LGBTQiwis

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
souschef said:
I'm not a lefty if that's what you're implying

I agree that society needs a certain restraint in order to keep the social thread intact. I just don't feel like cozying up with people that'll support me half heartly
Click to expand...
That's why you cozy up to the ones that don't enable you at all.

Battlefield42 said:
Why debate retards who think the bible is gospel and use it to schizo up niggerbabble?
Click to expand...
Because even the dumbest ones from the worst sects aren't being as arbitrary as you think they are. You're missing a piece of the bigger picture.

The real big kahunas out there aren't naturalists. Big Jeffy Epstein funded the "four horsemen of New Atheism" (Dennett, Dawkins and the like) while emailing people about occultism and time travel.

Does that mean there's time machines? No: it just means that the real movers-and-shakers engage on the level of what you would consider "schizobabble".

Christianity (Early Christianity most especially) is a really big deal in that light, because wherever it went historically it outcompeted other models of what kinds of higher intelligences ordered the world, and it did so on the basis solid argumentation (and martyrdom). They made a strong case that the triune God of the Bible, as understood by the tradition out of which that Bible emerged (although this obviously attenuated with later offshoots and sects), was the only God who could sustain and hold everything together—and therefore necessarily must exist. That (along with how the faith works in actual practice) is how that religion survived for 2000 years under persecution from Romans, Ottomans, Communists, and even its own Byzantine emperors pretty often.

Even the lowest-IQ American Evangelical, if he's serious about it, is still trying to articulate that kind of God to the best of his ability; he's still working with some small shred of the capital from that original, full tradition. It isn't arbitrary; it's just a kind of evidence that we've forgotten is necessary. As the parable of the rich man and Lazarus explains:

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

In the past, it was understood that some kind of God was needed to hold the world together in a regular, well-ordered way. That's what annual festivals ushering in the new year were usually about, and it was what made science possible: you had reason to believe there were "laws" to discover in the first place. The idea that there are autonomously self-perpetuating natural laws independent of any agent holding them together is an anti-psychotic coping mechanism, and that coping mechanism is called "naturalism". It's arbitrary: there's no reason to think the gravitational constant has to stay put from day-to-day "just because".

Now, you're probably thinking something like this: "Science doesn't claim that gravity 'has to stay the same'. Science doesn't claim to be able to tell the whole story about our reality at all. All we can do is map out as much territory as we can in our nearby, relative space after we put our stake in the ground. We can only map out whatever patterns appear to be there. It's about doing our best."

The problem is that "our best" isn't good enough: there's no "ground" to drive the stake into—but admitting to yourself that you're building your whole worldview (and life) on sand leads to psychosis. Consequently, once atheism got big in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, "naturalism" was the new big pseudo-philosophy. Naturalism says that the universe's laws perpetuate themselves. Why? How? "B-because the just do, chud!"

This obvious rigamarole fell apart in the mid-20th century: Hume drew the first blood a long time before that, but Kuhn (with his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") really finished the job. Since then, naturalism is just a slave ideology for goycattle who don't know any actual philosophy, existing to be exploited by sex traffickers and evil wizards (you may not think they're actually wizards, but they certainly do).

Attached pdf is a quick rundown on the collapse of western autonomous epistemology

souschef said:
Lol, what the fuck is this dumb ass discussion? What's your point? Competition to see who rape kids the most?

You won't find any pedophile defenders here, so i don't know what you're really hoping to accomplish? When a pedophile abuses a girl you see someone blaming heterosexuals? Regardless of gender, perpetrator or victim, pedophiles deserve to be lined up and shot

You're preaching to the choir brother
Click to expand...
The point is to ask why gays rape kids the most (which you're apparently conceding by doing this "brooo who caaares" song-and-dance). That's pretty apparent.

If it were the case, why do you think that might be?

I'll tell you what I think: I think turning a blind eye to worse stuff further-up-the-chain is the entrance price to the gay community, just like with furries and their zoosadists etc.; they have a lot of room to maneuver up there.

I think that profaning yourself is a big part of the appeal, just like with pedo stuff (as you can see in the gooner-related threads on this website). That element doesn't necessarily have to be in gay stuff (in theory), but it's the ones who are attached to that element who circle the wagons. This obviously runs through aspects of the straight world, as well. But more-so in the gay world. So the result is more kids raped (per capita), because nobody wants to threaten the adrenochrome super-structure that makes all of these subcultures possible.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Was never religious and will never be. If you believe in god, good for you. I'm not here to ruin your fun.
 
California Newt said:
Support = enable
Click to expand...
Kiwifarms is maybe the worst place to tell someone that they need other people to support them in their life. Something tells me that of all the websites the farms has the least number of people who need reassurance and support. People here are going to sure and confident in themselves.
 
femboy fart huffer said:
Kiwifarms is maybe the worst place to tell someone that they need other people to support them in their life. Something tells me that of all the websites the farms has the least number of people who need reassurance and support. People here are going to sure and confident in themselves.
Click to expand...
I didn't tell him he needed anyone to support him. I'm just agreeing that it'd be a bad idea to associate with conservatives that claim to support gays. I'm saying it'd be better comparatively to associate with ones who don't. I just used the word "enable" rather than "support".
 
California Newt said:
That (along with how the faith works in actual practice) is how that religion survived for 2000 years under persecution from Romans, Ottomans, Communists, and even its own Byzantine emperors pretty often.
Click to expand...
Whoever was in power persecuted whoever wasn't, that's how the world was then and still is today. A big part of why christianity spread is because of it's radical openness relative to other belief systems, and it's design. Christianity is set up in a way that encourages its believers to go around telling everyone they can. You trade some wheat for some animal pelts back in medieval times, you should tell that guy about your religion so that he can join you in your heaven. On top of that, quite literally anyone could join. Christianity initially spread amongst the beggars, the poor, and the enslaved in Rome. Anyone could join. It's the same principle as Youtube vs Patreon (or another similar service, it's an example). You will have way more people watching you on Youtube than on Patreon, because there is a significantly lower barrier to entry.
 
Battlefield42 said:
Was never religious and will never be. If you believe in god, good for you. I'm not here to ruin your fun.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. But for another reason. I grew up in the church and started to disagree with their beliefs as I got older.

California Newt said:
So the result is more kids raped (per capita), because nobody wants to threaten the adrenochrome super-structure that makes all of these subcultures possible.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Catholicism and priests. Also Christianity and their churches. So many pedos came from both, but especially the Christian church.
Hell, I saw grown men who were caught diddling kids just get fired and sent away instead of prosecuted because they didn't want people talking about it.

Maybe that should be taken care of first.
 
I find the idea of prohibiting gay couples from adopting children so retarded it's not even funny.

Also, even with your shitty measure that's more based in your own intolerance rather than practicality or morality, as mentioned in this thread with some examples, the rapists weren't in a gay relationship/marriage. So you would ban gays from adopting children so that they get raped by ones who have heterosexual marriages.

Absolute nonsense, I heavily dislike shit like this, where you take rights from people just because they "are classified within a generic group" such as race, sexuality, gender, etc. The root of the problem is elsewhere, and the right way (in my opinion of course) is to determine on a case-by-case basis if the couple, heterosexual or not, is apt to take care of this child.
 
We Are The Witches said:
I find the idea of prohibiting gay couples from adopting children so retarded it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
It's even more retarded when you realize that children can still get SA'd if they were adopted by straight couples. Because the problem is men who are predators. On both sides.

Pedophiles target single mothers too, and marry them to get the children. I guess people want to forget that.
 
General Patton said:
It's even more retarded when you realize that children can still get SA'd if they were adopted by straight couples. Because the problem is men who are predators. On both sides.

Pedophiles target single mothers too, and marry them to get the children. I guess people want to forget that.
Click to expand...
If homosexuals are "wired wrong" by virtue of being queers, they're more likely to be "wired wrong" in other ways, it's why trannies have a bunch of paraphilias ontop of being trannies and why gays are way more promiscuous than heteros per capita >inb4 environmental conditions. If I buy some cheap Chinese knockoff on Temu, it's probably gonna be broken in more ways than one.
 
We Are The Witches said:
I find the idea of prohibiting gay couples from adopting children so retarded it's not even funny.

Also, even with your shitty measure that's more based in your own intolerance rather than practicality or morality, as mentioned in this thread with some examples, the rapists weren't in a gay relationship/marriage. So you would ban gays from adopting children so that they get raped by ones who have heterosexual marriages.

Absolute nonsense, I heavily dislike shit like this, where you take rights from people just because they "are classified within a generic group" such as race, sexuality, gender, etc. The root of the problem is elsewhere, and the right way (in my opinion of course) is to determine on a case-by-case basis if the couple, heterosexual or not, is apt to take care of this child.
Click to expand...
I'm personally against gay couples adopting because i think male and female parenting is pretty much required for a healthy raising

There's some roles men and women can't do. I'm not against prohibiting it though, but i don't think it's the best course

California Newt said:
Support = enable
Click to expand...
I just don't want people sticking their beak in my business. Once i was with someone in a bar and some drunk lady got to our table and started blurting out how much she loooves and support us and how we are corageous and such and such and such... Bitch, we ain't living in Iran, let us have some beers in peace

Fucking people
 
Sooty Soot said:
If homosexuals are "wired wrong" by virtue of being queers, they're more likely to be "wired wrong" in other ways, it's why trannies have a bunch of paraphilias ontop of being trannies
Click to expand...

Every gay person I ever knew was boring and not interesting enough to qualify for all this bullshit. I knew a conservative gay man who was the squarest most boring man ever.
 
Good Goyim said:
I am not gay but I have more genuine respect for 2 actual hairy men being together than the androgynous hyper coomer femboy shit. I genuinely think the former is less degenerate than the latter.
Click to expand...

I have to admit. Feminine gay men bug the hell out of me. Those are the only ones I side eye.
 
Good Goyim said:
I am not gay but I have more genuine respect for 2 actual hairy men being together than the androgynous hyper coomer femboy shit. I genuinely think the former is less degenerate than the latter.
Click to expand...
 
Is listening to emo/punk gay?


I like remixes that take a different tone to the original



"You can addicted to a certain kind of sadness" reminds me of my depression periods, it's like a hole you find yourself in and it totally warps your thinking, like a markov chain that gets stuck in a cycle, also brain fog
 
Last edited:
awoo said:
Is listening to emo/punk gay?
Click to expand...
Why would it be? These stereotypes do not reflect the truth.

There is no mechanism that would make someone gay for listening to that, or listening to that meaning that they are gay... it's a song (you like the lyrics, the rythm, the vibes, etc).

Just like liking pink does not make you of a particular sexuality, besides retarded memes or stereotypes. If you are talking about the perception of society in such a thing, that's another issue (and is based in ignorance and tradition).
souschef said:
I'm personally against gay couples adopting because i think male and female parenting is pretty much required for a healthy raising

There's some roles men and women can't do. I'm not against prohibiting it though, but i don't think it's the best course
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

I would have traded my childhood for one where I had gay parents, given that they treat me with respect and have common sense & decency.

There is no value in life that I cannot get just because I lack one gender as a parental role: perspective that you gain with proper education (I'm talking about decency, not school diplomas), empathy, introspection, and a little bit of thought is all that's needed.

For the same reason that someone with a single dad or single mom can as well. Humans are intelligent enough to do this, even if a lot fail (often because of a presence of shitty parents, not an absence of a particular gender).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom