Lolidrama Anti-Loli Arguments (and how to make them crumble)

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
yea if you bump into someone like that in the wild I don't think there is a lot you can do. as Mand points out it's such a wildly contradictory belief.

I also think it stems from a common trend I see in a lot of antis and not just specifically about loli and that is they seem to think "sex is magic", its this idea sex affects the mind differently to other stimuli due to....... reasons that are never explained and due to this that means we have to treat sexual media different then we do violent media. I think they do this to try and deflect from the fact a lot of the study's into violent video games have resulted in that whole thing being a nothing burger and don't want that used to invalidate their point. I've not seen anything to sagest that sexual stimulus is any different to any other pleasure related stimulus, so I don't think this argument holds any water. sex is just as addicting as anything else that causes the same chemicals in the brain last I knew

but I'm going off on a tangent the point is these people think sex works differently to other forms of mental stim and due to that they want you to treat sexual media differently despite a lack of evidence to sagest what they are saying is anything other then bullshit
 

Crowblack187

varishangout.com
Regular
So me and a friend were arguging with a few people online about SOL stuff like Dragon Maid and Date A Live and well we both got accused of Ped0phillia and well even after defending ourselves. Well i had my account locked for 12 hours and it really made me pissed that the people we were (calmly) arguging with these people. They just spouted all kinds of insults and well the moment you insult someone during an argument is the moment you lose one.

The next time either me and her get into an argument with an anti, we'll be sure to keep these tips in mind thanks for that.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
yea if you bump into someone like that in the wild I don't think there is a lot you can do. as Mand points out it's such a wildly contradictory belief.

I also think it stems from a common trend I see in a lot of antis and not just specifically about loli and that is they seem to think "sex is magic", its this idea sex affects the mind differently to other stimuli due to....... reasons that are never explained and due to this that means we have to treat sexual media different then we do violent media. I think they do this to try and deflect from the fact a lot of the study's into violent video games have resulted in that whole thing being a nothing burger and don't want that used to invalidate their point. I've not seen anything to sagest that sexual stimulus is any different to any other pleasure related stimulus, so I don't think this argument holds any water. sex is just as addicting as anything else that causes the same chemicals in the brain last I knew

but I'm going off on a tangent the point is these people think sex works differently to other forms of mental stim and due to that they want you to treat sexual media differently despite a lack of evidence to sagest what they are saying is anything other then bullshit
>Sex is magic
Yes.
Because fertility is god and women are angels.
Sex literally is magic, and porn is blasphemy to the divine.

... I'm going to die on that hill that they're secular fertility cultists. I know I sound like I'm trying to be the next Alex Jones with that shit, but show me something that proves me wrong. They deny it in words, but they confirm it in actions, every single time.

EDIT: Under this logic: Objectification as an accusation now makes a lot more sense. Because it's idolatry. Huh.
It's literally an accusation of heresy.
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
>Sex is magic
Yes.
Because fertility is god and women are angels.
Sex literally is magic, and porn is blasphemy to the divine.

... I'm going to die on that hill that they're secular fertility cultists. I know I sound like I'm trying to be the next Alex Jones with that shit, but show me something that proves me wrong. They deny it in words, but they confirm it in actions, every single time.

EDIT: Under this logic: Objectification as an accusation now makes a lot more sense. Because it's idolatry. Huh.
It's literally an accusation of heresy.

you would be shocked not really by how similar these types of people act to religious crazy nutters. the difference is they worship other things rather than "god" in the way we think of god

and once you see this you understand that trying to pull someone out of that mindset has to be looked at the same way you would pull someone out of some kind of cult. and how hard it will be, so unless it's someone you really care about it's not worth it IMO. better to find the people it is
 

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
I saw a whole lot of "B-but these people will never listen to you!" in this thread (e.g. @Beginner ), but debates have inherent rules to them, if you're going to make an argument, you're going to base it off a specific system, and the default one is "reason".
If it's a made-up, bullshit system, no one will give a shit, no one gives a fuck if "muh SJW does not use reason because it's oppressive", no, you're not there to convince a fucking social justice warrior, if you're going to enter a debate like this, you're either there to trounce them for your own pleasure, show everyone that this person is retarded or BOTH (although both doesn't always work, some people are turned off by you mentioning how mentally retarded your opponent is).
What I'm trying to say is, you're wasting your fucking time this way, you've already "won" against someone that isn't using reason from the start, you don't have to actually "win their way", you have to pose for the public, you have to "win" the public in that case.

Anyway, "it's just a drawing" indeed isn't "enough" if you want to have a debate.
The main problem with this is a language deficiency and it's incomplete, "it's a depiction of a child" is the same.
How far is it a depiction though? How far is it "the same" like the real thing? If you start to deconstruct that, you're going to notice that things become awry, that's where the (also incomplete) analogies like "what about tentacle porn" or "what about furries" or "what about violence" come in, but what if the drawing is realistic enough then? Then it's the psychological argument, what exactly is the viewer thinking of when he's looking at this drawing? Is it the drawing that arouses him or does he change the drawing to another ideal version of the real thing?

I mean, this is pretty much what I mean when I talk about why "it's a depiction of a child" is incomplete and stupid:
71hAym5VYUL._AC_SL1000_.jpg
4174ea225b7fd2446f86b6aa5e850097.jpg
T02211_10.jpg

This is cubism, and it's retarded, but at least it proves a point. Do you see this "deconstruction" of the tree concept? (It's not the same tree, bear with me, he does this with all trees he made anyway) Yeah, you're still thinking this is a tree because your mind doesn't live in a fucking vacuum, you've seen the first, and the artist clearly wanted you to do that, and now you've seen the other two, and you're thinking "yeah, I guess it's a tree, and a deconstruction at that".

So basically, you have to go into detail (that's why arguing on Twitter is a waste of time). How much of it actually "depicts" a child? How far does it go "anatomically" and "psychologically", and what do YOU think when you see that "depiction"? What does this image in your head stands for? Is it a standalone or is it some fetish that is just your brain recognizing arousing elements?
I mean, even experts will not use your arousal to depictions to determine what you are, they will see if it's repeated and if the elements therein are "real" (e.g. even "pictures" aren't real, but you get my point, we're not going there because we know why CP is illegal), both of those need to be true for you to be "something". We all also know the disconnect of our fetishes and reality just like the experts do, you can't just look at someone that likes the idea of an anime girl's armpits and directly equalize it to the real thing, because armpits smell differently in your mind, they taste differently, even the sweat doesn't become dry and stale.

You'd also often hear how "sexual arousal is not the same like aggression", this is honestly harder to argue against (because the nuances are lost on retards) but the truth of the matter is that no, both are equally complex sentiments. For sexual arousal though, you have to consider the above, those that like tentacle porn either are monkeys and like squids somehow, or they use the squids as analogies for "arousing elements", just like with pornography, the meme about how "lesbian sex" is "straighter" than "straight sex" for example is just another way to trivialize our psychology, yes, the sexual act itself arouses you so you want to also take part in the sexual act, you are not aroused by the man or necessarily the woman, and that's where the complexity comes from.

As for the "You will become a pedophile" argument, that's either them claiming that humanity as a whole has a predisposition to having sex with children, or denying sexual orientations. "B-but pedophilia is different", in what way exactly? It's a pretty well-defined concept. The average human being is interested in what has reached puberty, so technically "ready for sex", while a pedophile will throw that away because of different connections in their brain, just like with orientations. The average human being will be interested in the other sex, for the purpose of reproduction, but the gay brain is connected differently and is aroused by the same sex, still, for the purpose of reproduction (that is just not there at that point).
Even attraction has a myriad of characteristics (so it's complex as well) we are attracted to shit not only because of looks, but also smell, sound, movement, texture, and so on.

"It will influence pedophiles to do the real thing" goes back to "gaming will influence you to violence", and we all know that this is the easiest to beat because of statistics. Statistics don't show this to be the case for violence of any kind, there's simply no correlation or it's a negative one. I've added this at the end because if you're good enough to defeat the arguments above, you just follow to here with your opponent, meaning this point is moot from the start because there's no correlation between being a pedophile and a lolicon, the only addition is the obvious statistical truth of how gaming decreases violence at best and at worst is not correlated to it if you wish to go the "even if lolicons are pedophiles" route.

I can't think of more really, this is I'd say the end of the subject as a whole.
Semiotics and other garbage is covered here as well and going into that much detail is a waste of fucking time with monkeys that think lolicon is pedophilia.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
I saw a whole lot of "B-but these people will never listen to you!" in this thread (e.g. @Beginner ), but debates have inherent rules to them, if you're going to make an argument, you're going to base it off a specific system, and the default one is "reason".
If it's a made-up, bullshit system, no one will give a shit, no one gives a fuck if "muh SJW does not use reason because it's oppressive", no, you're not there to convince a fucking social justice warrior, if you're going to enter a debate like this, you're either there to trounce them for your own pleasure, show everyone that this person is retarded or BOTH (although both doesn't always work, some people are turned off by you mentioning how mentally retarded your opponent is).
What I'm trying to say is, you're wasting your fucking time this way, you've already "won" against someone that isn't using reason from the start, you don't have to actually "win their way", you have to pose for the public, you have to "win" the public in that case.
>Direct callout
To be fair, I've been specifically talking about their mindset directly and trying to explain where they're coming from, because a lot of people are real quick to dismiss them as 'the crazies' and then ram their face into the brick wall over and over again. Not worth the hassle if you don't understand their position.
>If they don't use reason, you've already won
I can agree with this.
>You're trying to convince bystanders.
Are you?
I don't mean that in a flippant way, but the postmodern perspective has been so extremely successful at convincing everyone that their preconceptions are ultimately true.
But yes, mockery is the right answer.

Anyway, "it's just a drawing" indeed isn't "enough" if you want to have a debate.
The main problem with this is a language deficiency and it's incomplete, "it's a depiction of a child" is the same.
How far is it a depiction though? How far is it "the same" like the real thing? If you start to deconstruct that, you're going to notice that things become awry, that's where the (also incomplete) analogies like "what about tentacle porn" or "what about furries" or "what about violence" come in, but what if the drawing is realistic enough then? Then it's the psychological argument, what exactly is the viewer thinking of when he's looking at this drawing? Is it the drawing that arouses him or does he change the drawing to another ideal version of the real thing?
People are trotting out the 'GTA causes violence against women' thing all over again in more recent times, so the whataboutism listed here might not land on the right mark.
>Psychological argument
Problem you immediately hit is it could risk making you look like you're engaging in the same kind of 'mind-reading' they keep trying to pull. I'm not saying don't, I'm just saying make sure you know how you're approaching it.
I mean, this is pretty much what I mean when I talk about why "it's a depiction of a child" is incomplete and stupid:
View attachment 3981View attachment 3983View attachment 3984
This is cubism, and it's retarded, but at least it proves a point. Do you see this "deconstruction" of the tree concept? (It's not the same tree, bear with me, he does this with all trees he made anyway) Yeah, you're still thinking this is a tree because your mind doesn't live in a fucking vacuum, you've seen the first, and the artist clearly wanted you to do that, and now you've seen the other two, and you're thinking "yeah, I guess it's a tree, and a deconstruction at that".
This is a fantastic illustration.
Because the philosophical perspective they've taken is one of "Let do this deconstructed tree thing, but apply it to the concept of morality itself!"
So basically, you have to go into detail (that's why arguing on Twitter is a waste of time). How much of it actually "depicts" a child? How far does it go "anatomically" and "psychologically", and what do YOU think when you see that "depiction"? What does this image in your head stands for? Is it a standalone or is it some fetish that is just your brain recognizing arousing elements?
I mean, even experts will not use your arousal to depictions to determine what you are, they will see if it's repeated and if the elements therein are "real" (e.g. even "pictures" aren't real, but you get my point, we're not going there because we know why CP is illegal), both of those need to be true for you to be "something". We all also know the disconnect of our fetishes and reality just like the experts do, you can't just look at someone that likes the idea of an anime girl's armpits and directly equalize it to the real thing, because armpits smell differently in your mind, they taste differently, even the sweat doesn't become dry and stale.
>Experts don't use arousal to determine that
Some of the social media pundits try and pull that stunt actually, that arousal implies interest. Worthwhile to note: Fear boners exist.
You'd also often hear how "sexual arousal is not the same like aggression", this is honestly harder to argue against (because the nuances are lost on retards) but the truth of the matter is that no, both are equally complex sentiments. For sexual arousal though, you have to consider the above, those that like tentacle porn either are monkeys and like squids somehow, or they use the squids as analogies for "arousing elements", just like with pornography, the meme about how "lesbian sex" is "straighter" than "straight sex" for example is just another way to trivialize our psychology, yes, the sexual act itself arouses you so you want to also take part in the sexual act, you are not aroused by the man or necessarily the woman, and that's where the complexity comes from.
Honestly, if you can neatly explain human sexuality and all its myraid fuckery in a simple and neat bow, there's a Nobel prize in it for you.
Now, I hate to engage in the whole midwit 'it's just too complicated' refrain, so I'll raise rephrase it like this, as this can be used as an actual pointed argument: "If you can't summarise the concept to me in the space of one Tweet, you don't understand the concept well enough to be an authority on the topic."
You'll note how actual experts on topics tend to give one sentence answers to start, and then expand on that out from there.
As for the "You will become a pedophile" argument, that's either them claiming that humanity as a whole has a predisposition to having sex with children, or denying sexual orientations. "B-but pedophilia is different", in what way exactly? It's a pretty well-defined concept. The average human being is interested in what has reached puberty, so technically "ready for sex", while a pedophile will throw that away because of different connections in their brain, just like with orientations. The average human being will be interested in the other sex, for the purpose of reproduction, but the gay brain is connected differently and is aroused by the same sex, still, for the purpose of reproduction (that is just not there at that point).
Even attraction has a myriad of characteristics (so it's complex as well) we are attracted to shit not only because of looks, but also smell, sound, movement, texture, and so on.
>Is it a philia or is it a sexuality?
Lot of debate on that one but the harsh part is that no one wants a clear answer.
If it's a philia, then we have the justification to treat it as little different to Sociopathy.
If it's a sexuality though... Well, that's... a messy one.
"It will influence pedophiles to do the real thing" goes back to "gaming will influence you to violence", and we all know that this is the easiest to beat because of statistics. Statistics don't show this to be the case for violence of any kind, there's simply no correlation or it's a negative one. I've added this at the end because if you're good enough to defeat the arguments above, you just follow to here with your opponent, meaning this point is moot from the start because there's no correlation between being a pedophile and a lolicon, the only addition is the obvious statistical truth of how gaming decreases violence at best and at worst is not correlated to it if you wish to go the "even if lolicons are pedophiles" route.
Might be worth mentioning 'correlation is not causation', because god damn a lot of people are treating the two as the exact same thing.
So if they bring up something that states 'but we have a clear correlation' - yeah, there's also a correlation between number of ice cream sales and the average murder rate per capita.
It means that both may be effected by the same underlying phenomena, it does not mean one is effects the other in any tangible way.
I can't think of more really, this is I'd say the end of the subject as a whole.
Semiotics and other garbage is covered here as well and going into that much detail is a waste of fucking time with monkeys that think lolicon is pedophilia.
I mean, I pretty much made this point earlier.
 

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
I understand what you mean @Beginner , but you're giving the current postmodern movement too much power. It's not like I'm denying that they have power, it's just that you seem to think that we're the last actual human beings alive. Sure, you can say that the "bystander" on Twitter is certainly retarded just like they are, but the thing is, what are we really discussing here? I said it above as well, "winning" is impossible if your objective is to have everything and everyone be destroyed by your superior word soup attack, because that'll never happen, there's no universal argument in this case (I don't think there's a subject where everyone will agree with you, secretly or not) that can be listened to, and people will shut you out if they find you morally abhorrent, be they SJWs (these will always find you morally abhorrent) or normies ("you pedo").

The main idea is to have an answer, and if they just "repeat themselves" without making any sense, you have nothing more to do from there.
The issue I FIND most often is people just freezing when any of the above not-mentioned arguments are brought up, like either by insulting the retard (which you should do, really) or by coming up with the usual deflection similar to "Come on, this is dumb, lol".

Some of the social media pundits try and pull that stunt actually, that arousal implies interest. Worthwhile to note: Fear boners exist.
I used to assume the persona (I was lying) of a pedophile to rile up people on various forums. I made it so believable that I went on to try and study the whole thing and even got some interesting tidbits about people that were jailed for constant usage of CP (after stumbling on it) but having no interest in children after various psychological inquiries. Seemingly, the mere fact that something is taboo can make you aroused if you're that type of guy.

And yes, "fear boners" and mechanical arousal are a thing as well. Men being kidnapped and used for their semen aren't doing it for fun, that's for sure.

People are trotting out the 'GTA causes violence against women' thing all over again in more recent times, so the whataboutism listed here might not land on the right mark.
This is also something I answer above. You're thinking this movement has rocket launchers when they actually have toy soldiers.
There are countless studies where this just is blown out of the water, if they don't listen to "reason", your non-retarded bystanders will.
You'll note how actual experts on topics tend to give one sentence answers to start, and then expand on that out from there.
Unfortunately, some of us just do that because of fatigue.
Lot of debate on that one but the harsh part is that no one wants a clear answer.
If it's a philia, then we have the justification to treat it as little different to Sociopathy.
If it's a sexuality though... Well, that's... a messy one.
I know there's a whole lot of debate there (wrongfully so, honestly), but this is where people on their side freeze. Honestly, no one would ever fathom the idea that "pedophilia" is similar to an orientation, when the only thing that changes is that it's not a SEXUAL orientation as in relation to SEX, it's a sexual maturity orientation since your breeding range goes the opposite direction, and since every brain in this room and beyond is hardwired to "protect the chilluns", we tend to protect ourselves from the "every child's horror" tag of "pedophile" all the time.
Being called a pedophile is the worst thing you can be called in any society, after all, "protect the chilluns" is the most effective strategy pretty much against anything, politically.

But there's nothing messy, really. Because we're just using the accepted premise that different orientations are "ok", so "pedophilia" that is unacceptable for various reasons, can't be a sexual orientation, otherwise that premise will work for it as well. The thing is, that's just people being retarded, you can argue against allowing pedophilia without neutering fucking critical thinking, this is actually a fallacy as well.
Besides that, are other orientations ACTUALLY ok? Because to me it seems that biologically, they're not. We've just come to an agreement that hey, it's not a "mental illness" if it doesn't "affect your lifestyle relevantly negatively", which is fine, but that doesn't mean that it's all OK and these people don't have defects, even a cleft lip isn't much of a big deal, but we still correct it (there are better examples).

Might be worth mentioning 'correlation is not causation'
This is also too much for the brainlets, I already imply it when I saw there's no correlation or a negative one.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
I understand what you mean @Beginner , but you're giving the current postmodern movement too much power.
Not quite, though I can see where you'd think that. I do have an admitted bias being balls deep in the academic side at this point.
It's not that the postmodern movement per se has power.
It's that midwit types - the Dunning-Kruger afflicted 105 IQ people who genuinely think that gravitates them to the status of genius, are very quick to snap up and espouse postmodernist points because it makes them sound intelligent.
It's not like I'm denying that they have power, it's just that you seem to think that we're the last actual human beings alive.
Nah, just the only ones I presently care about.
Sure, you can say that the "bystander" on Twitter is certainly retarded just like they are, but the thing is, what are we really discussing here? I said it above as well, "winning" is impossible if your objective is to have everything and everyone be destroyed by your superior word soup attack, because that'll never happen, there's no universal argument in this case (I don't think there's a subject where everyone will agree with you, secretly or not) that can be listened to, and people will shut you out if they find you morally abhorrent, be they SJWs (these will always find you morally abhorrent) or normies ("you pedo").
Fair call, I'll concede that point.
The main idea is to have an answer, and if they just "repeat themselves" without making any sense, you have nothing more to do from there.
The issue I FIND most often is people just freezing when any of the above not-mentioned arguments are brought up, like either by insulting the retard (which you should do, really) or by coming up with the usual deflection similar to "Come on, this is dumb, lol".
Most people can't argue more than three questions deep. That's the big thing.
I used to assume the persona (I was lying) of a pedophile to rile up people on various forums. I made it so believable that I went on to try and study the whole thing and even got some interesting tidbits about people that were jailed for constant usage of CP (after stumbling on it) but having no interest in children after various psychological inquiries. Seemingly, the mere fact that something is taboo can make you aroused if you're that type of guy.
>Taboos themselves are arousing
Probably temperamental. Would be curious to see their Big 5 breakdown.
This is also something I answer above. You're thinking this movement has rocket launchers when they actually have toy soldiers.
No. I don't think they have rocket launchers at all. I think of them more like Soviet conscripts where one dude has a rifle, and the dude immediately next to him is carrying a couple reloads.
And if they retreat, their own side will machine gun them down. (Which, if you've been paying attention to some e-celeb drama lately, being machine gunned by your own pretty well describes the cancel culture phenomenon doesn't it?).
Between the social desirability bias (no one wants to be a bigot after all), aforementioned ego over intellect, and fear of their own side, we've got a pretty caustic combination, no?
I don't think they're well equipped at all - I think it's a case of 'never underestimate the effect of stupid things in large enough numbers'.
There are countless studies where this just is blown out of the water, if they don't listen to "reason", your non-retarded bystanders will.
Bit of a whitepill. Got any of these studies on hand? Wanna give them a read.
I know there's a whole lot of debate there (wrongfully so, honestly), but this is where people on their side freeze. Honestly, no one would ever fathom the idea that "pedophilia" is similar to an orientation, when the only thing that changes is that it's not a SEXUAL orientation as in relation to SEX, it's a sexual maturity orientation since your breeding range goes the opposite direction, and since every brain in this room and beyond is hardwired to "protect the chilluns", we tend to protect ourselves from the "every child's horror" tag of "pedophile" all the time.
Being called a pedophile is the worst thing you can be called in any society, after all, "protect the chilluns" is the most effective strategy pretty much against anything, politically.
It's wearing thin I think, politically at least. I've noticed a lot of people, when a politician says 'protect the chilluns!', they hear 'gullible is written on the roof, fuck-knuckle!'
But there's nothing messy, really. Because we're just using the accepted premise that different orientations are "ok", so "pedophilia" that is unacceptable for various reasons, can't be a sexual orientation, otherwise that premise will work for it as well. The thing is, that's just people being retarded, you can argue against allowing pedophilia without neutering fucking critical thinking, this is actually a fallacy as well.
Besides that, are other orientations ACTUALLY ok? Because to me it seems that biologically, they're not. We've just come to an agreement that hey, it's not a "mental illness" if it doesn't "affect your lifestyle relevantly negatively", which is fine, but that doesn't mean that it's all OK and these people don't have defects, even a cleft lip isn't much of a big deal, but we still correct it (there are better examples).
Maybe I should have explained myself a bit better. When I said messy, I was getting at 'potential legal and civil rights ramifications that would cram a spanner into the works of any sexual identity, especially the alphabet people crowd'.
>Are the other orientations actually okay?
I've a weird thought on this. It's been around this long despite being a complete genetic dead end. Either it's got evolutionary utility the same way as personality differences do (which emerged due to the need to distribute tasks among the troupe), or it... doesn't.
I don't know for sure, not in evolutionary psych, but I sure as fuck do not want to be one of the people studying that particular question. 50/50 chance: on one hand mild cheering as you've confirmed what a lot of people already believe, or you become the kind of pariah that ends up dead or in exile.
Seems a shitty thing to roll the dice on.
This is also too much for the brainlets, I already imply it when I saw there's no correlation or a negative one.
Good practice really.
 
Last edited:

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
Most people can't argue more than three questions deep. That's the big thing.
Hence why I intervened with some of my own arguments. No one really spoke from this perspective, even those videos didn't touch that well on it from my perspective.
Oh and, there's also this: https://archive.is/oBAfq
I mean, it's still an expert, and you can also just quote the DSM-5 at them, it's fun to have them go like "HEHE THAT SOURCE IS STUPID FOR SURE" then you mention it's the fucking DSM (The DSM is stupid indeed, but they're the "OMG SCIENCE" types for sure)

Probably temperamental. Would be curious to see his Big 5 breakdown.
It's similar to the "fear boner", really.
I don't think they're well equipped at all - I think it's a case of 'never underestimate the effect of stupid things in large enough numbers'.
Sure, like Indians grouping up to hunt down alleged pedos and the police being unable to stop them for example, or Burn Loot Murder riots and their protection from the law for being fucking niggers. But how long will this self-destructive phase last? I don't think we'll fall into another USSR really.
That's why at some point I stopped really "fighting" as much, not only because no one really did fight alongside me, but because it got boring and really evident to me that they'll just eat each other, get tired from doing so, and not even eat me in the end.
Bit of a whitepill. Got any of these studies on hand? Wanna give them a read.
Sure, but I've read them a long time ago, I don't even remember their contents.
Study on changes to empathy levels after playing violent video games:
Even more:
Attached PDF is also another study dismissing shitty pro-violence studies.
Study for pro-violence retracted as well:
It's wearing thin I think
Yes and no, companies still bend over, image is more important after all.
It's been around this long despite being a complete genetic dead end.
I mean, do we have to believe that gay people never have children? Should we assume they'll never find themselves using their rationality?
What if there are multiple genes that produce this same defect?
It's obvious that people can also lie and keep shit secret, and mechanical arousal exists as well.

I certainly don't think they have "evolutionary utility", otherwise we'd at least know how to explain this utility by now and we'd also see a relevant number of gay people that would impact our species in one way or another.
And I mean, this can also just be one of those cases where "sexuality is complicated" after all. And you find yourself with confused feelings because your subconsciousness isn't always equipped to make rational decisions (so some of those evangelicals were right, just keep it in your pants away from the cornhole, kind of deal).

Seems a shitty thing to roll the dice on.
Man, some things humanity argues on just piss me off, really. Because there's no answer, I'll just hear it on repeat every day. That's why I want answers.
Good practice really.
Yeah well, when I was younger, I honestly couldn't understand "Correlation does not equal causation" even after analyzing each fucking word, so I just went with the longer "expression".
 

Attachments

  • Digital Poison.pdf
    951.4 KB · Views: 43

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
Hence why I intervened with some of my own arguments. No one really spoke from this perspective, even those videos didn't touch that well on it from my perspective.
Oh and, there's also this: https://archive.is/oBAfq
I mean, it's still an expert, and you can also just quote the DSM-5 at them, it's fun to have them go like "HEHE THAT SOURCE IS STUPID FOR SURE" then you mention it's the fucking DSM (The DSM is stupid indeed, but they're the "OMG SCIENCE" types for sure)
Even scientists are like "you should probably doubt us" half the time.
Also, didn't you hear? Science is a colonialist construct.

I don't think we'll fall into another USSR really.
Tankies lost the argument. I'm with you, I'm convinced it's running on inertia. My primary concern is two things:
1) How much damage are they going to do in the deathrattle
2) What comes next.
Point 2 is the shit keeping me up at night, because way I see it, where on the cusp of... I guess a struggle for meaning? And I'm genuinely concerned about what's going to try and step up to the plate. I've had to point out to people I otherwise know and like (as in, in the real world) that some of the environmental positions they were holding by definition required a 'mass reduction' of human habitation on the planet.
I'm concerned that the damage is going to be such that none of us are going to have nice things before long.
Sure, but I've read them a long time ago, I don't even remember their contents.
Thank you kindly.
I mean, do we have to believe that gay people never have children? Should we assume they'll never find themselves using their rationality?
What if there are multiple genes that produce this same defect?
It's obvious that people can also lie and keep shit secret, and mechanical arousal exists as well.
I'll wear that, I should have considered that a bit better.
I certainly don't think they have "evolutionary utility", otherwise we'd at least know how to explain this utility by now and we'd also see a relevant number of gay people that would impact our species in one way or another.
And I mean, this can also just be one of those cases where "sexuality is complicated" after all. And you find yourself with confused feelings because your subconsciousness isn't always equipped to make rational decisions (so some of those evangelicals were right, just keep it in your pants away from the cornhole, kind of deal).
I have my own thoughts, but nothing I can back empirically.
That's kind of the sticking point.
Man, some things humanity argues on just piss me off, really. Because there's no answer, I'll just hear it on repeat every day. That's why I want answers.
Speaking of repeat, and this may be the thing that forestalls the ideological auto-cannibalism:
Notice that things that were being spoken about ten years ago are now rearing their head - arguments that were stall in 2012 are fresh again today?
Maybe it'll be on repeat for some time to come?
 

Narbray

varishangout.com
Regular
An extensive debate this one of you two[@Beginner @immahnoob], let me get in a bit, I must say that we need to fight against these fools regardless of whether we have arguments or not [of course it is always good to have valid points to drop], I explain why:
1. the most worrying of all and something that people do not think about is how this will affect the near future, when I did the compilation of links for this thread [I think it was in this one] I came across something very unpleasant that I did not mention In order not to get off the subject, many sites have deleted information and research articles on this subject [see the subject of pedophilia, the subject of lolis, the subject of taboos in society and in fact it does not apply only to pedophilia, for example applies to other topics such as incest or homosexuality] and this is due to the controversy that these investigations cause and the bunch of retarded anti-scientists who interfere and go to the comments to throw shit at these people, they are deplorable, but it is also deplorable that a web of science topics or a scientific team or a magazine hide the truth just to look good with a society that is only affecting the development of science, that is why we have to stop these independent people understand if they are retarded that they will not understand no matter how many times you explain them, no matter how many people they have on their side and no matter how bad you are to fight them.
2. One thing is the cancellation in social networks and a lot of idiots doing what they do best, doing idiots, but it is quite another when companies and politicians get involved in the matter in favor of these idiots, things that we are seeing little a little today, the truth is that as long as Japan and the United States continue, we will probably be fine, but how long will this last? This over all is a pretty serious matter for us anime fans [real anime fans], thousands of years of cultural and artistic evolution so that some idiots with excess freedom of expression come to screw everything up with their absurd and anti-scientific policies. We have to resist against these people because if only they make noise then they will seem more and then ignorant politicians and ignorant company managers will come to reach out in favor of these people.
3. This is simple, our honor and right to walk freely through any social network, no matter what tastes or opinions a person has, they have the right to freely express what they think as long as it does not harm anyone or anything, right? also these people should understand that what they do if it is illegal, to say to a fan or artist of pedophile lolis is defamation which is a crime and to say that pedophilia is illegal and that pedophiles are rapists, abusers, crazy sick people and criminals it is slander and this is also illegal.
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
I saw a whole lot of "B-but these people will never listen to you!"

I feel I should jump in and rephrase when I'm talking about how you should not waste hours and hours trying to convince some Twitter crazy I mean that from a "is this really going to get me anywhere" standpoint

like shit, the discord Twitter chat gets spammed with people posting their "W" with random people but other than the circle jerk is that getting us any closer to the end goal? id argue that pwoning some no-name dumb fuck with a few hundred followers and repeating the same arguments over and over is not really getting the ball moving

this is why I think people need to better choose the people they engage with. rather than spending hours arguing with no name randos, pick the right rando in the right thread where even if you can't convince that random dumb ass you will at least get eyes on you. and maybe convince said "bystanders" even if you don't get to see said bystanders, or pick a person who you DO care about and think is worth spending that time to properly convince

you have to keep in mind more often than not you might not even see the people whose minds get changed one way or another as they are not active or are not going to speak up about it. we tend to only see the crazy as the crazy are the ones out on Twitter reeeeeing 24/7

that and no matter what your personal health and wellbeing should come before any internet bullshit

TLDR: choice your targets wisely, don't fire from the hip at every anti you see, don't waste time if you don't think you will see a benefit from it, don't give up but fight smarter not harder
 

translation gundam

varishangout.com
Regular
TLDR: choice your targets wisely, don't fire from the hip at every anti you see, don't waste time if you don't think you will see a benefit from it, don't give up but fight smarter not harder
Quotation-Sun-Tzu-The-supreme-art-of-war-is-to-subdue-the-enemy-54-81-48.jpg
most of these people arent worth the energy debating, because they won't listen.
so just let them hang themselves because most of these people have Skeletons in the closet, and there is only so much you can hide them before the smell becomes apparent
 

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
I feel I should jump in and rephrase when I'm talking about how you should not waste hours and hours trying to convince some Twitter crazy I mean that from a "is this really going to get me anywhere" standpoint

like shit, the discord Twitter chat gets spammed with people posting their "W" with random people but other than the circle jerk is that getting us any closer to the end goal? id argue that pwoning some no-name dumb fuck with a few hundred followers and repeating the same arguments over and over is not really getting the ball moving

this is why I think people need to better choose the people they engage with. rather than spending hours arguing with no name randos, pick the right rando in the right thread where even if you can't convince that random dumb ass you will at least get eyes on you. and maybe convince said "bystanders" even if you don't get to see said bystanders, or pick a person who you DO care about and think is worth spending that time to properly convince

you have to keep in mind more often than not you might not even see the people whose minds get changed one way or another as they are not active or are not going to speak up about it. we tend to only see the crazy as the crazy are the ones out on Twitter reeeeeing 24/7

that and no matter what your personal health and wellbeing should come before any internet bullshit

TLDR: choice your targets wisely, don't fire from the hip at every anti you see, don't waste time if you don't think you will see a benefit from it, don't give up but fight smarter not harder
Just look at the numbers, you faggots. If there are many retweets/likes going down, you're getting publicity as well.
 

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
I mean I dont know where that was in question but go off I guess...... faggot
If you aren't aware, how exactly are you answering my post? You're not there to waste time with an SJW, you're there to prove to the public that the SJW is mentally retarded and that your argument is correct.
If it's a "waste of time" to engage on Twitter even if you do have publicity, then it's always a waste of time, so why are we even creating arguments if we'll never use them?
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
If it's a "waste of time" to engage on Twitter even if you do have publicity, then it's always a waste of time, so why are we even creating arguments if we'll never use them?
maybe you should read what I've said again and take it in rather than latch on to the parts that seem to trigger the fuck out of you

TLDR: choice your targets wisely, don't fire from the hip at every anti you see, don't waste time if you don't think you will see a benefit from it, don't give up but fight smarter not harder

is my basic point. if you want to spend fucken 4 hours bashing your head on a brick wall on Twitter more power to you. I'm sure that's gonna lead to some amazing progress right? I'm sure that random 15-year dumb ass with 100 followers who is in all likely hood trying to troll the fuck out of you into wasting your time arguing with them in the first place is a really good time investment.

you are not going to prove shit to anyone if you waste your time on bullshit fuck all people are gonna see or read.

people need to fucken get better at recognizing the trash from the people who can be useful, be that form allowing them to chimp the fuck out and be an example of how crazy the antis are or form being someone who could be convinced, rather than waste time on people who will not change their mind and won't give you any benefit from an outsider looking in perspective.

all I'm trying to say is if you are spending ungodly amounts of time on Twitter "debating" at some point you have to stop and ask your self "is this REALLY getting me anywhere?" and I'm gonna bet 9/10 the answer is going to be no, I've fucken been there and done that and its not worth it. so all I'm suggesting is people think hard about what fights they want to take and when to take them. rather than act like a dumb ass and sperg out at every dumb fuck they move past their crosshair
 

immahnoob

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
maybe you should read what I've said again and take it in rather than latch on to the parts that seem to trigger the fuck out of you



is my basic point. if you want to spend fucken 4 hours bashing your head on a brick wall on Twitter more power to you. I'm sure that's gonna lead to some amazing progress right? I'm sure that random 15-year dumb ass with 100 followers who is in all likely hood trying to troll the fuck out of you into wasting your time arguing with them in the first place is a really good time investment.

you are not going to prove shit to anyone if you waste your time on bullshit fuck all people are gonna see or read.

people need to fucken get better at recognizing the trash from the people who can be useful, be that form allowing them to chimp the fuck out and be an example of how crazy the antis are or form being someone who could be convinced, rather than waste time on people who will not change their mind and won't give you any benefit from an outsider looking in perspective.

all I'm trying to say is if you are spending ungodly amounts of time on Twitter "debating" at some point you have to stop and ask your self "is this REALLY getting me anywhere?" and I'm gonna bet 9/10 the answer is going to be no, I've fucken been there and done that and its not worth it. so all I'm suggesting is people think hard about what fights they want to take and when to take them. rather than act like a dumb ass and sperg out at every dumb fuck they move past their crosshair
Just look at the numbers, you faggots.
You answer generally to "my argument" and then you expect me not to bash you when I've already made this point.
If you look at the numbers and they're low, you're not going anywhere for sure.
Otherwise, 9 out of 10, you're doing something.
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
You answer generally to "my argument" and then you expect me not to bash you when I've already made this point.
If you look at the numbers and they're low, you're not going anywhere for sure.
Otherwise, 9 out of 10, you're doing something.

and I dont know where you got the idea I was saying otherwise. and its why I responded
I mean I dont know where that was in question but go off I guess...... faggot
yes if you are pulling numbers then clearly you are "doing something".

my whole point is not to waste time on Twitter with bullshit when there is most likely 100 things you could be doing with your life that are more important and far more useful. shitty twitter/internet slap fights are not your whole life and if they are then I feel more sorry for you than anything.

like how many numbers do you think you are pulling outside of pals boosting you when you go after dumb fuck kids on Twitter? wow dude you got a whole 10 retweets and 15 likes man you really moving up in the world now goddam. soon you gonna be just as hype as mombot was I'm sure

like I legit dont know where you got the idea I was saying not to go in at all or to just do nothing. what I'm saying is you have to find and pick the right fights to get into that allow you to GAIN that publicity you seem to want to mutch. you have to put your self in the right place at the right time and if it looks like that's not gonna happen dont waste time on it

it's not hard to understand
 
Top