User Controls
Posts by Meikai
-
2020-09-26 at 2:50 AM UTC in Antinatalism? Antivitalism.
-
2020-09-26 at 2:41 AM UTC in Antinatalism? Antivitalism.
Originally posted by rabbitweed You're just writing this because Scrons hot cum can't make your asshole pregnant
It's not like I was born sterile or gay - I could have created life at one point, and enjoyed the process. Indeed, at times, I even desired that (in my naivety). You may want to consider that you have your cause and your effect backwards - that I am as I am now because of my philosophical convictions, rather than the other way around. Do remember that all I am now, and all that I have become, has been by choice. -
2020-09-26 at 2:20 AM UTC in Antinatalism? Antivitalism.Antinatalism is a fine thing. Truly, the act of bringing new life into this world is a heinous thing. A pure act of selfishness and weakness driven by humanity's spineless inability to resist the genetic urge to reproduce. Nobody has a baby for the sake of the baby. To devote oneself philosophically to a path that aims to reduce the amount of suffering in this world by preventing new creatures from entering into it is a noble thing. But this only addresses new life...
What of the old life? Established life? Things that are already here, living?
I propose a new school of thought: antivitalism. Life is a plague. A corruption of the inherent beauty of the purely mechanical, physical universe. It should not exist. Its existence in this universe is wrong, abhorrent, and this fundamental incompatibility lies at the root of all suffering. Humanity should dedicate itself to the eradication of all life, everywhere, ending finally with itself once our role as The Annihilator is complete. We are, conveniently, already well on the path to this assuming that life only exists in this one place. Anthropogenic factors are at the heart of an ongoing mass extinction event - this should not be "rectified" by the so called "green", life-loving peaceniks. Indeed, this should be lauded as one of our greatest and finest accomplishments. The presence of life in this reality is like so much excrement on God's finest china. I therefore posit that that is the great evil which should be rectified posthaste.
Thank you. That is all. -
2020-09-25 at 5:15 AM UTC in Which act is more gay?
-
2020-09-25 at 5 AM UTC in Which act is more gay?
Originally posted by Sudo Although I'm straight I probably would rape whatever that thing is, male or female. Idk the first thing I saw when I saw that picture was holding it down, wrapping my hand around their hair and fucking them in the ass. I can't say for sure whether it's male or female and my brain took their genetalia out of the equation so I feel that makes it less gay.
This is the type of post I hope my family or anyone I know never sees
God sees it, dude. Do better. -
2020-09-25 at 3:19 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by Obbe I would rather live in a world where pedophiles get the treatment they need to control their condition and the opportunity to live a normal life than a world where these people are either ostracized or preying upon children.
So what you're saying is you'd be okay with the P being in LGBT+? Is that you, Mr. Epstein? -
2020-09-25 at 2:52 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by Obbe Nobody said anything about immutable moral truths. I agree that classifying a condition as a "mental illness" is semantics. I was just making a statement about the real present, not some hypothetical future scenario that doesn't really matter to us.
It matters in the context of "pedophilia is in the DSM", which is the only context it should be interpreted in - something's current presence in the DSM is a meaningless criteria by which to judge how society will interpret its morality in the future. Saying "P for pedophilia will never be part of LGBT+ because pedophilia is in the DSM" is silly, because the G in LGBT+ was itself in the DSM at one point. Whether or not it is an immutable truth that children can't consent and that pedophilia is morally wrong matters naught to the DSM, because the DSM is only concerned with what we as a society consider aberrant today. If a great many people are convinced otherwise, pedophilia stops being aberrant and joins its betabetic brethren in the Almighty Acronym. -
2020-09-25 at 2:41 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by rabbitweed You were the only person from totse who hadn't changed their name.
Now it's just me and fucking Spectral. Great.
I was HTS-Noob on totse so it kinda changed. Maybe I'll switch back one day, but my post count is 6969 (haha funny sex number) so I opted to make a new account as to not upset the balance. -
2020-09-25 at 2:34 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by Obbe Children cannot consent to sex. Raping children is detrimental to society. Like people who have urges to start fires in buildings, or people who are prone to violent outbursts, people who want to have sex with children have a condition that needs to be controlled.
I mean I agree, but that doesn't mean people who agree will continue to exist in perpetuity or that they will continue to be the majority in society. The DSM just reflects our views as a society, if there is any overlap with immutable moral truths it's purely coincidental. 🤷♀️
Originally posted by rabbitweed If Meikai is really HTS I will feel hurt and betrayed
Oh boy, do I have some bad news for you... -
2020-09-25 at 2:25 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace There's no discussion to be had here. One side is wrong, the other is right.
Your side is wrong. Your side is the side of peodohiles.
Casually observing that society collectively makes some fucking stupid decisions about what's normal and okay is not the same as taking the side of pedophiles, but I can understand your confusion. You'd actually have to think to realize my argument was a bit more nuanced than "pedophilia not bad lmao", and as you've implied you aren't here to think. -
2020-09-25 at 2:20 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
-
2020-09-25 at 2:14 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Weak ass devil's advocate argument. I don't think I need to detail why pedophilia is different.
It's not even a devil's advocate argument. I'm not saying they deserve to get out of the DSM, but it's not up to me or you. I'm sure taking gays out of the DSM seemed preposterous in 1952, and people would have clutched their pearls at the thought just like you or I do today with the pedos. They literally sterilized Alan Turing for being a fag though. It's not like people were "just a little weirded out" by gays back then - they got treatment comparable to how we treat pedos today.
Do I think it's likely that we'll, as a society, destigmatize and depathologize pedophilia? No. Probably not. But it's definitely well, well within the realm of possibility. I'm just saying that acting like the present-day medical consensus about a certain pattern of thoughts and behaviors necessarily reflects some immutable moral truth is silly.
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace But I will say that those who defend pedophiles are probably pedophiles or pedophile protectors.
Which are you?
Neither, but this is a pretty convenient hand-wave. -
2020-09-25 at 1:47 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Yeah like 100yrs ago.
So the fact that it's a mental disorder in the DSM is pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The DSM evolves, things that were mental illnesses become normalized and things that were normal become mental illnesses. The DSM is good for figuring out which labels apply to people, not the morality of the actions that lead to those labels. -
2020-09-25 at 1:43 AM UTC in Should we ban all pedophiles from this website?
-
2020-09-24 at 8:19 PM UTC in Should the age of consent be lowered to 11
-
2020-09-24 at 7:21 PM UTC in Should the age of consent be lowered to 11
Originally posted by Wariat I believe that if girls turn around and give me the eye or a guy they are attracted to the eye or simply turn their heads backwards ro look wt me this is a sign by nature showing you they know what they are doing, what they want, and what they are attracted ro. I havent had this happen for a couple of yrs but when I was 33 or so or just after getting out I have had some do this at least once for sure where I rode my stp skooter and two 12 or so yr olds literally kept making eye contact and looking at me. so is tiol had it or the looks as late as jsut a few yrs ago if i wanted to im sure i could have boned one or two here and there in my life if i really tried or wanted to.
So Wariat literally thinks 12 year olds making eye contact with him is consent. -
2020-09-24 at 1:50 PM UTC in Which act is more gay?
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Is 'punitive rape' in jail really non-homo?
Yes..? I mean if two guys kissing on the lips isn't gay because culturally there are no romantic undertones, a dude ramming his massive bear cock into another dude's ass for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and humiliation is also pretty hetero. That's just prison culture, y'know? -
2020-09-24 at 1:43 PM UTC in TRUMP 2020!!!
Originally posted by POLECAT
both 11 feet tall right now with 1/4 oz cola's everywhere
just hope we have 3 or 4 more weeks before the killer frost ends this game
I would like 1 oz cola's but i'll take what I get,, don't get no funny ideas cuz I'll be sleeping under my girls from here on out,, loaded for bar
-
2020-09-24 at 1:41 PM UTC in Which act is more gay?It depends really. I said kissing, but depending on the culture a kiss doesn't mean romance. At the same time, ass fucking can also be done for non-homo reasons like the punitive rape of pedophiles in incarceration.
It's only gay if your souls touch. -
2020-09-24 at 12:51 AM UTC in Should the age of consent be lowered to 11
