/agatha2/ - E-Girl Purgatory

 >>/76573/
> there are photos
if you're talking about the one with balloons showing 14, I've yet to see that. if it does indeed exist and you've inspected the articles, again, metadata can be dubious. for all we know that (hypothetical photo) could've been taken over four years ago at the time of posting on /r9k/ or wherever you happened to see it.
> cunny
> 14 meme
even if just a troll, that I think can fairly be considered normalizing grooming/pedrophilia in some capacity. but again, I've done none of that.
> uninvolved parents
whether her parents are involved or not, that doesn't prove either that she was actually groomed into taking those photos and videos or that she's underage; to the broader discussion sure, but to the specific discussion we're having that's not relevant.
> irl pedro allegations and cheeze pizza leaks
the criminal complaint is interesting and would be conclusive if MV-1 could be conclusively linked to pukara. some anon above has said that her name is mary valencia, but I don't know where that started - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't.
> i can't stop how minors i don't know behave online i mean
that's not what I meant. I meant stopping people from normalizing grooming - however all you think that's done. obviously there too it's ultimately out of your control, but my point was that if you wanted to support your claim that discussions about her in the capacity they've been going on are wrong because she's underage, I would think you would be interested in getting evidence to prove that and perhaps influence people to stop. again, I acknowledge that people are going to do what they want at the end of the day, but I and perhaps others are not closed off from criticism and actual proof.

Normally I refuse to interact with this thread at all because there’s no reason to but this is a very retarded argument taking place. She is obviously underage. Some anon kept posting her parents’ facebook profiles which had regular updates dating back to 2010 documenting this girl’s life. The last time I ever interacted with one of these threads was just to chew someone out for posting her family’s Facebooks then I tried messaging them to tell them to make everything private but I doubt they did. But anyway. She is 15, there is no doubt about that. 

But whether she’s doing this all on purpose as part of some fetish is another question. Yes, I’d say it’s obvious she’s doing that considering her post history and how she pivoted from being hypersexual to now pretending to not know anything and be innocent and only care about toddler hobbies with an obviously fake, forced voice that’s constantly straining. But this is probably just the result of being sexualized from a young age online, then feeling bad about what she was doing, and now the cognitive dissonance is on display. Regardless of any of that, she’s still 15 and it’s wrong to enable this part of her, not to mention the extreme conclusion to enabling it is illegal. What she needs is to be ignored, but unfortunately pedros gonna pedro. 

I wish BO were active again so he could just ban these threads again but the volunteers must not see an issue with it as long as pedros aren’t being too obvious.

 >>/76592/
> She is 15, there is no doubt about that
as far as what you've seen, perhaps not. but nothing here that's been posted is conclusive, and appealing to her appearance is not a good argument, especially considering the filters she uses; some people look older than their age, others younger. and obviously if you're a short girl that will further blur things. all you're doing, like others, are claiming there to have been posts proving her youth without actually posting it. you do not have to - feel free not to - but for someone such as myself or another who has not followed pukara's existence online towards its inception, a lot of these "facts" are rightly still up in the air. there's nothing retarded about asking for proof.

 >>/76587/
i mostly find the trolling wrong. honestly i am too lazy to dig up whether you did something wrong personally, but i am mostly arguing that an underage person who sympathizes with pedrophilia does not mean its right to use their likeness to support pedrophilia. it seems like people find a minor who has a pedro fetish, and think it gives them full leeway to support and justify pedrophilia altogether. no dude, pedrophilia is still messed up.

 >>/76603/
also, because, most of the time, they don't really understand their beliefs on the behaviors itself. they're a kid, they see a way to get attention that might be lacking in their home life, so they start adopting a pedrobaiting personality online. do you honestly think most people continue to enable these things into adulthood? no, because they realize how messed up it is.

 >>/76603/
> i mostly find the trolling wrong
> it seems like people find a minor who has a pedro fetish, and think it gives them full leeway to support and justify pedrophilia altogether
those aren't the same thing, though. you can be a pedro and troll about someone being underage - regardless of whether they actually are - therein hiding your genuine sentiments, but that's precisely not an example of justifying pedrophilia, which would be more unambiguous.
> they're a kid, they see a way to get attention that might be lacking in their home life, so they start adopting a pedrobaiting personality online
I don't care to get too much into the armchair psychology of it, but you could very well be right. again, for me, it just goes back to proof of these things before saying anything more definitive.

 >>/76617/
what exactly are you trying to argue? justifying pedrophilia to me is just thinking its okay to sexualize a minor. are you trying to argue that she's not a minor? or that trolling is not justifying pedrophilia? it depends on the type of trolling but i don't really understand the point of defining things further. if your troll is sexualizing a minor to get a reaction out of people, that's just being a pedrophile. whether or not it's a troll is irrelevant to the morality of the action itself.

 >>/76623/
like
> i molested a kid as a troll
that's just being a pedrophile. things are not morally different on account of the minor fetishizing pedrophilia or that she "likes" it. it's still wrong. that's not a troll.

 >>/76626/
justifying pedrophilia hinges on authenticity. if a troll is genuinely a troll it's by definition not authentic. if you make a joke about 9/11 being good but don't actually mean it, you're not justifying terrorism.
>  >I molested a kid as a troll
c'mon, that's just a silly argument.

 >>/76623/
and
> i sexualized a minor as a troll
> i supported pedrophilia using a minor's likeliness as a troll
no dude. it's just pedrophilia and that's messed up.

 >>/76630/
see
 >>/76631/.

 >>/76631/
*likeness, not likeliness.

 >>/76631/
> sexualization
> support pedrophilia
it depends on the specific instance, but again, a genuine troll doesn't support the thing it would otherwise appear to

 >>/76635/
okay, but, if you actually engage in the behavior the troll is supposedly actually *not* supporting, that's no longer a troll and morally right, is what i'm saying. if i engaged in terrorism as a troll, im just being a terrorist, i am not "trolling" about terrorism.
> sexualizing a minor is wrong
> associating a minors likeness with supporting pedrophilia is wrong
if you engage in these behaviors you are immoral, not a troll.

 >>/76637/
> pedrophilia is bad
> actual pedrophilia is not a troll
no disagreements

 >>/76639/
but also
> associating a minors likeness with supporting pedrophilia is wrong
this is not some movement. it's a kid dealing with mental illness. stop exacerbating it

 >>/76641/
> this is not some movement. it's a kid dealing with mental illness. stop exacerbating it
again, there are multiple implications there which have yet to be here proven. I'm open to that, but otherwise this convo isn't going to progress any.

 >>/76642/
> more bad faith pedantry
if you think you are trolling, i don't think you are a troll. i think you are a bad person. if you are being serious, being hyperfocused on something that is irrelevant to the grand scheme of things is probably the most useless characteristics one can have. maybe you should ask why you care more about clarifying arbitrary minutiae over a kid being obviously groomed and sexualized.

 >>/76644/
> i think you are a bad person
> being hyperfocused on something that is irrelevant to the grand scheme of things is probably the most useless characteristics one can have. maybe you should ask why you care more about clarifying arbitrary minutiae over a kid being obviously groomed and sexualized.
I've said it already, but it's simple: I don't want to make claims I can't justify. if you provide proof of the aforementioned things I'm happy to denounce others as sexualizing an underage girl.

 >>/76645/
what about
> sexualizing minors is wrong
> pedrophilia is wrong
do you honestly believe anyone is operating under the idea that she is not a minor? no, you don't, i don't, even if she wasn't a minor (again, she is), the idea of someone justifying pedrophilia using someone's identity as a minor is immoral, whether real or not
> 14 meme
so, what exactly is that alluding to? it's not trolling, it's just being a bad person.

 >>/76648/
again, if you have proof, I'm here. I do not mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but I imagine you will want to get a final word in, so you can have it here. unless, of course, you can verify her age and/or her tie to the infamous crime report.

 >>/76650/
no. i will not bad faith argue.
> associating a minors likeness with pedrophilia is wrong
> sexualizing a minor is wrong
whether or not everything is actually made up is irrelevant. you are a bad person if you engage in these actions.

 >>/76600/
> nothing here that's been posted is conclusive
Because anything conclusive is basically a doxx, which isn't allowed, and is what led to the previous thread(s) being deleted completely. And I didn't appeal to her appearance, since I think she could pass for 22 if I'm being honest, especially outside of filtered/anglemaxxed pics. I don't have any "proof" saved because I'm not a pedro trying to keep a casefile on this girl, and now the actual pedros are avoiding posting her deets in order to save their own asses and maintain the "right" to keep posting about her. I just don't understand why you would doubt she's underage given the vast amount of (both confirmed and alleged itt) information circulating on her, both here and on r9k. Last thread had screencaps of her sexting numerous pedros over and over again just to go and report them to feds when caught by her parents (not saying this wasn't pedrophilic/wrong/grooming but she obviously has a very unhealthy kink for it due to mental issues). But I also understand the autistic demand for proof of anything at any moment. 

I'm sure there's court docs and if someone remembers her groomer's name then they can post a news article about it but I don't keep up with this girl so I can't remember the name and it’s not like I’d have it bookmarked or something. 

 >>/76650/
Literally the only reason you're not getting proof from me and this other anon is because we're not pedros so we don't have folders on this girl. And now the pedros are enjoying your devil's advocate position and will let you keep at it because, to them, it justifies their view that she can be presumed to be mature enough to legally consent to anything.

What the fuck happened here

Good morning beautiful Pukara, if you're reading this, you are 100x better than all the egirls here, you're the best!

967878646536345436457... PNG
(1.36 MB, 842x832)

 >>/77262/
Than you so much
I've been reading your posts and I think you're a little different from all the others around here 
Kinda got those little butterflies ya know, making me sick how much I'm enjoying it

Could you be a doll and give me your discord or something

https://www.upnorthlive.com/news/local/saginaw-man-receives-19-year-sentence-for-child-sexual-exploitation

I will never forgive you for what you did to Eric. It's time to stop the nice, innocent and religious girl LARP. You're a psychopath and you're going to hell.

 >>/77339/
> "The teen said that he was threatening her and forcing her to send sexually explicit images and videos to him online."

Lol wasn't she sending pussy pics around to everyone? How did he force her?

 >>/77343/
Common defense of online whores is to lie and claim to be blackmailed, she doesn't want to admit her wrongs even though most people would still feel bad for her if she was honest.

new details in Eric's case, which by the way gets worse and worse the more you read into it. puka wasn't this guy's only victim

 >>/77392/
> victim

sum1 png
(126.76 KB, 685x643)

sum2 png
(99.27 KB, 673x642)

sum3 png
(89.99 KB, 683x604)

sum4 png
(133.31 KB, 669x643)

sum5 png
(108.23 KB, 683x645)

 >>/77392/
QRD:
> pukara and Eric Michael Hartman aka weezy are friends, weezy is obsessed with pukara
> weezy becomes addicted to Adderall
> weezy makes fake posts about pukara on r9k and agatha2 
> to paraphrase, he wanted to 'shut her shit down, quick'
> is ignored, her fans also ignore weezy's posts
> something triggers weezy to addy zone out and send her old nudes to puka's mom
> pukara gets her shit rekt because of Eric
> pukara's mom gets the feds involved
> ???
> weezy tries to visit pukara
> immediately arrested when he lands back home
here's where things get weird  
> weezy *willingly* talks to the police, willingly gives them his phone code
> instead of paying for a lawyer, tells his parents to hide his $25.000*(this is big, i'll come back to this later)
> being charged with posession and distribution of CSAM (you know, sending a child's nudes on facebook tied to your own account doesn't seem smart)
> detention hearing happens, it comes out that he actually flew to pukara to stalk her house (proof attached)
> after a month or two of browsing his phone, the FBI add 2 new charges onto the case...
> weezy pleads guilty with the plea deal: admit to your crime of sexually exploiting a 13 year old on discord back in July 2023 and we will drop ACTIVITIES RE MATERIAL CONSTITUTING/CONTAINING CHILD PORNO and ACTIVITIES RE MATERIAL CONSTITUTING/CONTAINING CHILD PORNO
> weezy complains about having to pay restitution, calls his brother/dad angrily and tells them to hide his money
> weezy tells a certain online friend in a text on a device the FBI is monitoring in prison that he hid the money from them
> FBI gets angry and kicks the plea deal away, adding obstruction of justice to the charge
> weezy's parents try to tug on the judge's heartstrings with a letter from his lawyer requesting less time cus he a good boy who didnt do nuffin (attached)
> court responds in turn (attached), names another victim and her story, and shit on Eric
> Judge rapes weezy

here's some advice boys and girls: do not talk to the police, do NOT talk to the police, PAY for your lawyer if you have the money. he could have thrown 25,000$ at this case for better representation and not have to immediately pay restitution if he hadn't tried to hide his money. do not hide your money from the FBI using family. do not use prison phones to conduct illegal activity. most importantly, when you are warned not to fuck with someone and to stop, whether it's by your friend (chox) or enemy (fagsaturn), maybe you should stop fucking with that someone. weezy had the most warnings i've ever seen, but he, like many of you fags that lurk here and elsewhere, think you are invincible. you are not. judgement will come to those for those who trade wit for ego. stop playing yourself.

sum6 png
(146.42 KB, 658x674)

sum7 png
(119.73 KB, 663x601)

phone_call1 png
(118.36 KB, 680x604)

phone_call2 png
(106.15 KB, 685x557)

 >>/77418/
summary pics 6 and 7
phone call info

dindu_1 png
(311.74 KB, 653x669)

dindu_2 png
(340.5 KB, 661x836)

 >>/77419/
he a good boy he dindu nuffin my erics good it was the drugs, judge, it was the drugs that done did it

SV_1 png
(162.71 KB, 712x740)

SV_2 png
(168.08 KB, 709x733)

 >>/77420/
But wait, there's more!
You may be wondering how could such a sweet innocent guy do this? And what does he have to do with picrel?

Well a tldr about weezy: 
> thousands of pics and videos of CP across all of his devices
> cult of personality with friends telling him he's the best
> finds vulnerable girls online and sexually exploits them (proof in the previous images)
> has the same mentality as  >>/77412/, that girls who have been groomed and sexually exploited are in fact not victims but uNdErAgE wHoReS who deserve it and deserve getting fucked with

so yeah,  >>/77339/ get fucking rekt. you're next

 >>/77418/
> he, like many of you fags that lurk here and elsewhere, think you are invincible. you are not. judgement will come to those for those who trade wit for ego. stop playing yourself.
Talking to yourself, fag?

That we both like cunnies doesn't mean we're the same. That's where our similarities end, actually. And I'm not even sure junkie church boy from bumfuck nowhere over there even liked cunnies to begin with, it seems like he just wanted to play out his power fantasy on a weaker human being, it just so happened that it was a child.

Sick and tired of fake cunny enjoyers without any father instict giving me a bad rep. Just stick to beating dogs and ripping wings off flies, faggots!

 >>/77422/
K but she is a whore

1 jpg
(66.26 KB, 444x963)

2 jpg
(83.93 KB, 444x963)

3 jpg
(63.44 KB, 444x963)

4 jpg
(44.3 KB, 751x474)

 >>/77418/
you forgot to mention that pukara used to sell nudes to pedros

that pukara dated eric and she asked him to go rape her

that she dumped him and he got so mad he contacted her mom pretending to be a worried normie to get her grounded so she wouldn't talk to other guys

that pukara lied to her mom pretending to be some innocent girl and told her eric was some evil rapist so she would report him to the police

 >>/77439/
> getting squished by his big belly
HOLY SHIT LMFAOOO

 >>/77439/
Okay dude. What the flip is going on here??

 >>/77439/
She was always a whore, I remember two years back some cunny I was talking to who's even outside of *the chans* was aware of "chungy" and how whorish she was. I once added her and deleted after noticing who it was.

good morning beautiful sweet angel pukara, I hope you have a wonderful 4th of July you beautiful girl

 >>/77591/
 >>/77439/
How can you say shit like that after seeing this lmao

 >>/77422/
> has the same mentality as  >>/77412/, that girls who have been groomed and sexually exploited are in fact not victims but uNdErAgE wHoReS who deserve it and deserve getting fucked with

They don’t deserve getting fucked with, but you’d have to be detached from reality to not think certain girls aren’t intentionally seeking out older men. No grooming is necessary with them. The drive to seek out older guys existed before coming into contact with any “groomers” and they continue to seek them even after whichever groomer is gotten rid of.

 >>/77594/
i think she's perfect tbh. everyone makes mistakes. she's still a virgin despite the online stuff

pukara is the kind of beauty that makes you feel like a dry fountain has come flowing back to life. words fail to express her glimmering beauty and my heart surges when i see any pictures of her

 >>/78093/
how can you say this after seeing screens of her saying that she wants to be "squished" by fat 30yos?
she's nasty and gross

 >>/78094/
because i just don't care about that. the other egirls here have done a lot worse.

 >>/78094/
> she wants to be "squished" by fat 30yos
if I had a big belly I would squish her with it, sounds silly

 >>/78094/
nta but at least she isn't a chad chasing non virgin like every other girl on the catalog. she's so much better by comparison and her fetish is cute