>>197240 >tomboy shota Wait, thats against the known laws of teh universe.

>>197207 Who the fuck are you and why do you think anyone cares. Now you're defending child rape? Is that what you want to be "known" for? Fuck off. You have nothing to add, so just don't post. >>197208 >If you're against paid shilling Just read the goddamned post before replying. >>197209 >everyone i don't like is the same person >watch as i invent bullshit about them to slander them Why are you defending child rape? Why are you defending the people who are literally paid to cover up pedophilia legalization? Why are you defending things that you know to be false, because the links proved you wrong? Why can't you address the topic of discussion, attacking the people instead? Take your whining to the appropriate thread.

>>197243 >Who the fuck are you and why do you think anyone cares. Now you're defending child rape? What are you smoking you fucking sperg? When have i done that?

>>197244 >when have I done that How about you just read the fucking posts before replying, then? Is it that hard, you autistic faggot? Then don't reply at all. Good fucking god. What, did you get "triggered" by the pink text and didn't care what it said or what the conversation entailed? Is that what happened? Answer the fucking question, because I'm sure as shit not going to be tricked into putting words in your mouth.

>>197245 > Answer the fucking question You always do the same shit and then act surprised when people call you out. You still dont get why people told you to fuck off when you failed to post archives.

>>197246 >doesn't answer it No wonder you get shit on so much. Fuck off.

>>197242 >>implying they can have a sex when they have no DNA or cells to speak of Then he's still right, because tomboy means girl.

>>197243 Anon what the fuck are you talking about?

>>197247 >No wonder you get shit on so much. Fuck off. See? Whenever you get called out on your bullshit, you start acting as if everyone else was the one doing that, holy shit nigger youre fucking unable to not do the same shit every time. >>197249 Hes sperging out, just wait for the redtext.

>>197249 There was someone earlier in the thread who came here solely to claim that "there is no institutional push toward sexual grooming of children" and all its posts were to that effect. I provided links that proved it was lying, and showing that it was using the same tactics used by all previous shilling campaigns for communistic social change. Then Autist McGodcomplex came in and claimed that daring to question it means that I'm the shill. That's about it. Oh, and someone else got upset about me not archiving links, but the point of posting the clear links was to show, even to people who didn't spend the time to go to them, that yes, the shill from earlier WAS lying (because the URL itself proves it's lying). That's literally it.

>>197250 >Hes sperging out, just wait for the redtext. He sounds like Francis E. Dec just freebased some bath salts.

>>197154 >>197157 >>197160 >>197243 >>197245 >>197247 >>197251 Are >we being raided?

>>197250 >your bullshit <I AM LITERALLY GOD <I NEVER HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING I SAY <I AM A PRIORI CORRECT BECAUSE I SAID THINGS <YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG <I NEVER HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE WRONG <YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I SAID YOU ARE <HOW DARE YOU CALL ME OUT WHEN I DO THIS Yes, my bullshit. >>197253 No, it's just another day, so my VPN gave me another IP. Do you have a problem with what I said? Can you actually discuss the topic?

>>197254 <I AM LITERALLY GOD You say this exact same line every time someone calls you out, no argument sperg.

>>197255 >someone No, Autist McGodcomplex. Only you. Only ever you do this. You are the only one who has a problem with people posting things you do not personally like. You ALWAYS project. You ALWAYS scream impotently about people talking about things in these threads that 1. you don't like or 2. which you can't prove wrong but it hurts your feelings. If I was wrong, you'd post your own links and say "You're wrong, faggot, here:" and that would be that. But you can't prove me wrong, so you have to attack me personally and NEVER EVER address the content itself.

>>197253 That ara has herself a nice tomboy shota.

Why is anyone replying to him seriously?

>>197259 Filter the IDs and you'll see that it's only four people responding to each other.

>>197255 >no argument sperg. Is that who this faggot is? I've heard some people talking about him for months, but I never identified the fag. I honestly think he's nulistanon from the way he feels like he's pretending to be retarded.

>>197261 I know right? I too believe hes the same faggot, i dont get how, after so many years using this thread, hes still unable to not stand out like a sore thumb.

>>197262 >hes still unable to not stand out like a sore thumb. Anon, he does it on purpose. I don't get how you don't understand that by now.

>>197263 Maybe i was the retard all along.

>posts 724 >no new thread o fug did some one finally close the gay?

I can't make heads or tails out of this argument being reported

>>197266 Spammer claims no one is trying to groom children: >>197122 Refutation of claim, with sources: >>197152 That's the entire discussion. Then retard: >>197207 comes in, claims he knows me, and flies off the handle because I dared to not accept the spammer's claims sight unseen. That's it. it's no more complicated than that.

>>197266 Your usual sperg sperging about, dont worry about it.

>>197266 >the one talking about letting the trannies have the twinks because he'd rather fuck little boys anyway was kazu imagine my shock

>>197267 You're leaving out the part where you didn't archive your shit which you were justifiably bullied for, then trying to pretend that archiving isn't part of this thread's culture by calling the person who (rightfully) called you out a newfag.

>>197266 Use your fucking brain. One side is speaking clearly, and the other side is clearly one guy misrepresenting the statements of anyone replying to him in ludicrous ways with his every post and frequently posting in all caps.

Fine, I'll do it myself. NEW BREAD >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 >>646914 NEW BREAD

>>197270 >the part where you didn't archive your shit Read: >>197160 >by reading the clean URLs, you see exactly what the paid shill is lying about already >no one should ever be forced to see queers

>>197271 >misrepresenting >ludicrous ways That's funny, because the shill quite clearly DID claim that no one is trying to normalize child rape, and my response refuted that. Wonder why you'd say otherwise...

>>197222 >>196632 ☑ making mainstream games soft sell white supremacy

>>197276 >>197272

>>197097 Johnathon Mann