Anonymous2: Did you know: Channers demonize masturbation because sexually frustrated mind are more likely to assimilate alt-right propaganda. Also channers are murderers, killed over 100 people in 2019.You're more likely to find 4chan languages and memes in mass shooters manifestos than Tumblr talking points.
Crimson-Snow: The post and the comments are actual shit but anon1 is right that 4chan scum are some of the most vile hate filled legitimately racist , sexist overall bigoted scum and they deserve some of the most painful deaths imaginable. Also anon5 is Nazi scum and is no better. This planet is full of fools and scum who devour their fellow man like rabid beasts. Right and left are both DREADFUL but Right wing is indeed a lot worse and for a number of reasons. We will never have actual equality for anyone because neither fucking side wants actual equality and those that do are overshadowed and run over by the pathetic diabolical scum who are the majority. We are a planet of FOOLS! We don't see what really matters and many don't even care.
Crimson-Snow: @Anonymous: Ah yes I'm a " chomo " who's not layed one sexual hand on a child lol. Yes because I'm clearly some sort of abusive child molsester despite the fact that I rather die than hurt a kid and would kill anyone who actually RAPED a child. The kind of people you're talking about are evil scum whose objective is to cause a child despair and who gets of on the cruelty and depravity of the act. Such a creature could not be further from myself. Just because I can appreciate the breathtaking physique of a tender aged female doesn't make me an abuser and I'll have you know I prefer adult women lol and I love legal lolis like Ichigo Aoi or Marie Konishi. I simply would not .... ever EVER look at a real child because I know that that poor angel is forced and abused into those situations by scum who deserve unimaginably painful deaths.
PartyCrasher: @Anonymous: What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things that I've ever heard, at no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought, everyone in this room is now dumber for having to listening to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Anonymous8(7): @Crimson-Snow: Sounds like the p3do version of "Im not like the other girls".
No man, you aren't different from all the other p3dos. The vast majority dosen't get off "of on the cruelty and depravity of the act" and their object isn't to cause despair. They wanna fuck a child because they are attracted to them. Just like you:
"I can appreciate the breathtaking physique of a tender aged female"
And you flat out state the only reason you wouldn't touch one is because it is supposedly forced and abused by others. Not because it's, you know, a child, like a non p3do would.
Crimson-Snow: @Anonymous: 14 15 16 17 18 you show me a man who isn't turned on when they start to get a figure. As far as younger than that goes I can at least appreciate the body but not too young when they have like no curves. On the younger scale is mostly a cute or pretty thing it's not necessarily sexual. I like cute things so I love actual legal lolis like say Marie Konishi. Really most men like cute girls so that's normal and other countries like say Japan for example are much more welcome of lolicon unlike the moral fag west. Italy for example the legal age is like 14 which is what it used to be a long time ago in America. Not everything is abuse and not everything is coercion.
Anonymous10: @Anonymous: This is basically how this argument goes. First, someone says something that isn’t “kill all ped0s.” Then, they are accused of being pedo apologists.
Here’s a challenge I *know* you can’t handle: try making a reply that doesn’t center around the identity of the author or implied attributes of their existence. If you really think you’re so smart and correct, it should be easy to debate and win, right?
But let’s be honest, you and I both know what comes next. Don’t pretend you don’t know that I already know what you’re about to say.
Anonymous11: @Anonymous: Excuse me if I will bite. First, Crimson is a p3do apologist. He invented stories about ch1ld-aged daughters getting diddled by their dads a while ago who ofc all told him about how it was the best thing that ever happend to them to get diddled by dad as a ch1ld. Which tells you everything you need to know about him.
Debate what? He made no argument.
First: "14 15 16 17 18 you show me a man who isn't turned on when they start to get a figure."
Simply not true. Maybe 16+ when they start to resemble more women than ch1ldren. Still, most men aren't and the amount of men attracted drops significantly the younger it gets and the more ch1ldlike they look and normal men for sure don't appreciate the body of ch1ldren under 14 or see them in a sexual way.
Second: "As far as younger than that goes I can at least appreciate the body but not too young when they have like no curves."
literally saying he is sexually attracted to some girls younger than 13, which is pathological p3dophilia.
Again: "On the younger scale is mostly a cute or pretty thing it's not necessarily sexual." Not necessarily sexual means sometimes it is. Again not normal, pathological.
"Really most men like cute girls so that's normal" mixing up most men liking cute girls with most men liking ch1ldren(like him) is a cheap rhetorical trick and no argument.also not true.
"other countries like say Japan for example are much more welcome of lolic0n unlike the moral fag west" Goalpost moving, it's about the normality and harmfulness of engaging in sexual realtions with and attraction to with irl ch1ldren, not lolic0n. So what if the age of consent is 14 in Italy? The reason is that Italy doesn't want to penalize age proximate relationships around that age, not that it's normal for grown ass men to be attracted to ch1ldren or that most of them are. And Crimson also pretended that it's normal to be attracted to even younger ch1ldren, it isn't.
"14 which is what it used to be a long time ago in America." This one is actually funny. A long time ago it was also legal in America to own people like cattle. how is that an argument? But anyway, the reason for low age of consent laws in the past around the world was because it was important to be sure that potential ch1ldren in a marriage were actually from the husband. Because there was no sure way to determine the real parentage and it was important for inheritances, titles, bloodlines etc. If the girl was young when married there was higher probability a virgin before the marriage night, so a higher probability a ch1ld was actually the husbands. The reason was societal and economical, not because men liked young ch1ldren sexually. The marriages would also be actually consummated when the girls were older in lots of cases, even if they got married young.
And this is the main point: "Not everything is abuse and not everything is coercion."
This is why he spend so much time distancing himself form cartoonishly cruel and brutal rape above, invented girls that told him how beneficial it was to get touched by daddy (hilariously not seeing the power dynamic and inherent trust between a dad and a child as abuse and coercion). But never said he wouldn't fuck a ch1ld if it wasn't "abused or coerced by others".He distances himself from the "scum-p3dos, not seeing that what he would be doing is harmful and abuse. Scum-p3dos are always the others because they are violent and cruel and get off to inflicting pain, what he calls "actual rape" not himself would he have sex with the child. It's what all p3dos do. p3dos and rape that damages the ch1ld is only the most cruel, brutal and obviously heinous acts with ch1ldren to them, not "normal" sex with them. That "normal" sex is what the vast majority of p3dos like him desire. Those violent and henious acts exist, but are much less common. And while one is clearly worse than the other, it is still abuse, most of the time coercion and harmful. Ofc the severity depends on the situation and the age of the ch1ld, but that does not change the fact that it is and it isn't normal.
That is why it's literally p3do apologia 101. It is exactly the same drivel p3do advocate groups use to make a case for diddling ch1ldren.
I don't know what there is to "debate and win". Crimson-snow has a self admitted abnormal sexual attraction to young children and pretends it's normal, doesn't see sexual relations to them as harmful and abuse, as long as it isn't the most heinous and violent acts. Sure, people are always quick to condem p3dos in a witch-hunt and start frothing at the mouth, even non offending ones.
But that doesn't change the fact crimson is what he is and tries to play down and normalise his desires, which is p3do apologia.
Crimson-Snow: @Anonymous: I'll make my reply short and sweet. The girl I talked about who had had things happen was someone I know but there's nothing I can do to prove that since none of know one another irl on here. Lastly no there is a difference between cruelty hurting someone and what you consider coercion and once again I've touched no one and the traits I find attractive are literally no different from the traits I find attractive in lolicon of age girls. I think if anything if the body is too undeveloped I would not be aroused and what I like on loli women are their tight and shapely curves as well as cute looks.
- Reply
Also Anon1 is 127% correct, cope and seethe
- Reply
Soneone call the ADL and tell them I'll be a little late with their long pork fritters:
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
No man, you aren't different from all the other p3dos. The vast majority dosen't get off "of on the cruelty and depravity of the act" and their object isn't to cause despair. They wanna fuck a child because they are attracted to them. Just like you:
"I can appreciate the breathtaking physique of a tender aged female"
And you flat out state the only reason you wouldn't touch one is because it is supposedly forced and abused by others. Not because it's, you know, a child, like a non p3do would.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Here’s a challenge I *know* you can’t handle: try making a reply that doesn’t center around the identity of the author or implied attributes of their existence. If you really think you’re so smart and correct, it should be easy to debate and win, right?
But let’s be honest, you and I both know what comes next. Don’t pretend you don’t know that I already know what you’re about to say.
Debate what? He made no argument.
First: "14 15 16 17 18 you show me a man who isn't turned on when they start to get a figure."
Simply not true. Maybe 16+ when they start to resemble more women than ch1ldren. Still, most men aren't and the amount of men attracted drops significantly the younger it gets and the more ch1ldlike they look and normal men for sure don't appreciate the body of ch1ldren under 14 or see them in a sexual way.
Second: "As far as younger than that goes I can at least appreciate the body but not too young when they have like no curves."
literally saying he is sexually attracted to some girls younger than 13, which is pathological p3dophilia.
Again: "On the younger scale is mostly a cute or pretty thing it's not necessarily sexual." Not necessarily sexual means sometimes it is. Again not normal, pathological.
"Really most men like cute girls so that's normal" mixing up most men liking cute girls with most men liking ch1ldren(like him) is a cheap rhetorical trick and no argument.also not true.
"other countries like say Japan for example are much more welcome of lolic0n unlike the moral fag west" Goalpost moving, it's about the normality and harmfulness of engaging in sexual realtions with and attraction to with irl ch1ldren, not lolic0n. So what if the age of consent is 14 in Italy? The reason is that Italy doesn't want to penalize age proximate relationships around that age, not that it's normal for grown ass men to be attracted to ch1ldren or that most of them are. And Crimson also pretended that it's normal to be attracted to even younger ch1ldren, it isn't.
"14 which is what it used to be a long time ago in America." This one is actually funny. A long time ago it was also legal in America to own people like cattle. how is that an argument? But anyway, the reason for low age of consent laws in the past around the world was because it was important to be sure that potential ch1ldren in a marriage were actually from the husband. Because there was no sure way to determine the real parentage and it was important for inheritances, titles, bloodlines etc. If the girl was young when married there was higher probability a virgin before the marriage night, so a higher probability a ch1ld was actually the husbands. The reason was societal and economical, not because men liked young ch1ldren sexually. The marriages would also be actually consummated when the girls were older in lots of cases, even if they got married young.
And this is the main point: "Not everything is abuse and not everything is coercion."
This is why he spend so much time distancing himself form cartoonishly cruel and brutal rape above, invented girls that told him how beneficial it was to get touched by daddy (hilariously not seeing the power dynamic and inherent trust between a dad and a child as abuse and coercion). But never said he wouldn't fuck a ch1ld if it wasn't "abused or coerced by others".He distances himself from the "scum-p3dos, not seeing that what he would be doing is harmful and abuse. Scum-p3dos are always the others because they are violent and cruel and get off to inflicting pain, what he calls "actual rape" not himself would he have sex with the child. It's what all p3dos do. p3dos and rape that damages the ch1ld is only the most cruel, brutal and obviously heinous acts with ch1ldren to them, not "normal" sex with them. That "normal" sex is what the vast majority of p3dos like him desire. Those violent and henious acts exist, but are much less common. And while one is clearly worse than the other, it is still abuse, most of the time coercion and harmful. Ofc the severity depends on the situation and the age of the ch1ld, but that does not change the fact that it is and it isn't normal.
That is why it's literally p3do apologia 101. It is exactly the same drivel p3do advocate groups use to make a case for diddling ch1ldren.
I don't know what there is to "debate and win". Crimson-snow has a self admitted abnormal sexual attraction to young children and pretends it's normal, doesn't see sexual relations to them as harmful and abuse, as long as it isn't the most heinous and violent acts. Sure, people are always quick to condem p3dos in a witch-hunt and start frothing at the mouth, even non offending ones.
But that doesn't change the fact crimson is what he is and tries to play down and normalise his desires, which is p3do apologia.
- Reply