone it down.

(07-10-2014 01:20 PM)scorpion Wrote:  My logic is not faulty, nor does the affirming the consequent fallacy apply, because I'm drawing conclusions from measured, quantifiable data, not blanket categorizations.

I'm not saying something like, "Zebras eat grass. John ate grass. Therefore, John is a Zebra."

Confusion of the Inverse Fallacy, not affirming the consequent.

- "Most terrorists tend to have an engineering background, therefore engineers are more likely to be terrorists."

- "Most hard drug users smoked pot once, therefore most pot smokers will end up using hard drugs."

- "Most members of the IRA are Irish, therefore don't trust Irish people -- they're more likely to belong to the IRA."

Yes, you are using shitty logic, and the absurdity of the above examples is no different from what you're saying.

Quote:I'm saying: Homosexuals are 1500% more likely to be pedophiles than straight men.

You made those numbers up.

Quote:There is no logical fallacy. That's simply the math. That doesn't mean that all or even most homosexuals are pedophiles.

Again, Confusion of the Inverse fallacy. No one is accusing you of saying most pedophiles are child molesters. It's still flawed logic, either way.

Quote:It just means that pedophilia is much more common among homosexuals than straight men.

No. It means (assuming your statistic is in fact accurate) that homosexuals are more common among pedophiles. It does not follow from that that pedophiles or more common among gays.

Again, this is the equivalent of saying "terrorism is more common among engineers than accountants." It's a competely meaningless statement.

You also seem oblivious to the fact that many child molesters are situational offenders, not preferential.

I don't know why you keep ignoring what I said earlier, either: the vast majority of child molesters are male. Should I assume men are therefore a greater threat to children, or that men are inherently deviant?

Quote:This is a fact, it is not arguable. You are free to disregard the facts, but not to make up your own or accuse me of faulty logic.

The conclusions your drawing from these alleged "facts" are what I take issue with. Yes, they are arguable. You can repeat this little mantra of yours all you want, you're not actually making a point with it.

This is of course all assuming that these are in fact preferential offenders who are actually attracted to their victims gender. Many child molesters are known as situational offenders, who offend because they have easier access to children, who in turn can't say no and are easier victims. In that case, it wouldn't be surprising that you find higher numbers of male victims e.g. boyscout coaches and catholic priests have more access to male victims than female.

(07-10-2014 10:29 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  No. It means (assuming your statistic is in fact accurate) that homosexuals are more common among pedophiles. It does not follow from that that pedophiles or more common among gays.

Again, this is the equivalent of saying "terrorism is more common among engineers than accountants." It's competely meaningless.

Sargon, I think you are being too politically correct.

It's more like stating the fact that terrorism is more common among Arabs than whites. This obviously does not mean that all Arabs are terrorists or anything close to that. It also doesn't mean that whites can't be terrorists. But facts are facts.

I would not leave my son in the company of a homosexual babysitter. Does that make me a bigot? Maybe. To me, it's just common sense.

(07-10-2014 09:23 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Something in here is going to show up on that new RVF greatest hits. https://twitter.com/rooshvforum_txt

Probably. Admittedly, I'd like to know who is behind it. I'm interested what percentage of gays would be SJW's, and, if they are, are they analogues of the female version: men who would be considered ugly and low value by the standards of their dating world.

If they are, then it also makes me wonder they're part of the whole Neo-Victorian 'pious and sensible' trend the Millenials are normalising. It's entirely possible the younger generation of gay men are as awkward and uncomfortable with sex and connection as the heterosexuals are. Despite all the cultural hype about hooking up and 'rainbow parties' and 'sexting', Millenial Girls are too awkward to just fuck each other without being either damaged by the experience, or too wary of being hurt hurt and too suspicious of the motivations of people outside their comfort bubble to take that chance.

I can see why Tinder and Grinder would be popular: you're not dialling up a real person, but a blank construct they can ascribe positive personality traits upon based upon their level of attraction, so they don't feel so pump and dumped.

(07-10-2014 10:36 PM)dreambig Wrote:  Sargon, I think you are being too politically correct.

It's more like stating the fact that terrorism is more common among Arabs than whites. This obviously does not mean that all Arabs are terrorists or anything close to that. It also doesn't mean that whites can't be terrorists. But facts are facts.

I would not leave my son in the company of a homosexual babysitter. Does that make me a bigot? Maybe. To me, it's just common sense.

The term "politically correct" is completely meaningless to me. By now, it's too often little more than a buzz word thrown around towards people when there's no evidence for an otherwise outdated and unfounded idea. I couldn't care less if my opinion is "politically correct".

This is like saying "I wouldn't trust an Arab, because he might blow me up or kidnap me." It's not just "poltiically incorrect", it's absurd and sensationalist.

Again, how is this statement logically any different from saying "Terrorism is more common among engineers than porn stars. This obviously does not mean that all engineers are terrorists or anything close to that. It also doesn't mean that porn stars can't be terrorists. But facts are facts."? Or that "you shouldn't leave your son with a male Babysitter, because almost all child molesters are male?"

(07-10-2014 10:29 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  You made those numbers up.

No. I cited multiple sources.

Quote:the vast majority of child molesters are male. Should I assume men are therefore a greater threat to children, or that men are inherently deviant?

Yes. This is common sense. It's why you don't see a lot of male babysitters, because people instinctively understand the fact that it's more dangerous to leave a man (especially an unrelated man) alone with a child than a woman or a girl.

Normal people also understand instinctively that it's even more dangerous to leave homosexual men around children. This is one of the major reasons for the existence of homophobia. Humans evolved to have an innate disgust toward homosexuals because they damage society in a number of ways, one of which is pedophilic homosexual predation on children.

Now to be honest I'm tired of engaging you on this topic. You're hopelessly blue pilled and/or delusional. If you want to believe that homosexuals are just like you and me, feel free to surround your children with them. Not exactly a shortcut toward father of the year in my opinion, but hey, at least you'll score some political correctness points.

(07-10-2014 10:51 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  This is like saying "I wouldn't trust an Arab, because he might blow me up or kidnap me." It's not just "poltiically incorrect", it's absurd and sensationalist.

That's completely misrepresenting my point. Facts are there to provide useful information in making decisions.

You might want to be more careful about terrorism in the Middle East than in Taiwan or Japan. This doesn't mean you can't trust any Arabs. Far from it.

(07-10-2014 10:51 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  Again, how is this statement logically any different from saying "Terrorism is more common among engineers than porn stars. This obviously does not mean that all engineers are terrorists or anything close to that. It also doesn't mean that porn stars can't be terrorists. But facts are facts."?

You are making another silly, relativist comparison to the argument being made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Answer this then. Would you happily have a gay babysitter look after your son?

(07-10-2014 10:53 PM)scorpion Wrote:  No. I cited multiple sources.

1500% is a made up number. Either that, or it's based on bad math.

Quote:Normal people also understand instinctively that it's even more dangerous to leave homosexual men around children. This is one of the major reasons for the existence of homophobia.

Religious fundamentalism is the major reason for the existence of homophobia. If it were evolutionary, you wouldn't find so many ancient cultures that were so into boy-fucking.

Quote:Humans evolved to have an innate disgust toward homosexuals because they damage society in a number of ways.

Sources? There is no evolutionary origin in homophobia. You completely made that statement up.

Quote:Now to be honest I'm tired of engaging you on this topic. You're hopelessly blue pilled and/or delusional. If you want to believe that homosexuals are just like you and me, feel free to surround your children with them. Not exactly a shortcut toward father of the year in my opinion, but hey, at least you'll score some political correctness points.

In other words you have no real data to back up your conclusions, other than that 33% you keep throwing around (again, confusion of the inverse fallacy). Throwing around snarl words like "blue-pill" doesn't change that.

No, I wouldn't be more concerned with a gay babysitter than I would seeing an Arab at an airport.

(07-10-2014 10:58 PM)dreambig Wrote:  You might want to be more careful about terrorism in the Middle East than in Taiwan or Japan.

Should I be more careful about terrorism in the presence of Arab people than around Japanese people? Not really, no.

Quote:This doesn't mean you can't trust any Arabs. Far from it.

...If it doesn't mean you can't trust Arabs, then why does this apply differently with homosexuals?

Quote:You are making another silly, relativist comparison to the argument being made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Relativism is the belief that their are no absolute truths and that only subjective opinions matter. I don't see how that has anything to do with my analogy. If my analogy is flawed, can you explain how the two situations are different?

Quote:Answer this then. Would you happily have a gay babysitter look after your son?

All else being equal, and assuming there was nothing otherwise suspicious about him, yeah, I would.

I already did a detailed breakdown of the math showing 1500% (12x -16x) in this post: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-37927-...#pid776327

And I hardly made up the idea that homophobia has an evolutionary advantage: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beri...attitudes/

The shit you're saying is just nonsense. You sound like a SJW. Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself, Mr. "Japanese people are as terroristic as Arabs and I want a gay babysitter for my son." You literally sound like a liberal parody. Why are you even here if you're that blue-pilled?

Hey look it's Sargon of Akkad's new babysitter!

He's just like you and me!

Google image search "gay pride parade" to see more fine upstanding homosexuals who you would have no qualms about surrounding your children with. They're not degenerate sex perverts, you see, they just enjoy same love.

Can't believe there are regulars on this forum who will actually defend homosexuality. Go watch some gay porno then come back and tell us that perverted shit isn't toxic to society

Hey guys has anyone seen Sargon of Akkad? I heard he is looking for babysitters and I'm available!

(07-10-2014 04:14 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  There's only one sensible way to deal with pedophiles: the death penalty. No sex offender registry, no life in prison without the possibility of a parole. They are inherently defective beings and the only way to cure them is with a bullet in the brain.

Yes, the system is ALWAYS right. It never makes any errors. Nobody is ever convicted of a crime and then later found to be innocent.

I'm 100% convinced that advocates of the death penalty don't give a shit about actual guilt or innocence. They just want to see someone get punished. That's why they favor the death penalty. If the person actually is innocent, they won't try to exonerate themselves. The death penalty makes it easy for them.

(07-10-2014 11:25 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The shit you're saying is just nonsense. You sound like a SJW. Stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself, Mr. "Japanese people are as terroristic as Arabs and I want a gay babysitter for my son."

Your posts are sounding more like a cross of something out of the Youtube comments section and Glenn Beck than anything else.

No, I wouldn't care any more about a gay babysitter than I would about seeing a group of Arabs at an airport. I'm not that indoctrinated by Fox News to care.

Quote:You literally sound like a liberal parody. Why are you even here if you're that blue-pilled?

I'm posting here because I have no respect for this kind of sensationalist, hysterical fear-mongering. You don't like hearing opposing opinions, then tough luck.

These men are 100% normal and young boys have nothing to fear from them.

This is what Sargon of Akkad actually believes.

(07-10-2014 11:32 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Hey look it's Sargon of Akkad's new babysitter!

He's just like you and me!

Google image search "gay pride parade" to see more fine upstanding homosexuals who you would have no qualms about surrounding your children with. They're not degenerate sex perverts, you see, they just enjoy same love.

Really? And this is a representation of the general population of gay people? You can't really be this ignorant. This sounds like something out of the mouth of Fred Phelps.

These two groups of people have exactly the same likelihood of engaging in terrorism.

This is what Sargon of Akkad actually believes.