Official Kiwifarms Faggot-Hate thread

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Sorry for double-post.

Did they? They either died or became shambling pharma-slaves. I don't know that I'd call that "getting away with it".

They got away with it in as much as they gain sympathy for it, if not outright seen as martyrs.

The correct response to someone getting infected with HIV, barring cases of rape or blood transfusions from a blood donor who wasn't properly screened, is, "Hahahahaha stupid faggot couldn't control himself and got infected,"

 

[Hulkster]

I'm going to give the devil's advocate take on gay marriage, and I want users in this thread to refute it. The slippery slope didn't come true because bestiality, incest, and the other cartoonish examples of potentially legalized sexual behavior didn't happen. Also, the transgender movement could be opposed while still supporting gay marriage, rendering the slippery slope argument for banning gay marriage invalid.

 

[Markass the Worst]

The slippery slope didn't come true because bestiality, incest, and the other cartoonish examples of potentially legalized sexual behavior didn't happen.

This is missing the forest for the trees. Those things may still be illegal but they're a lot more socially acceptable to talk about now than decades or so back. You could say that pedophilia isn't legal (yet) but that doesn't mean there's less of it or even the same amount. Nowadays pedophiles are trannies who groom children into trooning out, taking the wrong hormones and cutting off their sex organs.

Also, the transgender movement could be opposed while still supporting gay marriage, rendering the slippery slope argument for banning gay marriage invalid.

Sure, but nobody opposes trannies AND supports fags at the same time. There is certainly one set of standards that somebody could uphold to justify opposing one and supporting the other, but it's not what was used to make fags acceptable and it's also not what was used to make trannies acceptable. Both of those things being accepted enshrined the set of standards that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would make pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc acceptable, and that's the slippery slope.

 

[Hulkster]

This is missing the forest for the trees. Those things may still be illegal but they're a lot more socially acceptable to talk about now than decades or so back. You could say that pedophilia isn't legal (yet) but that doesn't mean there's less of it or even the same amount.

When we are talking about the arguments that people like Rick Santorum made against gay marriage, he wasn't talking about how it would be more socially acceptable to talk about men having sex with dogs, but that men having sex with dogs would be made legal as a result of gay marriage being legal. Sure, you could bring up some cooky academic types like Peter Singer who think that we should make the slippery slope a reality, but as far as the law goes, the only other deviant sexual behavior that has been legalized besides homosexuality is prostitution, not bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc., making the slippery slope argument false.

Nowadays pedophiles are trannies who groom children into trooning out, taking the wrong hormones and cutting off their sex organs.

Do you have a pardon my Reddit language "source" on that happening? I have seen plenty of TikToks and viral videos of the groomer teachers, but do we have any hard data that could be put in a court of law proving that trannies groom children more than straights? or more per their portion of the population? Anecdotes can easily be used to counter anecdotes

Sure, but nobody opposes trannies AND supports fags at the same time.

Glenn Beck, Dave Rubin, and Alex Jones do, along with the whole Gays Against Groomers and LGB without the T crowd.

There is certainly one set of standards that somebody could uphold to justify opposing one and supporting the other, but it's not what was used to make fags acceptable

I agree that most of the people who originally supported gays were the progressives that now support transgenders, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't support one and oppose the other, examples once again being gays against groomers and the conservative gays like Dave Rubin.

and it's also not what was used to make trannies acceptable.

The same progressive talking points that made gays acceptable were used to make trannies acceptable, but now you have a large portion of LGB and conservative gay people who have disavowed the transgender movement, so even if the pro-gay arguments were originally used to make transgenderism normal, you can still oppose transgenderism while supporting gay marriage

Both of those things being accepted enshrined the set of standards that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would make pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc acceptable, and that's the slippery slope.

But that's saying the logical conclusion will be implemented. So far no state has made pedophilia, incest, or bestiality legal, so while the logical conclusion to legalizing gay marriage may be a slippery slope, that conclusion hasn't been reached, making the slippery slope once again a false argument.

 

[California Newt]

making the slippery slope argument false.

Arguments are not "true" or "false"; propositions and claims are. Arguments are valid; sound; cogent; good; bad; etc..

but do we have any hard data that could be put in a court of law proving that trannies groom children more than straights? or more per their portion of the population? Anecdotes can easily be used to counter anecdotes

Witness testimony—all of which is anecdotal —is admissible in courts of law, as is testimony from expert witnesses not directly involved with the events of a particular case. As an expert witness (a judge would need only recognize me as such), I would testify that in my expert opinion trannies overwhelmingly groom children as part of their modus operandi and are vastly, grotesquely overrepresented among populations—such as, for example, thr "gooner" subculture—known to groom children.

You say you can fight anecdotes with anecdotes, but in this case you can't: I challenge you to produce a single anecdote of a "trans person" whose psychology doesn't predispose them towards falling in this direction.

Transsexuality is an idea—a psychology. The human mind is not a black box: we can see how things work and what their consequences are without having to feel-and-fumble around in the dark like the idiomatic blidfolded guys failing to identify the elephant in the room.

 

[Appletuncrusader]

Do you have a pardon my Reddit language "source" on that happening? I have seen plenty of TikToks and viral videos of the groomer teachers, but do we have any hard data that could be put in a court of law proving that trannies groom children more than straights? or more per their portion of the population? Anecdotes can easily be used to counter anecdotes

If you've been around certain spaces online in the last 15 years, no doubt you've seen younger, underage users (or maybe even your peers at some point) becoming attached to a "trans elder" or having an older person(usually a gigahon fat fuck) pressuring them with "egg" talk. If you look at the "Losing people to transgenderism" thread, you're sure to find loads of people telling of them or their friends being swindled into thinking they either aren't straight, or aren't the sex they are born with.

I don't see us having massive statistics or "studies" anytime soon that aren't tampered with or tainted by pro-sodomite, pro-tranny ideology, so the anecdotes are all I think we'll have for a while.

Dave Rubin

"Haha. Look at those degens! They're not based like me! I have sex with men and love poopdick, but I'm well adjusted, I swear".
All I have to say is. Why must they always adopt boys?

 

[California Newt]

But that's saying the logical conclusion will be implemented. So far no state has made pedophilia, incest, or bestiality legal, so while the logical conclusion to legalizing gay marriage may be a slippery slope, that conclusion hasn't been reached, making the slippery slope once again a false argument.

You seem to have no concept of the future. Your argument hinges on the assumption that things won't get worse, when the evidence says that things have gotten worse.

This appears to be a very dumb argument—not to accuse you of being dumb, but your argument seems to be.

Why even argue this? What about gay marriage is worth defending? At best it's gotta be a shallow parody of something like this:


Source:
J. Børtnes, “Eros Transformed: Same-Sex Love and Divine Desire. Reflections on the Erotic Vocabulary in St. Gregory of Nazianzus’s Speech on St. Basil the Great,” in Greek Biography andPanegyric, ed. Hägg and Rousseau, 180–93.

 

[Markass the Worst]

@Hulkster Let's try a concrete example. The troons assert that a child has the right state of mind and knowledge to be able to start using wrong-sex hormones ("HRT"), i.e. they can consent to HRT. This is despite the fact that

- Children often live in the land of make-believe; we don't accept that a child is trans-species if they proclaim themselves to be a walrus
- Minors are impressionable and simply hearing the idea of being transgender can make them think they are one
- Minors (and hell, even many adults) do not properly internalize the lifelong consequences of using the wrong hormones, in particular the detrimental effects on bone density
- With all of the above combined, minors can easily be lured into "making" "decisions" they regret later

But if we accept that children can consent to HRT, then why can't they consent to sex? After all, sex is a realm with a host of negative consequences so severe, we flat out ban sexual contact below the age of 18. Yet apparently they are mature enough to handle HRT, or so the trannies say. Trannies assume that minors know their "real gender" and aren't just making shit up, that they know the consequences of HRT, that they aren't impressionable and wanting to fit in with what's cool and join the bandwagon, in other words, that they're mature.

This is what I mean by enshrining standards that were used to make one thing acceptable now making another thing acceptable. Now sure, it's still possible to oppose pedophilia and accept minors doing HRT, but it's an increasingly weak position. Once everybody accepts minors using HRT, suddenly pedophiles can now make the argument that "a child can consent to HRT, so they can consent to sex." There's no logical basis for accepting one but not the other, this would be a very persuasive argument.

The only good thing I can say is that this hasn't happened yet, in particular people are (rightfully) pushing back on children taking the wrong hormones. But to me, that just means that the slippery slope is less steep than we thought, and there are people working hard to push the boulder back up the hill. It's still a slippery slope in the end, and in an alternate universe where there was nobody to counteract trannies, pedophilia would be legal now.

 

[Hulkster]

Ok, there's a lot of text to respond to, so I will do it in quotes. Feel free to debunk me.

Arguments are not "true" or "false"; propositions and claims are. Arguments are valid; sound; cogent; good; bad; etc..

Ok, well, according to your semantics, your claim is false. Better?

Witness testimony—all of which is anecdotal —is admissible in courts of law, as is testimony from expert witnesses not directly involved with the events of a particular case. As an expert witness (a judge would need only recognize me as such), I would testify that in my expert opinion trannies overwhelmingly groom children as part of their modus operandi and are vastly, grotesquely overrepresented among populations—such as, for example, thr "gooner" subculture—known to groom children.

But you, as an expert witness, state your opinion that trannies overwhelmingly groom children, providing no statistics or data backing it up, with your only evidence being an anecdote about a transgender pedo Reddit subculture, when you can find millions of anecdotes of straight pedos grooming kids on the internet.

As for "expert" witnesses, I'm sure you can find countless qualified experts with fancy degrees who can counter your anecdotes about trannies or gays being pedos with their own anecdotes about trannies and gays being wholesome and not molesting kids, along with the data showing they don't molest more than straight people.

You say you can fight anecdotes with anecdotes, but in this case you can't: I challenge you to produce a single anecdote of a "trans person" whose psychology doesn't predispose them towards falling in this direction.

In which direction? If you mean pedophilia, I'm sure you can find thousands of anecdotes of transgenders who aren't pedos.

Transsexuality is an idea—a psychology. The human mind is not a black box: we can see how things work and what their consequences are without having to feel-and-fumble around in the dark like the idiomatic blidfolded guys failing to identify the elephant in the room.

What does this have to do with gay marriage and the slippery slope?

If you've been around certain spaces online in the last 15 years, no doubt you've seen younger, underage users (or maybe even your peers at some point) becoming attached to a "trans elder" or having an older person(usually a gigahon fat fuck) pressuring them with "egg" talk. If you look at the "Losing people to transgenderism" thread, you're sure to find loads of people telling of them or their friends being swindled into thinking they either aren't straight, or aren't the sex they are born with.

You can find thousands of anecdotes of straight pedos doing the same thing more frequently. Discord or Reddit anecdotes are not data.

I don't see us having massive statistics or "studies" anytime soon that aren't tampered with or tainted by pro-sodomite, pro-tranny ideology, so the anecdotes are all I think we'll have for a while.

So the only proof you have for banning gay marriage or transgenderism is anecdotes from Reddit and Discord.

You seem to have no concept of the future. Your argument hinges on the assumption that things won't get worse, when the evidence says that things have gotten worse.

Why should we ban gay marriage based on a guess or assumption that things might get worse?

Why even argue this? What about gay marriage is worth defending? At best it's gotta be a shallow parody of something like this:

I'm playing devil's advocate, but I also want to hear good arguments against gay marriage.

@Hulkster Let's try a concrete example. The troons assert that a child has the right state of mind and knowledge to be able to start using wrong-sex hormones ("HRT"), i.e. they can consent to HRT. This is despite the fact that

- Children often live in the land of make-believe; we don't accept that a child is trans-species if they proclaim themselves to be a walrus
- Minors are impressionable and simply hearing the idea of being transgender can make them think they are one
- Minors (and hell, even many adults) do not properly internalize the lifelong consequences of using the wrong hormones, in particular the detrimental effects on bone density
- With all of the above combined, minors can easily be lured into "making" "decisions" they regret later

But if we accept that children can consent to HRT, then why can't they consent to sex? After all, sex is a realm with a host of negative consequences so severe, we flat out ban sexual contact below the age of 18. Yet apparently they are mature enough to handle HRT, or so the trannies say. Trannies assume that minors know their "real gender" and aren't just making shit up, that they know the consequences of HRT, that they aren't impressionable and wanting to fit in with what's cool and join the bandwagon, in other words, that they're mature.

I agree that transing kids is bad. How does this justify banning gay marriage?

This is what I mean by enshrining standards that were used to make one thing acceptable now making another thing acceptable. Now sure, it's still possible to oppose pedophilia and accept minors doing HRT, but it's an increasingly weak position. Once everybody accepts minors using HRT, suddenly pedophiles can now make the argument that "a child can consent to HRT, so they can consent to sex." There's no logical basis for accepting one but not the other, this would be a very persuasive argument.

I disagree with this argument. Gay marriage is based on allowing consenting adults to marry. Transitioning kids is based on convincing impressionable kids to do irreversible damage to their bodies. You can clearly support one and not the other.

The only good thing I can say is that this hasn't happened yet, in particular people are (rightfully) pushing back on children taking the wrong hormones. But to me, that just means that the slippery slope is less steep than we thought, and there are people working hard to push the boulder back up the hill. It's still a slippery slope in the end, and in an alternate universe where there was nobody to counteract trannies, pedophilia would be legal now.

So why can't we, as you said, push the boulder back up the hill to keep gay marriage legal without forcing anyone to bake the cake and leave it at that? Why do you have to oppose gay marriage to oppose transitioning kids?

 

[Shocked and Horrified]

good arguments against gay marriage.

I used to wonder if gay marriage could be used to argue for polygamy. "I married my husband, now I want to marry my wife, too." If that argument could be made successfully, straight couples could argue for having sister-wives. I don't know. Call me retarded.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

If you've been around certain spaces online in the last 15 years, no doubt you've seen younger, underage users (or maybe even your peers at some point) becoming attached to a "trans elder" or having an older person(usually a gigahon fat fuck) pressuring them with "egg" talk. If you look at the "Losing people to transgenderism" thread, you're sure to find loads of people telling of them or their friends being swindled into thinking they either aren't straight, or aren't the sex they are born with.

And the "born that way" meme allowed both tranny and fag groomers to get away with what they did, up until very recently when we're questioning why exactly we're finding increasingly larger numbers of LGBTQ identification among younger and younger generations, when common sense would dictate that those numbers should increase across the board if the reason for more LGBTQ identification was because they're "not afraid to hide it anymore."

I don't see us having massive statistics or "studies" anytime soon that aren't tampered with or tainted by pro-sodomite, pro-tranny ideology, so the anecdotes are all I think we'll have for a while.

On the contrary, there were plenty of statistics and studies, both back then and in the present day, that indicate that homosexuality/transgenderism are both unhealthy and self-defeating, but they were shouted down by the LGBTQ rights movement that claimed that the studies were biased or tainted by anti-gay sentiment. They even claim that for sources that date to the aughts or even the tens.

Now that neither the fags nor the troons can pretend to be the oppressed underdogs anymore, they still ring true. They're still more statistically likely to be mentally ill or depressed than the rest of the population, they are statistically more promiscuous than the rest of the population, they're more likely to have disgusting paraphilias than the rest of the population, etc.

 

[California Newt]

But you, as an expert witness, state your opinion that trannies overwhelmingly groom children, providing no statistics or data backing it up, with your only evidence being an anecdote about a transgender pedo Reddit subculture, when you can find millions of anecdotes of straight pedos grooming kids on the internet.

The point flew over your head. You used "admissible in a court of law" as your standard; my point was that courts don't subscribe to your epistemology.

As for "expert" witnesses, I'm sure you can find countless qualified experts with fancy degrees who can counter your anecdotes about trannies or gays being pedos with their own anecdotes about trannies and gays being wholesome and not molesting kids, along with the data showing they don't molest more than straight people.

You're (probably unintentionally) using a double-standard: you didn't use peer-reviewed studies to arrive at the conclusion that you need peer-reviewed studies. You came to that conclusion through the "philosophy of science", which is a branch of epistemology. Epistemology is a rational-intuitive discipline that works through direct reflection on human psychology (since it centers on human minds and what they can know).

Our arguments are also based on direct intuitive psychological judgements; you can't say "intuition for me, but not for thee". Intuitive judgements are epistemically prior to the doing of science. Basically all you're doing is saying that you want to debate, and then (again, probably unintentionally) stonewalling through your double-standard whenever the argument turns towards phenomenology—which is where the real problem is.

What does this have to do with gay marriage and the slippery slope?

I'm responding to a separate argument that you were engaged in, but it's also relevant to the gay marriage debate more broadly (because our arguments for both stem from psychological intuition).

Why should we ban gay marriage based on a guess or assumption that things might get worse?

Things did get worse. That's not my argument, though; my argument is that homosexuality needs to be erased from the face of the Earth on the grounds of its nature in-itself, independent of whatever second-order effects it may have on society.

 

[Ser Prize]

I mean, it's simple. Back then gays sold themselves as 'we won't go after kids' and nowadays you get elementary sex ed courses on fisting. Slippery slope is fucking slippery.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Sure, but nobody opposes trannies AND supports fags at the same time. There is certainly one set of standards that somebody could uphold to justify opposing one and supporting the other, but it's not what was used to make fags acceptable and it's also not what was used to make trannies acceptable. Both of those things being accepted enshrined the set of standards that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would make pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc acceptable, and that's the slippery slope.

Bestialities 100 percent legal and the great state of West Virginia along with incest. Also incest is legal in almost all states in the union, something it being a consenting adults or something.

Also, for some reason polygamy is still illegal in all 50 States and. Federally illegal.

 

[NarkDigger]

I mean, it's simple. Back then gays sold themselves as 'we won't go after kids' and nowadays you get elementary sex ed courses on fisting. Slippery slope is fucking slippery.

There is no slippery slope. Slippery slope implies escalation while in reality child related stuff was already present at the beginning of the movement. It's just that they hid it well around the 90s for purely this political reason.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Ok, for all this talk about the slippery slope, and the rather silly devil's advocate argument that the slippery slope isn't a thing because pedophilia isn't flat out legal yet, I'm honestly frustrated at the fact that nobody has brought up how even though it's not legal, the penalties for doing so are insultingly low.

In a sane society, pedophilia would be punished by life imprisonment or (ideally) execution. But all too frequently, the legal penalty for pedophilia is a relatively slap-on-the-wrist sort of deal, a few months to a few decades at most in the slammer, and being put on the sex offender registry. If we can't trust such people to not hurt children unless they're put on a short leash, why the fuck are we letting them walk around free, or even live, at all? No need for a sex offender registry, JUST NUT THE FUCK UP AND KILL THEM.

So why is this? If I'm not mistaken, a good part of the reason is because of Herbert Wechsler, who actively pushed for lower penalties for sex related crimes. He was influenced by Alfred Kinsey, and used his "research" to back up his claims and his ideas. Somewhat unrelated, but as late as 1980, Gayle Ruben said that the goal was to normalize all forms of sexual degeneracy, including pedophilia, and that was a good thing.

The mere fact that pedophilia is far more commonplace now than it was even a decade ago, the LGBTQ was honest about wanting pedophilia to be legal as late as the 1980s, AND our justice system is too pussified to actually deal with pedophiles properly, THERE is your slippery slope. Fucking hell, it's not even a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

 

[Galaxolotl]

even though it's not legal, the penalties for doing so are insultingly low.

I see every other week from Reduxx that Brit bongs are straight up just arresting them and letting them go, with their sources saying that if the police actually did their jobs and tried to convict these pests the UK prison system would buckle, cause remember these things are 5-10% of the population and growing, there is a horrifying amount of people who want to rape children. It's grim over there and I'm sure the judges are in some rich pedos pockets if not pedos themselves as the grooming gang fiasco revealed they were supplying fresh meat to everyone from local MPs to the police themselves.

 

[Clotso Coof]

I just went to a birthday party for a young Indian immigrant girl. Her parents unknowingly bought a Pride cake from a bakery because they don't understand the reason it had rainbows all over it. The whole jeet family was there celebrating with several little children.

It was a very cute cake (if gays hadn't ruined rainbows) and even came with a handful of rainbow rectangle rings (gay flag rings). The little girls at the party were proudly wearing them around and no one said anything of course. Here's the rings on Amazon listed as Rainbow Pride Cupcake Toppers.

I'm pissed off enough that gays stole the rainbow from normal people to the point you have to avoid it for little kids. But now they've pushed their Pride flag bullshit so far you've got fucking gay cakes being made for sweet little girl's birthdays.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I have seen plenty of TikToks and viral videos of the groomer teachers, but do we have any hard data that could be put in a court of law proving that trannies groom children more than straights?

They do, but for argument's sake let's pretend for a moment degenerate trannies are magically less prone to such behavior (absurd notion). Even then, what they're grooming their victims into is more detrimental, even moreso than "regular" faggot grooming, which, no, is certainly not a defense of any variety of grooming, but trannies groom victims into a psychologically harmful psycho cult, support irreversible physically damaging "procedures", and plant suicidal ideation in them. So even if trannies do it less (they certainly don't), they're doing something much worse.

And of course there's no "hard data" on that, you know damn well the liberal faggot powers that be would never publish a study damning trannies, you're asking in bad faith. I object to the premise that you need to prove in court trannies are a public menace. Transgenderism should be eradicated, and their defenders imprisoned.

I just went to a birthday party for a young Indian immigrant girl. Her parents unknowingly bought a Pride cake from a bakery because they don't understand the reason it had rainbows all over it. The whole jeet family was there celebrating with several little children.

It was a very cute cake (if gays hadn't ruined rainbows) and even came with a handful of rainbow rectangle rings (gay flag rings). The little girls at the party were proudly wearing them around and no one said anything of course. Here's the rings on Amazon listed as Rainbow Pride Cupcake Toppers.

I'm pissed off enough that gays stole the rainbow from normal people to the point you have to avoid it for little kids. But now they've pushed their Pride flag bullshit so far you've got fucking gay cakes being made for sweet little girl's birthdays.

At least ignorance is bliss, but damn, that's slightly dystopian.

 

[Clotso Coof]

At least ignorance is bliss, but damn, that's slightly dystopian.

You should have seen me pulling a little white girl's father aside when he picked her up from the party, and quietly explaining to him why she's running around with a gay pride ring on her finger. So embarrassing.