/random/ - random★

>>1805 (OP)

Not rocket science really. When you're not scared of being a faggot you really don't get angry at faggots for being faggots. The normal reaction would just be disgust like it would be for every other fetish that you don't find attractive. Do you hate the weirdos who strap up in diapers and lick feet? No cause youre not scared that those urges might be in you. Insecure in your sexuality brotha man

>>1806

what? i have 0 clue what you just fucking said for sure, but I'll try my best to tell you why you're probably fucking wrong.

>When you're not scared of being a faggot you really don't get angry at faggots for being faggots.

What sense does that make? If you get angry at pedophiles, is that because you're scared of being a pedo?

>The normal reaction would just be disgust like it would be for every other fetish that you don't find attractive.

Well, anger is an extension of disgust. They're "neighbors" if you will.

>Do you hate the weirdos who strap up in diapers and lick feet? No cause youre not scared that those urges might be in you.

Actually I really hate both of them. I hate feet fetishists because of all the memes made about them. I unironically puked a few times because of them. And for diapers, that's fetishizing neoteny, almost pedophilia.

>>1809

>What sense does that make? If you get angry at pedophiles, is that because you're scared of being a pedo?

Sometimes, but usually it's because of the implication that they're a child molester which carries actual moral weight

>Well, anger is an extension of disgust. They're "neighbors" if you will

Which is irrelevant to my point

>Actually I really hate both of them. I hate feet fetishists because of all the memes made about them. I unironically puked a few times because of them. And for diapers, that's fetishizing neoteny, almost pedophilia

Obtuse ignorance of the principle and denial. Why even ask the question? lol

>>1810

>Sometimes, but usually it's because of the implication that they're a child molester which carries actual moral weight

Yeah, I think that's why I hate gays. I mean I've researched into it, and a pro-gay study literally found gays to be 500% more likely to molest children.

>Which is irrelevant to my point

It's not. You're implying that disgust is natural, but anger and disgust are similar, therefore anger is natural.

>Obtuse ignorance of the principle and denial. Why even ask the question? lol

what

>>1811

>Yeah, I think that's why I hate gays. I mean I've researched into it, and a pro-gay study literally found gays to be 500% more likely to molest children

Sauce?

>It's not. You're implying that disgust is natural, but anger and disgust are similar, therefore anger is natural

Never implied anger is unnatural lol. People get angry in response to threats. I know I'm straight so seeing a fag isn't a threat, they're just fagging about on their own. It becomes a threat when there's a fear (realistic or not) that what you find disgusting in them is also found in you. At that point you'd have self-disgust which the mind would likely resist against with a fight response and outwardly focused anger as a denial mechanisn

>what

I made a general point about the normal reactions to unheld fetishes in general, you gave specific counterarguments to a couple fetishes I cited while overlooking the main point found in relation to *most* fetishes. You're being obtuse, which is a sign that you're not really interested in engaging with the question and just want a specific answer. Not that there's anything wrong with that; you're probably the same guy from the levels of gayness debate. You're a bright mind I just don't understand the point of trying to argue something out if it never leads to any meaningful result lol

>>1813

>sauce

https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep-kids-safe/sexual-offenders-101/sexuality-of-offenders/

>I know I'm straight so seeing a fag isn't a threat, they're just fagging about on their own.

Okay, but if I was a fag, I'd see myself as one of them.

>It becomes a threat when there's a fear (realistic or not) that what you find disgusting in them is also found in you.

well they fuck kids and have a bunch of STDs, is that enough of a threat?

>>1814

>Okay, but if I was a fag, I'd see myself as one of them.

Actually if there's a superego response that marks being a fag/tranny as undesirable and ego dystonic the initial and enduring response would usually be repression and denial. This is the trope of the ranting anti-gay preacher who's a little too passionate about the topic and 'doth protest too much'

>well they fuck kids and have a bunch of STDs, is that enough of a threat?

Yeah threats can be sociological too. I personally have a hard time just making assumptions about all people of a set or group because of their affiliation. 'Who has the time to meet and evaluate every person of a group' I always say

Will give the paper a read

>>1815

>Actually if there's a superego response that marks being a fag/tranny as undesirable and ego dystonic the initial and enduring response would usually be repression and denial

That's a double bind you fucking narcissistic cunt

Just sounds like you're a good Christian boy

As long as a faggot isn't sucking another faggot off in front of me, I can talk to and interact with them.

Just don't fucking touch me with your dirty lubed fingers

>>1822

If there is a god do you think he can hear our screams?

lol well anyways we can at least agree that the furfag should be bullied mercilessly right?

>>1821

>You're a closet gay.

>"I'm not gay though!"

>You're a closet gay because you denied you were a closet gay

kill yourself

>>1824

Never said you're a closet gay *because* you deny it lol

>>1828

Eckh bronies are another level of fag in my book. It's basically wear furry meets trans. Pretty icky. You know they don't piss me off in general but what pisses me off is when they act like they're not losers. Furries and Bronies are the biggest fuckups and dorks out there but as we see with our resident board cancer sometimes they forget that

why is it ok to hate fags but lesbians are fucking sexy?

>>1837

Men are pretty ugly. Girls are cute. Lesbians are great. Ugly lesbians are haram

Any questions

>>1839

>>1839

arent lesbians just girl fags? i love lesbians - does that make me gay?

>>1864

Being gay cause you like lesbians doesn't logically follow

Fag is a pejorative that spans the worst expressions of gayness. A lisping limpwristed sassy queer is a fag. Lesbians are just gay. and lesbians make great porn. and if anyone objects they're probably a deep closet fagnuke who hates themselves like OP the fucking cock merchant

>>1866

so is it ok to call myself gay if i just like lesbo carpet munching porn? because i watch them a lot and want to munch too but don’t think im a fag

>>1873

>>1864

>>1866

You fucking knobs, lesbian porn makes a tranny or a cuck. Not directly, however. Okay so when watch lesbian porn, you're focusing on the female portion of pleasure, in fact that's only pleasure you can focus on. Therefore, 1. you get taught that the woman's side of pleasure is the best pleasure you can get and 2. you have almost no room to impose yourself. So either you're watching lesbian porn as a spectator, making you a cuck. Or you're one of the women, making you a tranny. I've asked actual trannies this, and the porn they watched before coming out as a tranny was either solos or lesbian porn. Either watch straight POVs or better yet, don't watch porn at all retard.

>>1873

You can call yourself whatever you want it doesn't mean you're right lol

>>1885

Most hetero men enjoy lesbian porn you delusional shut-in lol. You're what it looks like when someone spends all their time using /pol/ and completely loses perspective on the real world

>>1899

>>1899

Hetero men that enjoy lesbian porn are actually fags in denial or trying to self-insert themselves as trannies watching the lesbians. Its lose-lose.

>>1908

Wouldn't be surprised to learn that gay men spread way more STDs. But going through the citations I have quite a bit of doubt about some of the figures. over 1000 partners? 28%? Ignoring that it's a study from literally 50 years ago and has a limited sample size and test group even the researchers doubted the credibility of their findings in their own book:

“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

and that's just looking at the 1st citation. iffy science

>>1912

Gay men spread more STDs than any other group mainly for 2 reasons: receptive anal sex is the sex practice with the highest probability of transmitting and STD, and the fact that homos are less likely to use protection since they don't have to worry about an accidental pregnancy.

>>1912

That's because there's few "gender-positive" people willing to study gays and have a possibility of negatively affecting the reputation of gays

>>1930

lol that's fine but don't cite bad science like an intellectually dishonest tribalist primitive who's trying every possible angle to bend the truth to push an agenda. That's the real shill move

>>1931

I didn't post that, I'm OP faggot.

There's naturally going to be more anti-gay sources with data from more anti-gay regions because they're more likely to do studies that may end in anti-gay conclusions. It's a lose-lose. But it's clear that homos are fucking awful, because when pro-gays studied gays and molestation, in the source listed in post >>1814 gays were still 500% over represented in child molestation, despite the people that made the source saying that molestation wasn't exclusive to gays.

>>1932

>I didn't post that, I'm OP faggot

This is an anonymous imageboard. Obviously my post was generalized to anyone who performs the action

>There's naturally going to be more anti-gay sources with data from more anti-gay regions because they're more likely to do studies that may end in anti-gay conclusions. It's a lose-lose

Yeah that's right, but even these researchers admit that their findings aren't conclusive and leave much room for doubt

>But it's clear that homos are fucking awful, because when pro-gays studied gays and molestation, in the source listed in post >>1814 gays were still 500% over represented in child molestation

Saying the same thing twice doesn't mean that it's true the second time. You continue to fail to show anywhere on that site where that figure is listed

>>1934

>Saying the same thing twice doesn't mean that it's true the second time. You continue to fail to show anywhere on that site where that figure is listed

>"…[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual and most of these men were married and had children of their own."

~1-4% of all men are gay.

21/4=525%

21/1=2100%

so actually the number is higher.

>>1935

Well assuming your 1-4% pop figure (which is not from your source and is contested in various search results) is right, and assuming that the results from the study are true (you would have to have bought Groth's book to confirm that information based on his methodology), and ignoring that it's a little dated for being from 1979, I'm willing to throw you a bone and say that's true of 'gays' in the abstract. But what we don't have is the number of gays who did molest in relation to the total number of male gays. What fraction are we looking at here? I'd wager a very small amount compared even to the most generous 1% population estimate. So while gays have more of a problem with molesting, isn't it jumping the gun a little bit to assume that pretty much every gay you meet is a child molester when in fact it's probably a very small fraction of them?

>>1950

If you did the math for the percentage of molesting gays in total male gays I don't know where it is. It's certainly not in your image which makes one of the most laughably dishonest math mistakes ever

>1-3% of the population is homosexual. That means 1-3% of the population commits 1/3rd of the molestations

...No that means whatever percentage of that 1-3% of the population actually molests children commits 1/3rd of the molestations. For what this guy is saying to be true 100% of gays would have to molest children. It's once again not taking into account the percentage of the gay population that actually molests and just using the population percentage of gays as a stand-in

>>1957

did only half the image load for you wankstain?

>>1958

Oh I stopped reading after it looked like it was bullshit and trickery. Math at the bottom half checks out. If all the values are correct that's pretty alarming and surprising. Gonna dig into the sources. 5% of the pop being diddlers sounds a little dubious

>>1950

>>1958

Not actually seeing the 1-5% figure in the Abel source or in any search result. It kind of makes a big difference because if it's .2% of the population that molests instead then it's only 6% of gays that molest, which truth be told is still quite a bit lol

childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

>>1950

>>1964

Realistically 6% would mean that 3 out of every 50 gays are actually child molesters. At that point blanket hatred of every gay you meet on the basis of child molestation would be a little over-the-top wouldn't it?

>>1965

Imagine if 6% of every mosquito bit you. wouldn't you be pissed?

>>1967

Yea but in that case you'd actually have a tangible example of shittiness that you can acknowledge. I'd hate those 6% of mosquitoes. Kinda have a harder time when 94% of any gays I meet are likely to not even be child molesters. That'd take some seriously bold assumptions and guesswork when the stats would suggest that they're actually less likely to be a molester than not

Not taking people on an individual basis just feels so... primitive

>>1968

>>1968

>>1968

How many fucking gays are you meeting? 0% of gays i meet are pedos because i meet 0 gays.

>>1972

jelly. wish I could stay inside the house that much lol

>>1846

I think it means sin in Islam

You're a perfectly healthy human being. The LGBTP community is nothing but subhuman garbage that should be killed off for the benefit of humanity.

>>2044

fucking dogs is not haram

>>2081

yeah it is

>>1805 (OP)

Some things can't be fixed because they're so broken.

>>2871

doesn't breaking it more fix it?

>>1805 (OP)

It's because of the strings that pull you from beyond the veil, my little sibling. These homos you hate viscerally embody an aspect that is opposite to your own, thus inciting rage. It's just a balancing mechanism, really, aimed to reel back those who have overstepped certain bounds.

>>2928

yeah thats probably it.

>>1805 (OP)

https://8kun.top/qpatriotresearch/res/1506.html

;)

Hey op did you ever figure out why you are a faggot?