Faces of Socialism

What if he is dead?

Then you have another kid that's yours by blood. If the women keeps going on about her dead chad and how much better he was then shes hopeless and should fallow in his footsteps. Remember, genetics will play a role in how the kids behave and what medical problems may come up. You know your own genetics but you may never know the chads kids. So in closing you will never be able to "help" a chads kid as much as your own, nor should you ever help a chads kid to begin with.

I can see a few situations where I'd do it, if it was a niglet there's no way in fucking hell I'd raise that though.

What if he was not Chad, but Kim

what if he was not Kim, but Chad?

Then his kid and wife can gtfo, but if he was Kim, then it's ok.

I wouldn't be a stepparent. I would not be willing to have a romantic relationship with someone who has a kid with a different father.

However, if I was able to adopt a qt loli and raise her as a single parent, I would. Now I know it would be easier to adopt a qt loli if I had a wife to do it with me, but then the loli will be ruined by the influence of a modern woman, and my whole idea is actually trying to raise a good woman with very specific parenting. This could only be done as a single parent.

kys

You're just jealous you didn't think of it first.

Modern women are shit. They aren't raised right. If you want something done right you have to do it yourself. Can't find a good gf? Then make one yourself.

How would you deal with her when she was naughty?

There is 0 chance I'd raise a black kid. No fucking way.

My cousin has 5 kids and one of them is half nog. I know it might be hard to believe, but the nigger ran off soon after she got pregnant. The mulatto is now 19yo and is the only child she has a problem with–she practically disowned him because he was constantly getting into trouble.

He was raised in the same environment as the other kids, and his white stepdad treated him like his own. But from the time he was very young, he acted like a nigger. I mean, he talked like a typical nog, played basketball, listened to rap, dressed like a thug etc etc.

I've known a few other mulattos, and they all embraced their niggerness. Of course, there's a small chance that you'd end up with one of the exceptions, but the risk is just too damn high.

...

Same way I'd deal with a boy. Women are shit because they get away with everything and have no real rules, responsibilities, or consequences.

Alternatively, I'd rate her daily behavior, and the rating determines how she gets her nightly dose of cummies before bedtime.

If she was particularly good on a given day, like say she got a good grade on a test or something, that would be a 5, and she gets her cunny licked as much as she wants, plus any other ways she wants me to make her feel good (I'll do gross stuff if my well behaved loli wants me to), before getting cummies in her cunny.

If she did some nice things (like say doing a chore that isn't her usual responsibility) but nothing major to bump it into that top rating, she still gets cummies in her cunny, but only gets her cunny licked until she orgasms once, instead of getting as much as she wants.

On a forgettable day where nothing really good or bad happens either way, she gets cummies in her cunny but no licks first, or at least not for the sake of making her orgasm. But of course I'm sure she would usually be motivated to do some random nice thing before bed to earn the ol' lickeroo.

If the day was mixed, like say she misbehaved in some minor ways that shouldn't be rewarded, but was back to normal by the end of the day, she would be reminded of her earlier misbehavior, and how this means she doesn't get cummies in her cunny tonight, but, since she was trying to do better the rest of the day, she can still have cummies in her mouth instead.

If she had seriously misbehaved or say gotten a failing grade on a test or something, she is punished by only getting cummies in her bum. Of course she still knows she should be thankful for getting cummies at all.

She knows if she is absolutely horrible, she gets sent to bed with no cummies at all, and that's the worst punishment of all. This would go with when she does something so bad that "I'm not mad, I'm disappointed." I'm sure this would rarely if ever happen, and this would only be a mythical threat that would almost never need to be acted upon. She would have plenty of motivation to be well behaved, after all.

i'm honestly not gonna bother reading any of those spoilers, too much of an inconvenience tbh

Your loss. You're the one missing out on brilliant parenting tips. Don't blame me when your daughter turns into a delinquent.

MOAR

...

...

Lol wtf did i just watch

I don't mind being with someone who has a kid because I'm just gonna be there for awhile to fuck his/her mom and be on my way. It's not like you have to commit to raising the child all the way to adulthood. Don't be such picky little bitches.

daily reminder that little girls and boys will even resort to wearing multiple layers of pants to protect themselves from anons like this, even if they dont know what it is. these anons like this one have to concoct elaborate multi step long term gameplans just to keep these kids from screaming and begging for their life on sight.

these pedofags are just like the SJWs that say kids have the right to "sexually express themselves". their delusions that children are sexual "beings" are at worst an insulting lie for their unimaginably deranged fetish or at best an insane excuse they've concocted to prove to themselves that they aren't child raping monstrosities that have no value and will definitely be going to hell.

As if that doesn't go without saying, since this is a story about user having a kid, meaning he isn't a basement dwelling wizard who is only kept from suicide by the fact that he can't afford a belt or extension cord to hang himself. Let these people have their fantasies.

Anyway, the problem with the story is that it would need to take place in a cabin in the woods, completely cut off from the corrupting influence of society. Then your problems wouldn't arise, but of course this comes with many more logistical problems.

Also, are you implying that children aren't "beings?" Why did you put quotes there?

meep meep that's pretty edgy tbh

Antis have strange priorities.

pedos
anti-pedos

is that 2nd vid fake? never heard any story on it and looks fake tbh

...

that would mean the mother and father decides who their children fucks and when

Their argument would be that these negative effects are due to the social stigma and shame they are told they are supposed to feel.

hah. nice broad definition that can mean literally anything. mental gymnastics smh.

Right, right. There's always an excuse that leads to the conclusion that children want to fuck old people.

You want to talk about mental gymnastics? How bout this →

...

how is that mental gymnastics? you can convince a child of anything, even that they were raped when they weren't.

I fucking hate pedoniggers

POTTERY

Hell, look at how modern adult women are completely convinced that they are all being raped all the time even though they aren't. This has nothing to do with children. Social pressure and repeated lies are a force to be reckoned with.

But in certain cases it can be a bit more nefarious, because if the question is "do you feel bad?," and your life is turned upside down so that you can be shipped around to people who ask this to you again and again, then yeah, you're gonna feel bad, because your life is objectively made worse, there is a huge stress put on you. But not by the person being blamed, rather by the blamers.

The extent of the damage is not as severe as it is made to look in those studies. A meta analysis conducted by Rind in 2001 proved this. Antis got btfo'd so hard they had to run to congress to get it condemned because they couldn't refute the results or find any methodological flaws.

...

In some cases–particularly concerning pubescents and teenagers who've had consensual sex–the social stigma and victimization is unwarranted and can exacerbate their mental distress. But to suggest that this is the case with prebubescents who've been fucked or molested by adults is simply mental gymnastics to justify your mental illness.

The behavior of pedos on this board has reaffirmed every preconception I've ever had. You're petulant, juvenile, and delusional, and you should all be slaughtered or locked up for life.

I read of a case where it took therapists over a year to convince a girl her boyfriend was raping her. That's how fucked these people are.

Really not helping your case much, pal

...

Let's be clear, it 100% would be mental gymnastics if someone were to rape (literally rape) a child and then blame social stigma. There's a world of difference between that and sex were the child was eager and enjoyed it.

It's the only way to handle people like you. You don't need logic or facts or common sense or history. All you do is spout nonsense, ignore refutations, hide behind fallacies and over-generalizations and then sperg out and hurl insults.

It reduces the amount of harm to the point it can be rationally explained as being entirely caused by stigma.

That is to say, if it were in fact as severe as presented, then stigma itself would not be able to account for it. That in turn would imply sex is inherently harmful in some way.

At will parenting? Yes. If you can't stand the little shit and the Mom isn't worth it you get to just fuck off with no responsibility. Also, choosing to raise someone else's kid makes you the Chad unless she cheated on you and tricked you into thinking it's yours or something.

?, adopting a child can be a very serious situation , so before that consider safer rules for civilization to help spread education to escape cyclical orphanage lives where people are discomforted by any parent , and yes saving lives is important , along with the considerations for those lives ,.

No, let me explain to you why you're an intellectually dishonest moron (or just delusional): First of all, how do you know if the child truly enjoyed it? I've been browsing imageboards for long enough to have seen my share of vile shit, and I've seen the looks on children's faces who are being abused–they CLEARLY were not enjoying it. They become confused, and they wonder why some utterly disgusting adult–whom they look to for care and guidance–is doing strange things to their bodies. Do they ever become aroused? Sure, but that's not saying much, given that adult victims of rape often become aroused during the act.

Ok, you still following me, champ?

How do you differentiate the children who supposedly enjoy it from the ones who are simply obeying the adult? How do you prove such a thing in court? Children are much easier to manipulate than adults, given their lack of knowledge and experience. They look to adults for wisdom and guidance, and it is absolutely unconscionable for an adult to take advantage of that vulnerability by sexually exploiting them. The only logical thing to do is to have legislation that protects children from the adults who will do anything to convince themselves, and the children, that it's natural. It's not.

It's really pointless to bicker with you people, because you literally suffer from a mental illness that includes delusions. It's like trying to convince a schizophrenic that aliens aren't using mind control on them.

I'd love to see a study which concludes that it's 100% social stigma. You're so full of shut it's laughable.

You can't tell apart when a child does something because they think they're supposed to do it and when they want to? You can't tell if a child is attracted to you or not? Are you autistic?

Therein lies the real issue. Adult rape is likewise exceedingly difficult to prove in court, the best we can hope to do as a society is prevention through community involvement and education. Statistics show that both sexual and physical abuse of children decreased by almost exactly the same rate over the last several decades, proving that public hysteria and harsh sentencing offer no improvement.

So don't manipulate them.

The example you provided with children in videos being abused and clearly not enjoying it is not what child love is about.

You know suggesting people should be slaughtered for thoughtcrime makes you seem a bit petulant, juvenile, and delusional.

lelelelel

I'm not a CP aficionado. Back like 7 or 8 years ago on halfchan you could still see it posted on occasion even if you weren't looking for it, but I was never the type to bother clicking on those threads, and since then, it's been strongly clamped down on and now what I see people screaming about as "CP" is just pics of swimsuit models from the sears catalog or something.

So you might be the CP aficionado here, but from my pleb point of view of only interacting with kids in normal situations, I'll say it's very easy to see when they're enjoying something or not. If a kid gets bored of a game they're playing, it's normally pretty easy to tell, even if they're trying to be polite and continue playing to not ruin the game. Your question of "how do you know if the child truly enjoyed it?" should be a very simple one to answer. In fact, even in your post, you say you can't tell if a child is truly enjoying something, then say that you watch CP and can clearly see the child isn't enjoying it. So which is it?

That's not what he claimed though. He claimed that it concluded the harm was small enough that it could be explained by it, and this was enough to make people protest it with politics despite lack of scientific objection.

More research is needed. It is impossible under the current climate to even suggest the possibility let alone study it, so making this demand is very convenient for you. However, it's reasonable from a common sense perspective, there are a number of studies that support this claim and none that disprove it.

Children act giddy and strange sometimes, and it would be easy for someone to mistake that behavior for attraction. And even in cases where the child has a silly crush, it doesn't necessarily mean she/he wants to be fucked.

Yes, like educating adults not about the pernicious psychological effects of child abuse. Like educating adults not to, you know… fuck kids.

Glad you agree. And we can also agree on the fact that, as you so aptly put it, children can be convinced of just about anything.

Creepier words are rarely uttered. But you're right, and that's why we need to have laws which prohibit any sex act with a child, without exceptions.

Really? I think it makes me seem rational.

This is another matter, and I think that would qualify as hysteria.

Oh, so you're suggesting that a judge and jury should watch the porn to determine whether or not the child was into it? Or they'd have to rely on the child's account of his/her experience? Think, user. Think.

Ok, so there WAS harm. Got it.

...

No, I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just pointing out that you contradicted yourself in a very major way. You said you can't tell if a child is enjoying something, then said you watched CP and it was very clear that the child was not enjoying it. Major contradiction. Which is it?

Well I don't know what he was citing. I just don't like you deliberately misrepresenting what he said. Which you're doing again now, just in a more subtle way. From the beginning of this line of conversation, the claim was that there is clearly harm, but that it can be argued to come from the social stigma and shame that the subjects are told they should feel. user cited this study with the claim that there actually is a study that gives numbers indicating that that could be the case, but that it was condemned politically without any scientific criticism.

Now if you want to refute the actual point he was making, go right ahead. But misrepresenting what he said and then arguing that isn't going to convince him or anyone else reading, because you're not actually shooting down the argument that he is making. You're doing yourself a disservice and failing to strengthen your own point, or to weaken your opponent's.

I asked, "how can you tell?". And the fact is, you CAN'T always tell. I discerned that the children looked confused and uncomfortable, but someone else may interpret that as enjoymemt.

Hence, 100%

Stop trying to seem smart, user. It's embarrassing.

Again, the post you're replying to never said anything about percentage. You said
As if anyone was arguing that there wasn't. I then pointed out that you keep arguing against points that the posts you're quoting aren't making, which you're doing again right now.

Stop trying to strawman your opponents' arguments, user. It's embarrassing.

Pereception can be a tricky thing. Pedophiles will do anything to convince themselves that the children want it, and that needs to be taken into consideration–if you need proof of this, just watch a documentary called Chickenhawk.

I interpret "entirely" as "completely"… absolutely… 100%. Keep grasping.

So far, you've provided no evidence of that. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true.

You interpret
As
Not what he said. Subtle but important difference.

Then, when you have it pointed out that you misrepresented what he was saying, you respond to
With
When the entire claim was that social stigma and shame causes harm, which necessarily says there is harm. Nobody was ever claiming otherwise. Again, you misrepresent your opponents' arguments. You are strawmanning.

When you have this pointed out, you respond with
Which was never what was being argued. What was being argued was simply you misrepresenting what was being argued, which you are doing again. You have this one pointed out, and again double down and just keep saying "100%," which has nothing to do with what was being argued. What was being argued was possibility, which you claimed was a claim that a study said something was a certainty, which then transitioned into you claiming that your opponents claimed there was no harm, which then transitioned into you just spouting non-sequiturs instead of acknowledging your previous strawmanning.

Here, I'll make his easier for you…
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entire

"It" = the study of social stigma and victimization
"It" - the amount of harm = social stigma is resonsible for 100% (see: definition of "entirely") of the negative psychological effects.

He said "can be" and you interpreted it as saying that he claimed the study was claiming that it positively was. This is not what he was claiming and you are purposely misrepresenting it because it is easier to argue against your misrepresentation than what he was actually arguing. This is called strawmanning.

But frankly the part I find more annoying is how you kept misrepresenting what was being said when I pointed out that you were misrepresenting the initial post. And then you just gave up on that and tried to use a variation of misrepresenting the original post, which you already failed to do.

I know you can read, so I'm left to believe you're doing this on purpose, and it's not doing you any favors. You're not going to convince me or the other guy by refusing to argue against the things we're actually saying, and instead arguing against different things that you're saying we said.

meep meep is everyone now Thick Nigga or are you having a conversation with yourself tbh

Yes, that is how I interpreted it. I think it provided ample logically sound arguments against that notion, so you can continue to quibble over this trivial matter, but don't expect me to participate.

...

You didn't really provide arguments against that notion, just laughed at the notion to imply it is absurd. And I'm not saying that I even disagree with you. I'm just saying that that's not what he was actually arguing, so arguing against this point that isn't even the point that he was trying to make is pointless. You're just failing to address the actual point.

This debate has mostly been about that very notion. If you can't understand how my arguments address that notion and why it's absurd, I don't know what to tell you. I'm certainly not going to rehash the whole thing.

I know you can read, so perhaps you should go over my previous posts again.

This debate has mostly been about you trying to misrepresent the actual arguments being made for others that you feel are easier to argue against. It's just a secondary point that you still failed to actually provide arguments against your initial strawman, and instead just laughed at it due to its absurdity. And of course it's absurd, you're the one who brought it up, purely to mock it, because the actual argument your initial opponent was making was too hard for you to bother.

Then why don't you remind me what the initial argument WAS, instead of bickering about petty things.

I interpreted "can be" as "is", yes. And from then on, I argued why it isn't, because the idea that it "is" is central to the user's position whom i was arguing with in the first place. I don't see the big problem there.

Yes, this was the initial mistake.

From then on you mostly just misrepresented what I was saying when I pointed out that you misrepresented "can be" as "is."

I already made a post comparing each of your replies with the posts they were replying to, and showing how you misrepresented them each time. Here.

Your underhanded and foolish tactics aren't petty things. They would ruin any debate you'd be trying to have, regardless of the initial topic.

And again, as an aside, you never actually did provide arguments even against your own strawman, you just framed it as being absurd. And okay, I never actually argued against that. But don't claim it's an actual argument. Other arguments were posted in the thread, but in this particular chain of replies, since you initially misrepresented the original point, you never bothered to actually give a real argument against the strawman you yourself created.

And I'm telling you it doesn't matter, because the debate wasn't about the study, itself, but rather whether or not the social stigma is enough to make the psychological harm from the sex, itself, negligible.

He only reason they'd ruin a debate is because people like you can't understand why the very slight misunderstanding is relatively inconsequential.

Again, just because you say it doesn't make it true. I'd like my previous posts, but I'll let you scroll through them.

...

No, the initial claim was that the harm is actually small enough that it could reasonably be explained by social stigma. Again, subtle but important difference.

It's not inconsequential when you deliberately misrepresent your opposing arguments. This only means you don't actually address the points being made, and instead argue against points that nobody claimed in the first place.

Just saying that he said the word "entirely" is not actually making an argument about this. All you did was constantly dodge the points being raised.

Lol. Jesus Christ, you're utterly insufferable. The fact is, every single one of my arguments can be applied to this as well–and I'm confident they'd hold up just fine.

See: above. No points were dodged, pal.

And here, since I clearly need to spoofeed you, review some of the points that I made in the posts below. You'll find I was DIRECTLY addressing the idea that the harm is small enough to be mostly predicated on social stigma.

Every point was dodged and you still failed to make an actual one. The closest you got was claiming that his claim that the results of a study can be interpreted in a way that allows a reasonable possibility that the remaining harm is caused by social stigma was in fact him claiming that the study concluded that all harm was caused by social stigma, so as to make his point easier to laugh off as absurd.

The first post you link is about the ability to tell if a child is enjoying something or not. Not the point we were talking about, which again was the possibility of the remaining harm found by the study being caused by social stigma.

Your second linked post here was already addressed by me, and again doesn't deal with the possibility of the remaining harm found by the study being caused by social stigma. The closest you get here is "So there WAS harm. Got it." Which was implying that anyone said there wasn't harm, so that you could make them seem silly, when nobody was ever claiming that.

The third post you linked is again not addressing the possibility that the remaining harm found by the study could be caused by social stigma. The first part is part of an unrelated conversation, the same one about if you can tell if a child is enjoying something or not (a conversation where your argument is founded upon two directly contradictory points, as we've discussed). The second part of the post is trying to say that the fact that he used the word "entirely" meant that he was not claiming that the remaining harm found in the study could possibly be explained by social stigma, but rather that the study concluded that all harm was caused by social stigma. Again misrepresenting the argument, and failing to address it either way.

You'll have to be more specific than that. This proves absolutely nothing.

Ok, so you simply don't understand why it relates. Let me break it down for you: if you can't accurately assess whether a child truly enjoyed something or were just being manipulated by an adult, then the study would have to be considered flawed. And if the researchers cannot objectively differentiate between the children who were enjoying it from the ones who were not, then the conclusion that they reached would be purely speculative–the vast majority of people would not be willing to accept this on the off-chance that the child might enjoy it. I also cited the FACT that children can be more easily manipulated and convinced of something because of their lack of experience and knowledge–this relates, because if a child can be convinced that something is normal, then they can convey that sentiment to a psychologist.

The main problem with this whole debate is that the anons who buy into this study never mentioned specifics, so I suppose we'd have to delve into that in order to do any deeper.

Found it! You may have already seen this, but if not, you should give it a watch. There are countless cases like this where small children begin acting out for no apparent reason, until it's discovered that they had been victims of abuse.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4

then you literally have autism

Yeah, I think the self-loathing slut is one of their girlfriends or fucktoys.
I remember it from some months back.
Just a reminder that people talk more principles than they have.
If a sheboon sees a white boi she likes, all the #BlackLivesMatter stuff goes out the window.

I'd raise children related to me. Nephews/nieces, cousins, cousins once removed. Most of my family would need to be dead for me to be in that situation. But I'd man up and take care of my kin.

If you're going to use that to defend your claim then you will have to discard all psychological studies that exist as invalid because, when you really get into the nitty gritty of it, it really all is just guesswork.