Hi Holla Forums, /liberty/ here

And you accuse communists of being naive.

Self-ownership implys that it is possible for someone other than yourself to own you, if you are indeed something that can be owned.

Do you support slavery?

natural rights are a vestige of the same philosophical systems used to justify statism, it doesn't actually make much sense as a concept
freedom is about desires, not rights
it's not something you're entitled to but something you take and own for yourself

(jesus christ)

You are the only person who can control yourself. You are the natural owner of all the limps, nerves, muscles and your own thoughts and brain you control.

Except when we go down a bad end somewhere in the future, where someone can actually take over your body, it still is easily recognizable who the real original owner is.

No one can look into your brain, read your own thoughts and imitate or copy you.

The most evil and universal in every single culture one can commit is killing someone. It's a direct aggression, not against property or fraud, but against another individual.
I won't go into all the things that makes humans and our minds unique and worthwhile, you basically have art, philophy and other things for that and it's too big of a topic.

Do you forbid other people from possessing property? What gives you the right?

And please try to stay away from the typical facotries and land and go more into other stuff like farmland, computers, houses if you please.

Never.

where is the difference? I needed to formulate it that way to better justify owning the fruits of your labor

If you say ownership, you imply trade, buying and selling. This mean that i can either buy or steal you, iself ownership doesn't resolve shit when it come to slavery.

Not really, gift economies were the norm for most of history.
lol

Oups meant to quote

Dude weed lamo

Agreed

Are you saying that control = ownership? Then you must agree with our communist idea of worker control. The workers, after all, operate a factory's machinery, so they should "own" the factory.

The original, yes. Not the current owner. Self-ownership implies ownership can be transferred.

Why not? What scientific law prevents them from doing this? It's just a matter of current technology

No.

Farmland is land, genius. Computers can be considered personal property. Houses, as immovable property, cannot.

You speak of evil, but have not shown it exists. Besides what's ypur point? We shouldn't kill each other? I agree, as making murder an acceptable act decreases my own chances of survival.

So you merely advocate self-ownership because it justifies your beliefs, not because it actually exists?

>>>Holla Forums

...

Are bound to someone else's property. Indeed Marx took a lot from Adam Smith.

How did all the property originated? Were there a moment in history where we started from zero, or , in fact, all the private property is actually built on existing coercive feudal regime/tyrannical central guberment?

Houses would be considered personal prop.

No, I don't go claim a car around the city because if I did, there is a threat that the police will come beat me over the head with nightsticks until I either go to jail with them or died. There's nothing instinctual about it. If I need or want something, I will take it unless I feel there is some sort of consequence I will face because I took it.

There is no inherent right to any kind of property, personal or private. Communism would tend to respect personal property though, since humans are inherently territorial creatures and respecting personal property would minimize conflict.

Really? Based on what? They are immovable, a prime characteristic of most provate property. Is it because of possession? Someone physically living in that house?

Explain to me comarde

Seriously my dudes free weed and low pay lmao

Wtf man. Where you live and what you personally use is yours as personal property. Houses cannot be private property unless they're used to produce value like a factory would. You can't just come into my house. Us socialists, aren't after your fucking toothbrush.

No need to be so aggresive, mate, it was a question

Oh and I see no logic in that.

Btw even if someone came at me:
"Hur dur look we live in an ancap commune, lol mr buttrape I now sell myself into slavery to you lolol trolled"

Then the response to that is just apathy. There SHOULD be absolutetly no enforcement mechanism for stupid shit philisophical thought trolling done IRL like this.

If he runs away from mister buttrape, then nothing should happen.

Be serious. Do you walk around in the city and get confused to who owns what?
Do you stop a few passents and say like:
"Woah woah woah, guys, like who the fuck owns what in this town, we need to figure this shit out, what if i just took one of your cars accidently, I mean HOW DOES THIS WORK?"

No. You just deal with your own shit.

You realize that you are talking to an ancap who believes in self-ownership, right? The self before the ownership should tell you that only you own yourself.

The same what they teach in Kindergarten. I remember we had like two 20-something adolescents in 3rd grade or something. They told us that it's completly okay and in our right to say loud: "NO, I don't want that" when one does something we don't want".

they don't like me, I am a degenerate fag enabler and lolberg to them

No. Look above.

NO! That's why there is a self before that!
REEEEE

Let us deal with that if we actually go down that dark and spooky road.

Then I love you.

oh sorry dude. didn't mean it like that

Personal property generally refers to something you use yourself, while Private property refers to something you trade value for use, be it rent or a salary, generally MoP.
There are some grey areas but it's a good rule of thumb.

/liberty/ is actually full of traditionalists who think degenerates will just die off without government benefits.

We just say that to appease Holla Forums, because those closet-homos are obsessed with degeneracy.

Ownership is a relationship between a person and an object. Saying that you own yourself is weird because it would means that you are at the same time a person and an object. In my opinion, we do not own our bodies, but rather we are our bodies.

Do you stop a few passents and say like:

books.google.com/books/about/Debt.html?id=GYhajCQU8XIC

This is a book of gift economies. You see, bartering didn't really exist back then. That was a flawed hypothesis by anthropologists and has since been rejected. Debt-based gift economies were the norm for human beings.

Then how is that ownership?

Great argument (sarcasm if you couldn't tell). The possibility of such a thing negates your "control of your body" argument.

Oh sure, people might not like you. Can you give any reason why murder is "evil"? Why "morality" even exists?

Workers produce the fruits of their labour with a capitalist's "property", which is why the capitalists claims the right to take those fruits.

He follows a realist one. You have not shown that morality exists.

Personally, I would take as much food and technology as I could, for survival and comfort. But that's an entirely selfish act.

I notice you have no argument against

So you merely advocate self-ownership because it justifies your beliefs, not because it actually exists?

Considering I was born and raised in a society that was founded on property rights it makes sense that I would.
I'm still quite fond or playing with people's pets without their permission and exploring people's farms without their permission.
was at the claim that property is a natural fenomenum which "doesn't need a philosophical discussion", shows how balls deep in Ideology the average person is, hence the conception of politics as bigguvVSsmallguv.
read comic. Surplus Value is a fact.

That's kinda shuddersome dude.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it though.

Now I kind of want to see a slasher flick about a gang of kids that all wear stirner masks as they punish people for their spooks

I mean, are humans not animals? When was the last time you pooped and had the urge to reproduce?

Also, during the revolution, I probably wouldn't do anything especially crazy. I mean, I'm not a psychopath, if that's what you're asking.

The non-aggression principle is fundamentally flawed because it says that someone's right to "defend" property which they inherited from their ancestors is more important than someone's right to not starve to death.

I look forward to every an-cap begging for communism as soon as you lose your jobs to automation.

No. The very definition of self-ownership and its usage in a libertarian context explains why owning humans is wrong.

That is our whole deal with us libertarians, you know? We are kind known for absolutetly being against people owning other people. That's our mantra, baby.

Then how is that suddenly not ownership according to you?

Doesn't the heisenberg uncertainity principle negate that anyway? At least from a perfect theoretical pov?

And we would have much different problems if we actually lived in such a world where other people could control us with a simple gadget.
We would all be basically holding hands and be united against the great Controller.

I bet it would make an interest movie or book though. Or what about a series? Wouldn't that be cool?

No, that is too big of a topic. Let's just settle on "universally accepted as a … (give me an adjective here that I am allowed to use) .. act

Not always the case.

No. But philosopher do it all the time.

And it's important to universalize arugments. So a theory becomes more cohesive and interanlly consistent if it can explain relations with other things if they use the same terms.

If anything that's a plus point.

That's why the statist argument is so intellectually cheap. Theft is no longer wrong when the goverment does it and its advocats then redefine theft in that instance with very complicated non existing constructs like a "social contract" (spook :DD), which somehow babies can agree to before they are even born.

No one would hurt you for petting their pet without permission.

I actually create the "hug thread" on liberty and on leftypol for the lolz. We all accept that only an asshole would punch you in the face as a reaction to you petting their pet or you giving them a hug.

I do that as well. It's huge fun. Do you like urban exploration as well? It's my favourite hobby. I am completly in love with it.

Or maybe they are just nice people who don't punch people in face for giving them a hug. :D

right now actually

I would probably try to live in one just to see what it's like first hand.

Want to share a room with me, bro?

You lack faith in the Science/Progress/selfless billionaires cult.

bread and circus*

Nah, you guys aren't libertarians. You're propertarians. The tools of the capitalists.Become a real libertarian and join us.

Technically I myself am a voluntarist.

I am fine with your system as well, Holla Forums, but I want alternatives and want everyone to live in the commune he wants to.

I am just compassionate like that. I even want you guys to be happy.

Could you, perhaps, structure your argument in a logical manner, as I did?

Because ownership is a quality that can be transferred.

What? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot have knowledge opf a particle's velocity and location at the same time.

That has literally nothing to do with this argument.

First of all, if he controls us, how could we fight him? That's not relevant though, the point is that your idea of self-ownership is flawed because it only exists as an ideal; a spook.

Why? We have different reasons for saying murder shouldn't be acceptable. Your's focuses on self-ownership. Mine does not.

That does not negate the fact that it does occur.

Okay. So you don't do this? You said you did here

So, you're only using the term self-ownership? You don't actually advocate it's exsistence?

No, it heavily confuses the argument.

That is a moot point because communists use a different argument to justify statism, and a moot point for me because I oppose the state.

Property rights aren't voluntarily assigned, they are undemocratically claimed and then enforced with violence.

You are just going to come at me with a different definition of ownership again and troll me by saying that if someone owns something then that ownership can be transfered, which is not always true.

The same way your kids will always be your kids, even if they live independent of you. Interhuman/object relations can't just be changed like that.

Imagine like a mountain in Australia. It will always be part of Australia and not Europe for example.

Why not? And I told you I don't want to talk about it, unless your bring something very interesting to the discussion.

That's the point. We have to fight him or he wins. Jesus christ, if he already starts out from season 1 with controlling us all, then how the hell are we going to continue the story? I don't want to copy the Matrix.

Everything for you guys is just a spook. Actually I am interested. You tell me now for change why it is wrong to touch you, rape, hurt you if not throught the principle of self-ownership. And dont say something like "You are welcome to try, but I will punch you".

as I just said

And I don't like it really either. But sometimes these people want to trade greater risk for less money and more security, so that's valid I guess.

I don't know what you mean by existance. It doesn't exist in physical reality of course, but as you probably know philosphy talks of concept "existing" in a kind of different way.
Like a group of trees forming a forest or mathematics which exist seperate of physical reality.

Then I fucked up. Because it really shouldn't.

Anyway I want to see your alternative to self-ownership know. Or is it all a spook and I am only not raping you, because I am fearful of the consequences for me?

Something being enforced by violence can't be always a negative argument for something.

I can't put my penis in your butthole, since its safety is enforced by violence.

You see?

Speaking of owning babies…

You picked the least objectionable part of his complaint to address but ignored:

"Property rights aren't voluntarily assigned, they are undemocratically claimed…"

Do I get a say in putting my penis in your butt even if I am really horny and want it?

The Non-aggression Principle is flawed because you must use aggression against the workers to enforce your definition of property rights onto those who disagree with your definition.

What the fuck sense does that even make? Do you not understand the argument?

I understand the argument, that's why I am cheekily replying like this, because I know that you don't have a good answer for that.

Ever considered not being spooked?
Capitalism can never be voluntary. It's naive to think there can ever be a purely voluntary exchange, ever, when a will different to one's own exists, nature or personal. Pressured decisions cannot be free decisions.

Capitalism, in it's greedy materialist nature, out-competes ethical systems. It forces all of us to only look at materialistic things, and basically you're fucking submitting to the spectacle.

No, what is your argument for that? Like which aspect are you arguing about? It makes no sense.

Both.

Access to your butt cannot be given by democratic voite. It's yours, no matter how many people want it. And it's enforced by violence. You will punch and kick me, if I try to overrule your decision to not let me enjoy your boypussy.

Could you, perhaps, structure your argument in a logical manner, as I did?

You said that my argument was not logical, so I structured it in a logical manner.

You then argued against it with one sentance

I am merely asking you to show this logically, and you refuse to do so. I'm sorry, but I can't argue with limited information of your points.

I was talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

This is the exact quote

">Doesn't the heisenberg uncertainity principle negate that anyway? At least from a perfect theoretical pov?

What? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot have knowledge opf a particle's velocity and location at the same time."

How did you miss my point?

I, um, I'm confused. But regardless, it's a moot point, as I said.

This is the exact quote

">We would all be basically holding hands and be united against the great Controller.

First of all, if he controls us, how could we fight him? That's not relevant though, the point is that your idea of self-ownership is flawed because it only exists as an ideal; a spook."

It's not wrong.

And I ask you to show me why your reason is better.

No, they are forced into wage slavery at the threat of starvation. Not everyone has the opprotunities the capitalist does, mate, and monopolies can easily squash those that do.

Like a group of trees forming a forest or mathematics which exist seperate of physical reality.

What? A forest is a physical thing.

Take sexuality, for example. It may not exist as a physical thing, but it is something that affects the real world. IS self-ownership the same?

An alternative to self-ownership? What do you mean by this? I have no reason to seek an alternative.

That is different. He refers to private property when speaking of what is undemocratically and violently enforced.

Your butt is personal property. Many socialist have no issue with personal property.

I can't properly read the upper half of your post.

Okay then. That's sall you have to say to me? A famous pilosopher once said that if your theory somehow doesn't explain why rape, murder and theft is bad, then there is something wrong with it.

I guess we should end it here.

I feel lonely atm, can I abuse you as a cuddle pillow?

My problem with that is universal application of arguments.

You have to give me other arguments for why private property is wrong?

Why? Because I found an example those 2 arguments applied also and in this case it, the fact that they applied wasn't even something negative, but positive in fact.

So you have to stop using those 2 arguments or give me a really good argument as to why they should even be considered valid anymore.

It really did go completely over your head. Where did property ownership come from? The answer is that at some point in history somebody put a fence around a piece of land that was commonly held and said, "This is mine." Then, he used force to keep everyone else off of it despite the fact that it was never given to him in the first place. This is the basis for all privately held land, and now people trade that land using documents that are enforced by the state.

Fuck that. By rights land belongs to everyone. The true nature of land ownership is use. When a person works a piece of land he creates value that benefits the whole. Thus his right to that land is based on value added, not some arbitrary scrap of paper.

NAP is just the assertion that private property (property you make money off of by collecting money from those who work the property, to a point well beyond it's upkeep, expansion and what was initially paid for it) is not in it self a form of robbery. It's not that communists, or even Stirnerite egotists, believe might = right, but, as Zizek says, (paraphrased) "Violence by the oppressed is at all times legitimate".

tl;dr private property, rent and wage labor are state sanctioned theft, enacted by capitalists and corporations. Those who engage in it are rightful targets of revolutionary violence.

look here

Why are there so few mutualists in comparison with ancraps and ancoms? Mutualism is cute.

You mean, you actually can't read it, or you don't understand my arguments?

You keep using these words "bad" and "wrong". Who are you to say something is bad? Who am I to say that?

of course, friend

Private property is wrong because the person who owns the property reaps the fruits of many peoples labor. These people must partake in some sort of wage slavery because without it they will starve. If you don't agree with this for whatever reason that's fine. The point is, the owner of the property is parasite. He does nothing but pour money into it and instruct the workers to do things they could figure out on their own, and would be motivated to do if they knew they would be getting full compensation for what they produce. Personal property is what you produce on your own, or something you own that is not used as a means of production that involved other people.

More the first. I don't know if you copypasted the same arguments as last time or forgot to quote it, but I don't know which points I should adress.

Sorry. You are right, I should used a more sophisticated term.

It's kinda common wisdom. Every person pretty much accepts theft, murder and rape wrong or at least has to go at lenghts to jusity the means. So if a moral theory is not externally, as opposed to internally, consistent and explains how they are wrong, then that theory lost its moral vision.

Nice. We have argued for like more than 2 hours? Wew, that is a long fucking time. I rather would have spent it cuddling with you.

Let me try again

That may be true, but just because everyone agrees something is bad doesn't make it so.

You must first show that morality exists for me to accept that an argument that doesn not accept morality is invalid.

Me too

Alright, I'll try to reform my arguments from more logically now.

———————————
You said:

When I asked you structure your argument logically.

The argument you made was:

Against my logically structured argument:

I am asking you to show your argument logically.

——————————–

You then said that my argument:

Was invalid because it does have something to do with the argument at hand, which involves reading someones mind. I then reiterated my point that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle had nothing to do with mind-reading

Please no more.

I said that about cuddling, because I really rather do that. I spent 2 and a half hours watching this thread and replying to almost every single post.

Please.

Alright. Peace out comrade

Thanks bro.

I wanted to work out today and it's getting pretty late.

That does not answer the point. There is no "moral" justification for private property, nor is there any practical justification since use-ownership is more practical.

The question of non-aggression against one and one's property is not a question of aggression, but of property.

Does society determine property? Does the state? Do I?

I find annarco-capitalistic answers to these questions unsatisfactory.

Sorry for all the people attacking you /liberty/, for what its worth I'd make out with you :3

You just consented to us making out.
Don't think that I won't exploit this opportunity now.

I DON'T CONSENT!

I have plausible deniablity on my side. What do you have?

t. neo-reactionary

Is NRx the true intellectual vanguard of the internets?
I find them really interesting although I'm fearful of their love for hierarchy considering I'm from a historically dominated nation and unsure of how principled some recognized elite might have to be considering Porky is as sociopathic and degenerate as it gets right now and doesn't seem to be open for defending any ideal(other than for PR purposes, then it obviously doesn't count) due to market competitiveness.

Oh, senpai! >/////<

Was being serious actually. I have a lot friends that are /liberty/ types and they're typically fine people as long as they're willing to build bridges on commonalities and respect the freedom of others.

You are a girl btw, right?

...

I love this meme so much.

Yep, you get to keep your straight card user. As a side note, how does /liberty/ feel about /lgbt/?

Top *snif* fucking Kek.

I guessed so. You wouldn't have posted pics of hetero couples then.

Those pics are really endearing btw. I see you like cuddling as much as I do. And I like the position of them, how they so neatly fit together

We're totally okay with them. Even the people who aren't, still concede that they begrudgingly tolerate them.

has this been made yet?

KEK!

This doesn't even make any sense. He would be okay with anything.

yeah that doesn't make much sense

Yeah, I'm a bit of a switch myself, so I can appreciate a guy putting his head on my chest and vice versa.

That's good because I'm bi and tbh I don't feel like I'm fulfilled unless I also have a female FWB. How does /liberty/ feel about polyamory?

Also while we're at it, what kinks are popular among you all?

Are you only into communism for the sex?

How new are you?

ifunny.com?
..
ARE WE BECOMING MAINSTREAM OR SOMETHING?

I can't speak for them, some of them are privately socially conservative, but I can speak for myself.
Just a point on social conservatives, I mean sure I can totally see where they are coming from, but especially young guys who never had sex should take care to not follow too much of their virgin rage and hate sex and everyone who have sex.

I am a bit bi. I mean I would readily do it with twinkish or feminine looking guy, but I am not interested in his penis.
And I doubt I would even be able to find someone who is okay with being that unsatisfied constantly in a relationship. I bet guys like that probably are going trans over the long haul.

I am fine with polyamory. But you know it is heavily dependent on trust and honesty. Otherwise it might as well be friends who all meet to fuck each other's brains out every other week. Which is fine, but not if it all started as an actual relationship. Then there would be much drama and tension.

Somewhat, actually. I think that communism is simply the most human (inb4 spook, I mean compassionate) way to interact with other people, and therefore I think that the removal of owner/employee relationships will lead to more (and hotter) sex.

There are awfully many redditors probably including you

lmao

Fuck that's hot.

Imagine an apartment where we could just go up to someone and fuck each other's brains out. We could be living like greek gods.

yea sounds great until society collapses because you're doing nothing but fucking all day

Fuck off Holla Forums. It's fine if you don't want, but you realize that we aren't living in medieval times anymore and saying shit like that, just doesn't have the same bite to it without condeming us to hell.

You only think like that, because you are fueled by prudish virgin rage. Examine yourself and you find out it's true.

to the >>>/gulag/ with you, my property.

wewewew

How many layers of irony are you on right now?

about three fifhty :DD

Yeah most young guys I know who are sex negative tend to have that opinion as residue from their religious parents. Still usually alright though as long as they don't scream at me and call me a whore for making a different life choice.

Even though I'm poly, I think cheating is scummy and I'm usually up front with people about my lifestyle. Which… I would say is very /liberty/ ;)

I would definitely approve, so long as we ask Zizek first lol.

Either way, the an-caps will still be living off handouts just like their hero Ayn Rand did.

I've only had sex twice, and somehow I didn't really enjoy it. I don't know why.

Tbh fantasizing about sex for me is more enjoyable than actually having sex.

Give it 50 years and we'll be able to run almost all of our essential infrastructure with AI.

I also like women taht don't feel the need to avoid the whole slut image.
I am no women, but I am pretty sure that they have sexual desires and want sex, just like men do.

And imo there is nothing wrong, especially when young and potent ;^) to want sex. So really the idea of polygamy interests me greatly.

I and as far as I can speak for /liberty/ approve!

So you're fine with some dude fucking the girl you like?

I hope you aren't one of the people here who endlessly claim that there's no such thing as human nature.

If you were, it would be pretty silly to then act surprised that someone liked something you didn't like.

Yeah. I would be a bit more okay if that dude was bisexual and also cute.

There is such a thing as primaries you know, and it wouldn't be some dude, it would be a hot dude (without STIs, of course).

I always try to bring this up when someone questions me being poly or bi. If it makes me happy, then why not do it?

Cuckoldry is a spook!

I conclude that it is virtuous to engage in polyamory.

I hope I am hot enough to be part of your polyamorous commune.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BURGER HIPSTERS GET OUT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

...

Huh. You are right.

Kinda makes you think.

my nigga

you have that?

damn … fuck

Yeah, sure…

If girl sleeps with some other man then you, she obviously have no strong feelings for you.

So you're fine with the girl you like not liking you back?

yup the three of us love each other lots
the only reason it works is because I love them both and they love each other too
I'd die of jealousy if it was someone I didn't love with someone I did

I'm sorry for your loss, user.

You're almost there, just eight more years!

Holla Forums sucking up to the Right as usual I see

/liberty/ are among the least bad of the far right. Also they generally don't shitpost here anywhere near as much as the other right-wingers do.

Yeah, and that makes it okay to let them finagle their way onto the board right? I mean clearly we need more right wing faggots shitting up Holla Forums, right?

The other thread is a homo discussion, so not really.

Report the threads if you like. I'm not a mod.

You are a lucky man.

How attractive are you btw? Just wondering for science. Can you send me a pic or something?

It would hurt me if it was a monogamous traditional relationship.

But not if we all agreed to polyamory. If you can't deal with that, then don't agree to it. It will only hurt you.

I won't let it come to that.

Liberty is not the right.

...

Not at all
I'm a fat dude with a meh at best face

They're definitely economically right-wing because they believe in free market capitalism.

Yeah, sure. I love how you fucks will deny that you are on the Right when it's convenient for you

That's not surprising considering that your whole ideology is built around being lying little shits co-opting anarchism.

normalfag pls go

3DPD sex is overrated.

WHAT
THE
FUCK
??!!

:DDDDDDDDD

But Hitler we aren't socially right-wing like you.

try and stop me :^)

Wait wait, you are lying to me and while you may not look like a twink. You probably have a masculine face. A very traditonally masculine and what the cuteboy fags like to call look like a daddy.

Or idk, your 2 girls are fat too, which I doubt.

I'm about as socially libertarian as I can imagine anyone being. I'd go as far as to decriminalise possession of CP and encourage the production of fictional loli porn. I'd completely rip the current "justice" (read: cruel revenge) system apart and replace it with something even more reform-focused than the Scandinavian systems. I'd give free LSD and weed to everyone.

Just be confident and I mean as In accepting you're probably going to fuck up on the approach and going in anyway, if you're actually a nice person that can show some signs of holding a conversation you'll probably do fine
nope
one is and one isn't
I genuinely don't put too much stock in looks tbh
if I like you as a person I'll think you're gorgeous

I'm with you except for the encourage and free drugs LMAO part.

I was somewhat joking when I suggested giving it away for free. It would only be available for free when prescribed by a doctor as part of a nationalised healthcare program.

As for encouraging loli porn, I think it's one of the few effective strategies our species could actually employ to reduce the incidence of child abuse.

Thanks. Now I actually need to go in there.

I have never been rejected atually……… yes.

I still think that your probably have a very masculine face. What /cuteboy/ would call a daddy.

Idk why else I see porn with people having huge beer bellies fucking cute girls and boys.
Amateur porn none the less.

I see zero need to encourage it. There is probably more than enough out there for people to consume.

Anyway I don't feel like debating you now. I mean we are talking about polyamory right now.