I can't wait for page 3333.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,501
Sargon is definitely not conservative. Just because he doesn't buy into the identity politics, gender nonsense and destructive immigration of the new progressives, doesn't mean he is conservative. He is what a liberal was a decade ago, back when the Left had some semblance of respectability. "Skeptics" like him will go after the lowest hanging fruit of irrationality available, now you progressives kick up a fuss because he's going after your own ideology. It's funny because it's the exact type of people who'd be going after religious conservatives a number of years ago, but as Sargon has pointed out, now it's the Left that is the most destructive fountain of irrationality.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
What???B1rd wrote: 4w393k
You know you're preaching to the choir when your audience calls Sargon of Akkad and Armored Skeptic conservatives.
Sargon absolutely is a conservative. He voted for them, for Christ's sake. He's been riding the popularity association of "trying to reform the Left" for a while now, when in reality all that means is that his politics have shifted further right along with global events in general.
As for Armoured Skeptic, he seems a little more progressive than many of the "Skeptic Community". Him and Shoe seem to have been making some nice changes, honestly, they're moving away from the usual hate-based content that the rightwing skeptics got famous from. They build up a MASSIVE conservative viewerbase, you can't deny that. Does that mean they themselves are conservatives? Not necessarily. Does it even matter..?
You're accurate with some of this, to be fair. The modern "skeptic community" are the ones who generally got popular criticising crazy religious fundamentalists (usually Christians) a few years back, and since then, they have generally transitioned into becoming rightwing or otherwise conservative politics-based channels. One of the funnier transitions would be Stefan Molyneux, who went from "all politics is bad and I refuse to play that game" to becoming a full-fledged Trump Train er who spouts almost nothing but pro-Trump propaganda and batshit insane relationship theory.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Sargon is definitely not conservative. Just because he doesn't buy into the identity politics, gender nonsense and destructive immigration of the new progressives, doesn't mean he is conservative. He is what a liberal was a decade ago, back when the Left had some semblance of respectability. "Skeptics" like him will go after the lowest hanging fruit of irrationality available, now you progressives kick up a fuss because he's going after your own ideology. It's funny because it's the exact type of people who'd be going after religious conservatives a number of years ago, but as Sargon has pointed out, now it's the Left that is the most destructive fountain of irrationality.
I feel like the Internet has changed in really interesting ways over the years.
Also, I don't feel like the Left had more respectability years ago. Back when SJWs were all across the internet, I can absolutely understand people turning away from the political left in general, seeing the kind of slippery slope BS they seemed to be heading down. That was a few years back, though; it's almost as if people simply haven't caught up to reality yet, still fighting the insane feminists and identity-politics madpeople that no longer exist outside of their own heads, and have ended up siding with the kinds of awful people who have actually gotten real political power and influence (i.e. the Presidency) instead of having their influence rather thankfully contained to places like college campuses.
Add multiples of 10 and extras. Count the numbers that you have by hand or in your head, starting from the sets of ten that you have. Oops, in the picture there is a 6 instead of 16; so, that picture has 10 fewer than the number added above and explained below.
In the example from the previous step, you have the 3 extra, after the 50 you already counted up from the paired numbers making 20, plus the other 20 plus 10 and adding 3 extra for a total of 53 (your answer). That was pretty easy to add in your head as: 20 + 20 = 40, and 10 more = 50, so 50 + 3 = 53 (of course you could say "20 is 2 tens", and "20 and 20 is 4 tens", now "plus 10 makes 5 tens which is 50", then "plus 3" is 53).
In the example from the previous step, you have the 3 extra, after the 50 you already counted up from the paired numbers making 20, plus the other 20 plus 10 and adding 3 extra for a total of 53 (your answer). That was pretty easy to add in your head as: 20 + 20 = 40, and 10 more = 50, so 50 + 3 = 53 (of course you could say "20 is 2 tens", and "20 and 20 is 4 tens", now "plus 10 makes 5 tens which is 50", then "plus 3" is 53).
only my response was relevantAurani wrote: k3n52
Did anything else happen besides that? What were the responses?
but rly the responses on twitter were memes from mainly polish people, significantly less people backing him up this time. apart from that epiphany guy whos just autistic, some random titty girl aswell but most ppl just ridiculed them
I'd say that this time more people backed him up than during the phancakes stufflol wrote: k2335
only my response was relevantAurani wrote: k3n52
Did anything else happen besides that? What were the responses?
but rly the responses on twitter were memes from mainly polish people, significantly less people backing him up this time. apart from that epiphany guy whos just autistic, some random titty girl aswell but most ppl just ridiculed them
Me.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
It's really embarrassing that some people are into those grossly sexualised little girls
That's truer than you realise.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
To be fair, the person leaking all this is on some kind of weird moral crusade that wants a witch-hunt of some kind. People get fucking weird when they have power over others
No, though it's natural for men to be attracted to 15/16 year olds. IIRC, females are most fertile around that age, and the chances of birth defects rise steadily as she gets older.Aurani wrote: k3n52
It's called paedophilia and it's completely natural. :^)
I just read Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell. I find it hilarious how every Jew is portrayed as some kind of swindler or scam artist, and the book in non-fiction.
Orwell's books are great, short and easy reading, but interesting too. In particular, you get an interesting perceptive of daily life in the early 20th century.
Orwell's books are great, short and easy reading, but interesting too. In particular, you get an interesting perceptive of daily life in the early 20th century.
Please tell me you didn't just say that it would be natural for a 50 year old man to be attracted to a 15yo.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
No, though it's natural for men to be attracted to 15/16 year olds. IIRC, females are most fertile around that age, and the chances of birth defects rise steadily as she gets older.
I'd also very much like some credible sources that say that a 15 year old has the best possible fertility and least possible defects, because it sounds like pure bullshit. :V
even if this was the truth why would you try justifying paedophilia with it, im not just saying this because its edgy but its legit pure autismAurani wrote: k3n52
Please tell me you didn't just say that it would be natural for a 50 year old man to be attracted to a 15yo.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
No, though it's natural for men to be attracted to 15/16 year olds. IIRC, females are most fertile around that age, and the chances of birth defects rise steadily as she gets older.
I'd also very much like some credible sources that say that a 15 year old has the best possible fertility and least possible defects, because it sounds like pure bullshit. :V
I'm not trying to justify anything, and being attracted to 15 year olds isn't paedophilia. Pedophilia is concerned with pre-pubescent children, and generally 15 and 16 years olds have their reproductive faculties in order. Reproductive capability is pretty much the main determining factor for attractiveness, because obviously reproduction is the main purpose of human sexuality. So yes it is normal for men, even older men, to be attracted to 15 or 16 year old girls who've gone through puberty. And to back up this point, from a layman's perspective, it seems the norm for a lot of cultures and societies for older men to take a younger wife, or multiple younger wife. This being taboo seems to be a relatively recent cultural trend.lol wrote: k2335
even if this was the truth why would you try justifying paedophilia with it, im not just saying this because its edgy but its legit pure autism
And I really don't care that much or have some sort of agenda I'm trying to push, I'm just pointing out some interesting points about human biology and whatnot. Although I would say that paedophilia, while indeed bad, seems to be a boogeyman blown out of all proportion in our current society, and it gets annoying to hear about it all the time, especially concerning harmless 2D images.
Also I accidentally fucked up my last posts by editing it with this one, oh well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2431924
"There is no evidence of an overall increase in congenital malformations among babies born to teenagers."
"There is no evidence of an overall increase in congenital malformations among babies born to teenagers."
yeah but this doesn't even mention older women having higher chances of birth defects either, which is what you claimed. in fact, at one point this study suggested that teenagers have a harder time giving birth due to lower weight and undeveloped body. here, have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertilityB1rd wrote: 4w393k
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2431924
"There is no evidence of an overall increase in congenital malformations among babies born to teenagers."
"After puberty, female fertility increases and then decreases, with advanced maternal age causing an increased risk of female infertility."
it also mentions that fertility is at its peak during a woman's 20s because that's when their puberty ends. at one point you said that
So yes it is normal for men, even older men, to be attracted to 15 or 16 year old girls who've gone through puberty.which is not true at all. some girls don't even start their periods at that age. you've gone through your puberty once you hit your early 20s, but at that age they're actually at their peak of puberty.
And yet that claim isn't even backed up by any sources in wikipedia, so it's null and void.Foxtrot wrote: 2l233p
yeah but this doesn't even mention older women having higher chances of birth defects either, which is what you claimed. in fact, at one point this study suggested that teenagers have a harder time giving birth due to lower weight and undeveloped body. here, have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
"After puberty, female fertility increases and then decreases, with advanced maternal age causing an increased risk of female infertility."
it also mentions that fertility is at its peak during a woman's 20s because that's when their puberty ends. at one point you said that
So yes it is normal for men, even older men, to be attracted to 15 or 16 year old girls who've gone through puberty.which is not true at all. some girls don't even start their periods at that age. you've gone through your puberty once you hit your early 20s, but at that age they're actually at their peak of puberty.
I didn't make any definite statements because I didn't have any evidence, basing the statement on something I read years ago. But it isn't particularly important that teenagers are more fertile than women in their 20s, because it is sufficient to back up my point that they are simply capable of reproduction, which is what the study I linked said. And if you read it carefully, it says that pregnancy only poses a problem for under 15 year olds, and lower birth weights can be attributed to differing socio-economic conditions. It doesn't matter if teenagers haven't finished puberty yet, they have most of their secondary sex characteristics, and are reproductively viable, and these are the things that are important for attractiveness.
The point is, there is nothing abnormal for men to merely be attracted to girls 15+.
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
It doesn't matter if teenagers haven't finished puberty yet, they have most of their secondary sex characteristics, and are reproductively viable, and these are the things that are important for attractiveness.
In your opinion, mate.
Maybe don't confuse your own preferences with whether or not something is normal for grown men in general. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a fucking 15-year-old
But it isn't particularly important that teenagers are more fertile than women in their 20s, because it is sufficient to back up my point that they are simply capable of reproductionthanks for stating the obvious. and also you seemed pretty fixated on fertility so that's why i pointed it out. oh, and by that logic, you'd probably think it's okay for men to go as low as 12 as long as they're capable of reproduction because it seems like nowadays the average age for first period is 12
http://www.obgyn.net/sexual-health/firs ... ical-signs
and you know, that's kind of awful
The point is, there is nothing abnormal for men to merely be attracted to girls 15+.15 year old girls have such baby faces. they all look like kids. i would be really concerned if someone who's 25 was attracted to such.
[And yet that claim isn't even backed up by any sources in wikipedia, so it's null and void.do you really need a source on biological clock lol c'mon
The point isn't that they're merely capable of reproducing, but rather they are capable or near as capable as a woman in her early twenties. I'm not really interested unless you want to try and disprove the point I made that there aren't any biological - rather than sociological - reasons as to why it is abnormal for men to be attracted to teens who're well-capable of reproducing. But apparently neither you nor anyone else can separate science from issues of morality and ethics, and you go on to make ridiculous strawmans, like that I think it's okay to have sex with 12 year olds.Foxtrot wrote: 2l233p
thanks for stating the obvious. and also you seemed pretty fixated on fertility so that's why i pointed it out. oh, and by that logic, you'd probably think it's okay for men to go as low as 12 as long as they're capable of reproduction because it seems like nowadays the average age for first period is 12
http://www.obgyn.net/sexual-health/firs ... ical-signs
and you know, that's kind of awful
The point is, there is nothing abnormal for men to merely be attracted to girls 15+.15 year old girls have such baby faces. they all look like kids. i would be really concerned if someone who's 25 was attracted to such.
And yet that claim isn't even backed up by any sources in wikipedia, so it's null and void.do you really need a source on biological clock lol c'mon