KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat)
BREAKING: Former Hawaii teacher, Alden Bunag, was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison for making child porn.Bunag was very upset with "right-wingers" on X popularizing the term "groomers."Prosecutors said he taped repeated sexual activity with a 13-yea...
It was never, not ever, about consenting adults in their own home.
a lot of people believe and stand by the "consenting adults" line, myself included. What needs to happen is what Gays Against Groomers has been trying to do: weed the pedophiles and abusers out with extreme prejudice.
In today's climate, that will never happen. They would rather run cover for child abusers than have any semblance of control over promiscuity.
we need to stop pretending that "consent" is some magic word that makes anything and everything ok.
Boom. "I consent to let this doctor hack off my dick". You shouldn't be able to consent to that anymore than to consent to being a slave.
Well, there goes banking.
Banking wouldn't be bad if they did what they were originally intended to do (and for a time DID do) which is safely secure your money. Fractional reserve banking is where it all fell apart.
I guess it comes down to how we define "ok". If degenerates are degenerating, and the only people affected are said degenerates who mutually agree to degenerate, then I don't see the harm on a wide scale. Sure, they damage themselves and that's not "ok", but it is their own duty to correct their behavior or live with the consequences.
To me, it is when degeneracy bleeds into affecting non-consenting parties (either literally or legally) that it becomes a problem that warrants outside intervention. This ranges from annoying things like public indecency to outright criminal behavior like child abuse. The intervention required depends on the severity of the act, but it obviously can't be left alone.
If degenerate adults want to yiff in hell or whatever in a private setting, it's not our responsibility to stop them.
The problem is that that's the biggest if in the history of the species. Particularly given that we have the past two decades serving as stark evidence that literally none of these various fetishes can manage to keep it to themselves.
I've yet to see poop fetishists exist anywhere but as the butt of a joke, and furries literally do not exist outside of the internet, conventions, and the US military. It can be done, it just has to stop being propped up by pedophiles in our elite circles.
Sadly my friend furries do very much exist. For now.
As for scat, Germany exists.
show me a furry in the wild that isn't part of some sort of event or posing for an internet post. I've yet to see one and my town is supposedly full of them.
Gays Against Groomers is the only gay organization that's not complicit in the pedo problem. Even "conservative" gay groups like the Log Cabin Republicans are fifth columnists who view pedos as oppressed fellow travelers.
I think the Log Cabin Republicans support the Florida law. They may be flawed in other areas, but they are not groomers.
"Consenting adults" can't do plenty of shit, why should the gays be special? If two women agree to marry the same guy, that's completely illegal, and I don't see anyone but the most disgusting poly people (and a few off the grid Mormons who are only off the grid because its illegal) arguing for it.
So clearly, "consenting adults" only matters when it allows people to let something happen that opposing might get them backlash socially.
The only reason poly marriage isn't legal is the tax ramifications. It's all about the money. LGBT is a multi-billion dollar industry, like it or not, and it doesn't significantly alter the tax code, while no one cares much about the Mormons and the IRS keep their thirteen silver.
And that's a perfectly fine reason.
But nobody is arguing about it from a pro-tax point of view. They are pushing it from a moral one, which means they are either hypocrites or ignorantly spouting phrases they heard on TV without thinking about it.
That's the problem with principles and morals, if you try to use them as a bat for change and social causes you need to actually have them instead of just using them when it might win your argument for you.
those laws are in place because feds believe women are incapable of making healthy life decisions, same reason abortion is propped up everywhere. I don't agree that things like polyamory should be illegal, let alone even considered by feds.
So lesbians shouldn't be able to marry then, since two women cannot consent to a marriage.
It should absolutely be illegal because it would completely destabilize an already problematic dating market, and turn the already tumultuous "incel" issue into a rapidly exploding problem. If the point of government is to help maintain a nation's cohesion and cooperation, its absolutely in their interest to prevent a handful of rich or degenerate men from taking up the majority of the available women. Logically it makes perfect sense to keep it forbidden. After all, women cannot be trusted to make good decisions for the fate of the nation.
But we aren't arguing logic, just morals/principles. Which somehow only ever get people going out and marching for the Gays and everything else is an afterthought or a punchline.
I think you need to reread my post. My argument is that people, women included, are capable of making their own decisions when they reach adulthood, and it is not the business of feds to determine what is best for individuals.
Morality is irrelevant because morality changes between cultures and people. Feds are probably the worst group to be in charge or morality.
I read it fine, my argument is that the idea of "consenting adults should be able to do their thing" only ever applies at certain times and is a moral position because logically there are plenty of places where they should not be allowed because the alternative is the tyranny of anarchy which leads to even less freedom ironically.
Including allowing gays to marry because by doing so we were further eroding marriage into a government defined entity (since the big argument for it at the time was tax/insurance reasons) instead of a personal or religious union.
Not even getting into that it completely divorces actions from mental states, and thereby assumes people actively destroying themselves (in this case, through lust) should be allowed without question which also only applies here and not to gambling or drugs or many other limited vices.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
Gonna give you a big disagree on that one. Most people aren't fit to decide anything that has an effect past their own nose. Let alone vote.
so who is? you?
Consent is necessary but not sufficient to make a moral action. For example, incest is not moral even if the parties are consenting. You probably only meant ordinary same-sex relations, and I agree that it is not immoral on an individual level. It seems to me that the problem is when society puts its stamp of approval on it.
I am not sure about legal regimes against teh gays, but they need to be socially pressured from any public visibility, even something perceived as "innocent" like holding hands. They are mentally ill.
maybe, but I've never known bullying to be a cure or treatment for mental illness.
Semantics of bullying and disapproval aside, it's not about curing them. It's about stopping them from reproducing.
The Q literally means doing degenerate shit like this.
Or as it's also known, the silent P.
Only one letter off in the alphabet soup.
Demon worshippers love their symbolism. And they love coy admissions too.
The guy is old news, but the sentencing isn't.
It’s insane that parents who are outraged at this stuff in schools are being treated like they are out of touch.
They're called terrorists by the national school board association, which called for the Patriot Act to be applied to them.
I hope that was a wake up call for a lot of folks who were of the "if you are not a terrortist, you have nothing to worry" variety (like me) - any power of the government will inevitably be used against all enemies.
Agreed
The guy who accused right-wingers of projecting was projecting.
The Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses.
Every fucking time. Anyone who still can't see what's going on is a drooling retard. Although that has been true for quite a while now.
Tap the sign.
The slippery slope is real, y'all. Never let them tell you anything different.
The guy who came up with Groomers is a Groomer?
Honestly, Hawaii is a small place, and I'm trying to figure out if I met him.
Not came up with groomer. Who came up with groomer?
someone with eyes
Days since asemi-famous goony, preachy leftoid is outed as a sex pest: 0
I thought this didn't happen? /j
The accusation of projection while he himself is projecting... It's practically an art form.
Should be sentenced to 30 seconds of trebuchet assisted flight.
Hopefully this guy gets the warm reception he deserves. His asshole will be prolapsed by this time tomorrow
Oh boy, it's time for the daily thread where KIA2 uses the abuse of minors to complain about gay people behind their keyboards.
Funny this much attention wasn't given to female teachers molesting students for years, but baby steps.