Starts with the greek once

it's not about 'need to have'
kids find a way around parental rules- parental warnings didn't stop motley crue from being listened to, or south park from being watched

Not enough adolescent catamites for that to be remotely Greek.

So forbidding something makes it more interesting to kids. This will work out well.

Based

there's a difference between forbidding (putting warnings on it) and actually forbidding (removing material from the market) kind of like what twitter is actually doing with ebil republicans

All of those dudes are handsome and alpha as fuck.

My dad actually rented south park VHS' from blockbuster for me to watch as a kid. Never had any problems with it, until I mentioned the show one day at school and upset one of the teachers. Though the show is how I knew that my 3rd grade teacher being a lesbian wasn't normal, which they tried to push on us.

Never really understood sheltering your kids from certain shows and what not. I think it's better to raise them in a way that bad material won't negatively influence them, or they won't be interested in it in the first place

Imagine the smell.

I wouldn't want to shelter my kids from art in any form maybe I wouldn't want to watch certain things with them, but I don't mind them learning from the world as I did)

however, there are very real threats from predators- people who like to groom children for their own needs. I'd laugh if someone said a tv show or book could groom my kids, but having essentially an online friendship with a bunch of predatory homosexuals is another thing entirely

Discord trannys are a thing of today

Greeks fucked twinks, not those things. And fucking twinks isn’t gay

Accept some responsibility for your society. Why do you think homosexuals need to have twitter access?

Oh, yeah that's an entirely different thing. This whole degenerate push on social media is very alarming. Any parent who even allows their kids around these degenerate pride people in real life needs to be rounded up by CPS. And these social media platforms are getting to the point where they need to be heavily regulated

Kill yourself.
All of it is wrong. Only procreation is justifiable.

user most people that are groomed as children are young girls with bad parents. I knew a girl who had a computer in her room since she was five. Keep the computer in a common area and use parental restrictions, third party programs, and talking to your child. These are the most effective ways to help your them. Don't be an incompetent boomer when it comes to technology.

>alcohol
>drugs
>porn
a ban on these things has never worked. Even when we were a much more religious society people broke laws to obtain these.

I'm not the creator of twitter and therefore not responsible for who is allowed to use it. A parent is the creator of their children and therefore responsible for the well being and nurture of the child.

>All of it is wrong. Only procreation is justifiable.

No u

You are a member of society and have the ability to advocate for its health. You chose not to. Same thing as a parent neglecting the well being of his child.

I just gave user info on how to protect his child from online predators. This is in the hopes that if he has a child he will raise them in a healthy way that doesn't cause them to 180 on all his beliefs when they become adults. You seem to be incapable of doing the most basic things to safeguard your own well being, which would explain why you're trying so hard to be superior on a website infamous for child porn.

He says as he browses Yea Forums the most puritan of sites.

Attached: 1557650601148.gif (240x266, 3.86M)

Moving the goal posts, straw man, faulty comparison. This post is worthless.

You wrote this: Reply was this: Response to that reply was: >not my problem

You have a low IQ.

>2714(You)
>Moving the goal posts, straw man, faulty comparison. This post is worthless.
>
>You wrote this:
>Reply was this:
>Response to that reply was: (You)
>
>>not my problem
>
>You have a low IQ.

Attached: pepe business.png (482x682, 37K)

Can some faggot explain how this can be more arousing to some men than the same kitchen full of young sweet chicks in too tight bikinis?
Femme twinks I can somehow at least understand but I just can't wrap my head around the thought of seeing this and thinking " Yep, looks delicious, I want to get pounded hard by those hairy bears..."

mental decay.
read st. bernardine

I'm more interested in the insight from an actual gay lord and not an homophobe.

The overly formalized conceptualizations of most prominent Greek writers are only cause for further confusion in unluminated minds. One should begin one's Philosophical learning with the foremost spiritual, idealistic, optimistic eminences of the past, and from there, with luminated reason, and sharpened discernment, move westward, toward present spacetime.

Plato wrote softcore gay erotica. stop cherry picking

I'm homo and I couldn't want to be further away from that room. Stop generalizing us and being unintelligent.

Well, why women desire to be pounded hard? You can think about (some) gays like that. Some claim that they're like that from birth, some that such disposition is aquired in childhood years, I don't know.

The statistics lean quite heavily towards gay men being molested or sexually abused during childhood

can you explain why you prefer certain foods to others?
>ignoring the existence of gays who exclusively top

All the gays start off with twinks and crossdressers but as they get desensitized to man butt smells they go on to look for the next thrill

No they don't

Don't repeat propaganda.
1. That study claimed at 46%, and it's just one small study.
2. Suggested hostility against innocent gays does not follow from any of this. Those attempts are cowardly and dishonest. They also betray really limited personal experience.

You didn't saw the "(some)"?

Lel dude just found a study that says there's only a 3% chance of a gay man molesting a child. Don't reply to me, I doubt you can even run a regression.

how did the greeks stop being gay?

>the word "some" is in parentheses, which downplays its importance in the sentence and encourages people to gloss over it
>it turns out to be considered vital information
why

46% is statistically significant and would definitely lend credence to the idea that homosexuality is not purely nature in the nature-nurture debate. The implications of this being that the right circumstances socialize (possibly already vulnerable) children into growing up gay, and thus policy decisions taken to limit this socialization are vindicated.

Well, the question was about sub gays.

It's not statistically significant if it's from a bad study. Please link it.

no it wasn't. this specific meaning of "some" and its synonyms do not appear in the original question in this post . the word itself does appear, but it's used in the "any" sense, not the "part of a larger group" sense

I don't have the study, I didn't bring it up

>can you explain why you prefer certain foods to others?
Yes, who the fuck just irrationally likes things and lacks the self-reflective insight to understand their reasoning behind liking it?
>the answer is women and gays(the women of sexuality)

lacking the empathy to see why other people find different people attractive is just like lacking the empathy to see why other people like different food

Well, pedophiles should be persecuted, but social engineering is wrong. Controlling peoples lives only bring misery and forcing people to be "good" does not work. I recommend reading Ayn Rand.

No it's not. You could give me a rational explanation as to why you like peas and I don't. You could not do the same as to why you like getting pounded in the ass by a hairy, obese 60 year old man.

because he's attractive

Just because the ban doesn't stop the behavior 100% doesn't mean that the ban shouldn't be in place, or that society should advocate, promote such behaviors.

Society and social engineering are the same thing and humans are social creatures. Forcing people to be "good" does work, it's worked for literally millions or years from monkeys up to men.
>I recommend reading Ayn Rand.
lmao

That doesn't explain anything you dumbass, that's like saying you like peas because they're "good". No, you like peas because they're juicy and healthy and taste like the vitamins and nutrients your body is craving to keep you alive. There is not a similar, positive, rational explanation for why you want an old fat man to fuck you in your ass.

>rationalizing your sense of taste
ok aspy

Stupid. Social engineering is wrong, better disband all laws.
humans engineer, humans cultivate, humans are self aware, why should we not cultivate ourselves?

The real questions are: what is the appropriate arbiter of said social engineering, what degree of power and authority should said arbiter be endowed with, what if any limits should be put in place, to what end are we engineering society