I love everything about toddlercon <3 The best genre in hentai for me. chubby, sweet, independent will, inocence and most of all curious <3

>>1208 thank you anon, it makes me happy when you're happy, please be joyous and excited to have nice things and share it with people that like those things

>>1208 same really love that pic keep posting it such a sexy fat baby tbh

>>1210 update: I nutted to her

>>1188 /tot/ should band together and kidnap a toddler, imagine all the rapey fun we could have :3

seriously though, coming home, smoking weed and beating off to infants feels amazing

>>1215 Are you serious?! I really hope not...

>>1216 >>1215 who are you trying to mimic and why?

>>1215 BLACKED

>>1215 kill self glownigger literal nigger >>1216 based!

>>1215 Alright dude, I have let this thread run its natural course and everyone speak as they please, but I have to take cautionary measures with comments like these so that the board does not draw attention to itself for the wrong reasons. /tot/ is a board of peace, and comments that promote the idea of hurting real infants are not accepted here. It's very likely that you're just joking or doing a weird roleplay (considering your posting history), hence why I didn't delete your post and only gave you a light ban, but I'd rather play it safe and warn you to tone it down a bit since you're creeping others out. That all.

>>1222 >be san francisco's gay men chorus >70% of members are registered sex offenders >make music video about how you're coming for peoples children i guess its okay when they do it because they're not evil 8chin nazis, but -we- have to keep a low profile and clean our comments

you're a crazy sociopath bound to love all things awful.

>>1232 >tots are awful >wanting to see happy pleasured tots is sociopathic what no >>1215 this kike is though

>>1188 my favorite part of a loli is their innocence and sweet little face. yours?

>>1264 the smile

tiny preteens look sound feel smell and taste so sexy

>>1366 big if true

>>1366 explain this taste

>>1188 found a nakey version of this cute tot

This is exactly why lolicons hate pedos

>>1816 Jokes on you, I'm both nigger.

>>1199 Normiefag (who are prob LGBT+): Pedos are disgusting, evil niggers who want to rape and kill kids pedo:

>>1816 Lolicons are pedos. Makes sense that they hate what they are. Our culture is full of people attacking others for what they themselves are guilty of, precisely because we are typically assaulting all sorts of things which are common to most if not all people. All men are sexually attracted to minors as young as toddlerhood or even infancy, but researchers "p-hack" the results to pretend that because they showed attraction to females of all age groups that they don't count as pedophiles (conveniently they wouldn't use the same basis to say that self-identified pedophiles aren't what they say because they also displayed sexual attraction to females of all ages). That's playing around with definitions and categories to make your results conform to the values of your culture. They do it all the time whenever they find something that offends the morals of their society, then they try to ensure the research doesn't get much attention from the public.

>>2029 >But just 2 decades ago we were defending Scarlett Johansson for playing the MAJ. Motoko Kusanagi in the live action "ghost in the shell" adaptation.. first of all... Ghost in the Shell came out in 2017 six years ago not two decades also whats the problem with actors playing someone of a different race? if there a good actor and play the character well like Laurence Olivier did in Othello, Halle Bailey did in The Little Mermaid (2023), Anthony Quinn did in Lawrence of Arabia, Ricardo Montalbán did in Sayonara, Al Pacino did in Scarface, and Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously? acting is all about playing someone your not so why would you care if someone plays someone of a different race? as long as they do a good job and the character isn't offensive like Fu Manchu or Silas Lynch in The Birth of a Nation. How is it any different then someone playing someone from a different country like Michael J. Fox did in Back to the Future Part II, Hugh Laurie did in House, or Theda Bara did in Kathleen Mavourneen. Same can be said about blackface sure the blackface of Amos 'n' Andy or Emmett Miller is bad but if your not using blackface to mock or dehumanize black people I don't see a problem with it like. I've seed people like Harry Enfield, Chris Lilly and Jimmy Kimmel get into controversy just for using blackface to Impersonate black people or to play black characters it's nothing like a minstrel show. It's getting ridiculous, now there's talk of of white voice actors not being able to play non-white characters there cartoon characters who cares about the skin colour of the voice actor? who knows whats going to happen to anime dubbing? just because blackface was used in minstrel shows doesn't mean blackface is inherently racist minstrels also wore top-hats and white gloves does that mean that top-hats and white gloves are now racist? I know that sounds like a straw man but it's really not if blackface is inherently racist just minstrels use it then by that same logic top-hats and gloves are inherently racist as well. Minstrel shows where mostly popular in the U.S and U.K so what about places like say Russia or China is it still racist there?

>>1189 yemen

>>1816 Cope and Seethe, you can continue lying to yourself but don't expect others to join in on your elaborate game of self-denial. >>1189 Some third-world shithole that either lacks age of consent laws or refuses to enforce them. You could probably find slaves there as well. Just expect to get yourself killed in a gruesome way if you do move there, not because you're a pedo but because you are a white guy from a wealthy country who seemed like a good target.

>>451969 (OP) The imageboards used to be contrarian to all of mainstream society's values. We used to be everything the rest of our culture didn't want us to be, we were assholes who did what we felt like doing and didn't give a fuck. A true counter culture. Now faggot OP comes in moralfagging and promoting we get on board with the only publicly acceptable position on one of the prime current thing (tm) topics. Reeks of newfaggotry. "LET'S CHANGE THE WORLD GUIZ!" complete with a cringe usage of of newmemes. I wonder when people would start oldmeme posting. It's like they had forgotten. Maybe they all went out and became NORPS. There are two of the biggest sins in our culture's moral paradigm: Pedophilia and racism. Both groups are unthinkingly hated with no one willing to defend either, nobody who would get a hearing at least. Both are used in the kabuki theater of politics as an insulting accusation to lob at the other side by righteous crusaders for social justice, be it in blue flavor or red ("woke" vs "awake"). I say no, pedophilia is lulzy and full of win, only losers think its a bad thing. Let's be honest, do you think anyone would have an accurate picture of it in a culture where it is considered the greatest of evils right next to racism? When intense moralfag righteousness is involved you can count on there being a whole load of BS tat nobody would have the balls to question. OP KYS, and everyone you associate with deserved to become an hero right beside you. How low the imageboard format has fallen for you to even consider this as an acceptable thread on here. I support RAEPing lolis in the pooper just because of you, you sick fuck. I'm going to take the side of the pedophiles, now come @ me. First of all, "Pedophiles" don't exist. It's not a paraphilia. It is literally found in every man out there. All males are naturally wired to be attracted to females of any age, and when we take old hags as our partners we prefer the ones that most closely resemble little girls. The most significant factors in sexual arousal was attractiveness (mathematically measurable by factors like bilateral symmetry) and biological sex. When they conducted the studies they needed to "p-hack" the results so that they could that the results said what they did, they did this my changing the definitions around to gerrymander the way the results came out. Now a "pedophile" was someone who had an exclusive or predominant attraction to children, hiding away that the majority of non-pedophiles would fit the classic definition of being pedophiles, just the non-exclusive ones. Why didn't they re-categorize the pedophiles as being normal since they had also demonstrated arousal to adults? Pedophilia is not a paraphilia, so the label is a misnomer, furthermore, it is not a sexuality either. Children aren't a sexuality, they are an age group. "Pedophiles" aren't attracted to children in general, they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, most of them are exclusively interested in only one sex, just as any other man would be. That said, pedophilia can be compared to homosex in that the strongest opponents of pedophiles so often end up being discovered to crave younger meat themselves. Almost like all the megachurch preachers being caught playing cave explorer in man-ass.

Even historically speaking, pedophiles don't exist. Mankind went for most of our history with it being perfectly acceptable for a man at any age to get a bride at as young an age as they could, the girl would bond to her husband so strongly because of his early place in her life. Civilizations that stood for thousands of years remained stable and became glorious with the acceptance of this as normal. Today we see it as an evil that has everybody paranoid of their own minds, ow much longer do you think we will last? Do you think it was the growing acceptability of a male's natural urges that would do us in, or do you think it would be those who insist on keeping their kids "innocent" (domesticated and constrained). In those days the child brides weren't mentally ill, they didn't have the severe problems in the head that we see in the SA survivors of the "current year" era, the biggest contributor to feeling that you were done harm today is being told you were harmed. We have niggers complaining about suffering from discrimination when it is demonstrable that not only were they not discriminated against, but things were engineered to prevent the possibility of them experiencing discrimination. The victims were more victimized by the world conditioning them to feel harmed than by the harm itself. Considering how so many alt-righters think that we've grown remarkably soft today, and blame the mental weakness fr the decline of our free societies, we should take a look at how children were raised historically vs how they are today. The biggest factor in anyone;'s personality is what happened to them during their developmental years. Boys were soldiers or factory workers, and girls were likely not kept away from the realities implied of their sex. Perhaps "traumatized" is the way we are supposed to be, I find it weird that most people have trouble with witnessing violence, even the slaughtering of their own food. This might not be healthy, maybe the "unhealthy" mind is the better one. I can't help but imagine that all the suicidal politics of today may spring from the distancing we have from the harsh realities of the world. That's probably why we think things are supposed to be fair, why everything is so fake and gay. Innocence is a cancer that grows and eventually infects adult minds. It was only considered wrong for men to be attracted to girls below a certain age since a time within the 1900s. You know who was behind that? Women's groups. They were evangelical Christians, but they were progressives, socialists, and that period's predecessors to the modern day feminist movement. Right behind it were the jews of America and Europe, they never even hid this from us. Even today the jews are still behind the hate on pedophilia, they want it illegal and despised because they know it's a natural part of the male sexual psychology, they gain power from having it be tightly controlled. They offer lolisex to their favorite pets, and use the legal and reputational damage of being a known lolilover as a means of controlling anyone who defies them. Democrat activism should be protected under freedom of speech, strange that you can legally watch a video of people getting hacked to death with a machete, but some crimes are just not available for viewing. The jews want it illegal because it is the prime excuse for tightly regulating the internet and it's users, most uncensored sites find two groups dominant on it immediately, as you could expect it is the racists and pedophiles. CP is an easy way to get someone causing trouble into prison and lose them all their supporters. Just grab their computer on the basis of an accusation, plant the materials, and make the conviction based on the evidence you installed onto their devices. Interesting how the media portrays pedos as these losers when all the most successful chads in our world are now revealed to be cunny connoisseurs. The typical pedo is either the pathetic type the jews love to show us getting busted for trying to hook up with someone who (biologically speaking) isn't even a child, or they are the polar opposite of that. Trillionaires and Billionaires who made the world their bitch, they shake the pillars of very industry, set the course of the future, they belong to secret societies that show them hidden mysteries, and most of them could easily kick your ass in a 1 on 1. If I'm throwing my lot in with someone and it's either (you) or the world's current leaders, I'm pretty sure who is the one setting the best example. Hunter Biden was pounding early-access poon (aged 8 and under) on a private island and he's far from anything you'd consider a failure. There's an entire list full of the rich, famous and talented out there, all island visitors. You know what they say right? If you want success, emulate the habits of the successful. The pedo ringleaders of the world can disappear you without worrying about it, they don't because you aren't a threat to them.

>>2059 >>451969 (OP) For most of history, we had laws against homosexuality, but none against pedophilia. Christians are bothered to find that there is no condemnation of voting for Communists even though there are sex laws against so many other kinds of activities, even doing it with a woman who is menstruating. They say God's laws are perfect, but apparently this is the one exception where he made a mistake, I guess he also made a mistake when he designed children to be able to get pregnant as early as four years of age. We have had in all societies a taboo against men having sex with each other (and also with little boys), the Greeks and Romans were never the boy-lovers modern historians pretend they were, this was a purposeful misreading of the way these cultures used the words for "love" to describe any sort of affection, including familial, friendly and authoritative. We've historically had issue with sex occurring outside the context of marriage as well. Today we tolerate both these things, but now we have a sex taboo that has only existed for less than two centuries. I ask again, if society is collapsing now, what's more to blame? This position isn't "progressive", it's downright traditional, far more steeped in tradition than your flowerdress wearing roastie. Anti-peds are arguing for the very new, and calling themselves the champions of classical western civilization. XD. If you have any other arguments, I'd like to hear them. We used to have debates on /b/, we used to make a joke out of defending the indefensible positions with the most serious effort we could muster, that's where /pol/ came from. Remember? Cutfag vs Uncut, Murticans vs Europoors, Atheists vs Christcucks, Chocolate Milk and Chickn Nuggies, good times. So let's fucking go. Like old times. Assuming the Admin isn't a fag. This might get interesting. Obviously this is all a joke, right? If you didn't want this response, maybe this type of thread shouldn't be here in the first place because it;s practically inviting this kind of thing with how obnoxious it is. Note how all these arguments have been made before, I'm just paraphrasing some FAR older material here from memory. But I don't quite remember all of it.

>>453278 What political ideology would be anti-pedo? Upper right? The HuWhite Man is the head of the house and has absolute authority over his wife and children, at the extreme they'd be his property which means he can do with them whatever he wishes. Remember that historically there was no problem with older men marrying girls of any age, so tradition isn't a problem. In fact getting a tradwife that would yield you a "quiverfull" might be something best accomplished through allowing such marriages to happen. The Bible says nothing against this either so long as it's occurring within the context of marriage, and if there's no homosexuality, no trooning, no adultery, no incest, bestiality, necrophilia, or racemixing, then I think we're pretty much done here. Monarchists would be extra screwed by the age combinations found in royal families, and feudalists would make the serfs something lower than slaves, technically not even distinct beings from the land, let alone people, so screwing a peasant is like humping a tree. The Upper-right guys expect to have a solid case against this, but they don't. The best they can do is try to define themselves by being the opposite of other groups, like the similarly nationalist jews and the similarly totalitarian muslims. Upper left? The party gets to say what is permitted, and they'd probably decide whether it's allowed on strategy rather than morality. There's not much to be said here against any argument made from this quadrant. I think it'd play out like it is now, with certain activities being reserved for the elite agents of the NWO as privileges that all others are harshly punished for participating in, and it would be used as blackmail material for keeping their puppets loyal. Lower right? If kids can't consent, then who else couldn't? The "loli love slave" argument is a sticky one for a good reason, not because it can't be dismissed with a "consent must be informed and voluntary, not coerced or made in ignorance", but because you then have to ask what else this defense applies to. The idea of establishing a covenant community with it's own rules to protect against child rape is another such response, but since covenant laws are overruled by the NAP and cannot be enforced outside of the covenant and it;s members, what if someone sets up a community that allows it? Then there's the "National Libertarian" response that excludes everyone but White Men from the NAP, which means fathers get to consent to what happens with their little princesses, but what about the times when daddy is cool with his angel getting plowed? What if HE is the one touching her NoNoSquare? It goes right back to the "upper right" idea that a White Man is the king of his castle, with all the problems that entails. Lower Left? Srsly? You know they have no objection here, most of them got touched and a lot would be thrilled to be the touchers of the next gen anarchists. Direct Democracy proponents would just go with whatever the crowd says, you'd be surprised what they could allow if we implement their idea of anonymous voting on every issue. Think about it; only the people who care about a measure on the ballot would vote on it, and guess what the people who care most about the age of consent would vote for? On the other hand, Ancoms cut the middlemen and accept the removal of all distinctions between individuals and groups of individuals, so what we are left with is a great big "yes" to diddling so long as both sides are cool with it. So we are left with the centrists, democrats and republicans. We know they both hate pedos despite what the other side says about them, and we know they are both the most kosher of the political options out there. We also know they only pretend to hate each other and actually agree of virtually everything that matters, despite what they tell us about the other side. Plus pizzagate is real and Golden Don was a frequent flyer of the epstein express, so even on the side that's supposed to hate . There's no political ideology against this stuff, people don't like it, but that's just for the last few generations. These ideologies were all conceived in a time before we had the attitudes on this subject that we do today. What we do instead is improvise a new ideology that doesn't really run on concept or principle that can be elaborated upon, we just go by feeling. Even the technocrats we have today aren't too trustworthy when science is not as condemning of this as we'd like it to be, funny how the defenders of children are upset at how they aren't getting harmed enough for their liking.

I really hope some of you find the courage to seek help because the things I read and see in this board are absolutely sickening. You trying to justify raping toddlers is seriously not okay. Calling childeren dangerously sexy is really disgusting. saying that pedophillia is not real is a lie, the person typing that long ass text must be retarded. Cmon man how the fuck can you use those words and still sound fucking stupid. Fun fact, did you know that society evolves??? and so do the morals of the people in that society :0, omg soooo cool right?? So stop sulking about the past because there's no fucking way life is going to be like it was before. Please don't delete this you fucking retards.<3 Merry Christmas everyone!

>>2081 TODDLERS LOVER ARE TOO BASED FOR THE INTERNET (You are not prepared yet to accept it.)

We all love toddlers in one way or another here. Some guys just have more physical ways of showing it.

Fr

>>2081 The only thing I understood from your post was that: >post the most degenerate baby stuff you have on your PC and don't stop until I finish cumming nnnnnnghhhhhhhhhhh