If it leads to sexual satisfaction for you then yes.
AutismalSupreme
Last edited:
I FUCKING NEED TO TERMINATE FOIDS.
Send her to gulag
B
Fucking degenerate - the whole lot of you who would participate in this.
You're just as bad as simps and cucks.
Explain fren
B
All of that IQ and you still don't see the few steps ahead to realize how fundamentally flawed that statement is.
Go think about it for a bit.
What’s wrong with that statement fren? I’m merely saying that if we can’t agree on that, we could never come to an agreeable conclusion, but I don’t see any problem with it. I’ll still like him as a poster.
Agree to disagree
Homosexuality was normalized through a facade of bourgeois values ("gay marriage" and "gay adoption"), which shows that peoples' moral considerations are not what changed in relation to homosexuality, so much as their perception of homosexual ethics.
In other words, the reason people consider homosexuals "just like us" now is because of the mass-suggestion that they are typical, middle-class careerists simply looking for houses in the suburbs in which to raise families and commute to and from their jobs.
This is insidious because it's disinformation: it's partially true insofar as middle class careerism is concerned, since many homosexuals apply themselves to the corporate business world and excel in it, but the very implication that being integrated into capitalist market forces as an aspirational, bourgeois urbanite/suburbianite is what makes one a member of the cultural in-group, and that this is somehow a virtue as it concerns marriage and the raising of families (which homosexuals are actually not too interested in, and not much moreso the "middle-class" at large, with its contracting birth rates and obscene divorce rates), reveals the profound decadence and hollowness of American life, and the nature of the cultural hegemony which controls it.
Present normies with footage of homosexual AIDS parties in which gay bottoms get pozzed with HIV, and their moral repugnance (or sense of disgust) would reassert itself, if only to then be suppressed by capitalist-libertarian notions of "live and let live" ("don't seek to impose your moral instinct onto society, because that might eventually threaten the notoriously corrupt and depraved ruling class")
Last edited:
B
o
What’s wrong with that statement fren? I’m merely saying that if we can’t agree on that, we could never come to an agreeable conclusion, but I don’t see any problem with it. I’ll still like him as a poster.
Agree to disagree
It's painfully obvious that at some level of difference between worldviews it goes past the threshold of compatibility.
This isn't saying that one side is clearly wrong and the other is clearly right, as they could both be terribly wrong. Or both both could be right, given certain conditions, and only one can operate at a time.
Bruh, while I do appreciate your post, your wasting your energy here. Take it from me.
Last edited:
Touché
I was being hyperbolic in describing it as “irreconcilable world views”, I wouldn’t hate said poster even if he was a Clowncel (which I am almost certain he isn’t), but I see your point.
R
Here I thought we were talking about butt-chugging. She'd get pretty drunk very fast taking a beer in the ass. Straight to the bloodstream.
I am just exercising my verbal iq neurons. I have even been editing the post since, jejfl.
Dude what you are saying can be applied to anything that has become acceptable in society, don't you see how biased it is to just label every new moral code that doesn't appeal t you as "a facade" but all the various moral codes that you agree with (that you were raised to agree with) are the "true morals"
You aren't the arbiter of what is moral, the human collective is, so whatever the dominant culture says is moral, IS MORAL
That's just a fact of reality
Your argument literally amounts to "WHATEVER I SEE AS MORAL IS MORAL"
Because guess what, the people who believe that homosexuality isn't immoral, WOULD CALL YOUR MORALS A FACADE STARTED AND PERPETUATED BY RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS TRYING TO "FORCE THEIR WORLD VIEW ONTO OTHERS"
Your opposition can make the same arguments as you, either morality is what the collective decides
Perfect example right here, again this is nothing but a biased argument and its like you can't distance yourself from the topic enough to see that, any of your opposition can literally make the same claims, that religious people or people who are "bigots" against homosexuality have an insidious agenda
Morality cannot be objectively defined because it is INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE
ANYONE CAN CLAIM THAT THEIR VERSION OF MORALITY IS THE ABSOLUTE "TRUE MORALITY"
JFL homosexuality being disgusting to you doesn't make it immoral by default, what you have is an understandble knee jerk reaction to disgusting behaviors, but labelling it as immoral is nothing but nonsense humans like to do to make life easy, make this easier to classify, makes them able to feel like they have a "higher power" that affirms their perspective, its all nonsense, there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong", people just want it to be so for reasons of ego
Drinking from a sweaty ass crack. Probably ingesting shit particles.
The only thing I can guess is that you’re referencing Vermin Supreme?
help me out here, I’m actually autistic lmfao
Sexual liberty everyone
Misogyny much? Maybe being a standardcel is why u inkwell, sweaty!
#thefutureisfemale
N
Women are gross these days. They can't be satisfied unless dicks are in them.
and then they complain about us being sexist when we call them out on it
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
