/b/ - Random

416771 png
(103.32 KB, 2160x648)

A screenshot of their rules page.

I also found out that a lot of these CP indexes also have links to clearnet websites with loli hentai.

This shows that a lot of people into lolicon might be somewhat pedophiles/hebephiles. But many pedophiles/hebephiles do not want to abuse kids or watch CP.


Those hentai sites are not at fault because they put effort into preventing illegal stuff.

 >>/70729/
 >>/70756/
ok then you can go back to 4chan and have this thread over there. We're not interested in any of this OP

 >>/70776/
why not?

 >>/70729/
bump

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/21/04/effect-spanking-brain
> spanking elicits a similar response in children’s brains to more threatening experiences like sexual abuse

 >>/70756/
I assume most people who watch loli of shota say they dont fap or shlick to cp and would strongly condemn those who do while at the same time fapping and shlicking to cp when they think nobody is looking.

As for why pedos fap or shlick off to kids gettimg spanked, its the same reason why telios fap or shlick to the spanking of adults. Spanking is and always was a sexual act.

 >>/71231/
> I assume most people who watch loli of shota say they dont fap or shlick to cp and would strongly condemn those who do while at the same time fapping and shlicking to cp when they think nobody is looking.

I dont think most of them view actual CP. Loli/shota is legal in many places (or in a gray area), whereas CP is outright illegal.

 >>/70729/
 >>/70730/
I had found some archives of the darkweb site that said they were taken down due to an order from the NCMEC.

 >>/70729/
Why should anyone care at all about pedophiles except to put a bullet in their faces and be done with it?

I've seen a clearnet russian forum like that, where they discussed spanking children and also wrote erotic stories but it was all plausibly deniable (no sex involved)

Yo, gooning to cp it's fine wydm?

 >>/71707/
Does russia not care about that stuff as much?

screenshot png
(78.51 KB, 985x248)

 >>/71642/
> I had found some archives of the darkweb site that said they were taken down due to an order from the NCMEC.

If you need more evidence that this exists you could just ask the NCMEC for the report about the site.

 >>/71709/
>  Yo, gooning to cp it's fine wydm?


what do you mean "fine"?

 >>/71707/
did they say they spanked children in real life?

hydeman jpeg
(13.38 KB, 480x360)

 >>/70729/
> This dead thread gets bumped just in time for the schizo thread to go up
> OP

nothing to see here people

 >>/74893/
wut?

 >>/73431/
He means there's nothing wrong with it.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with anything.

If you want morality you can go with the kinds of people who think racism is a sin.

I've dome the philosophy.

We start with the question why is it that what god says is good, is good?

I eliminate "because he's infinitely wise" because that tautological, wisdom means knowing what is good, so good has no meaning if we accept this answer.

I eliminate also "because he made everything" because we don't know if he did and are given reason to believe he did not if we are talking about the abrahamic god of the most influential monotheisms (most people are), but more importantly we don't use creation as the basis for deciding that someone has ultimate authority or else wed be fine giving parents ultimate authority over the children or founders ultimate authority over the countries they created.

Besides it doesn't relate to what people usually say when appealing to god as the ultimate authority, which is that he will reward those who follow him with heaven, and punish those who don't with hell (the important here is that those who follow him go to heaven and those who don't go to hell)

Heaven is the ultimate pleasure, greater than all pleasures on earth, while hell is the ultimate pain, greater than all of earth's pains, and your actions determine your fate, not someone else's.

God is also the strongest man there is, so he has the might makes right (by deciding who is left) principle working for him. Anyone whose ever gotten close to challenging his reign got smacked tf down. He's unbeatable.

Thus the most important thing is your own pleasure, and your own pain, you want to maximize your pleasure and minimize your pain, and this applies to you, not you and some others, that only matter insofar as they impact how young feel.

This principle holds even when you go through normative ethical systems like utilitarian or deontology or the hybrid deontological rule utilitarianism, it all comes down to the pleasure vs pain of one person (yourself), so the likes of Protagoras, Callicles, Thrasymachus, Niccollo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Marquis De Sade, Max Stirner, and Frederich Nietzsche were correct.

But smart people will also take a Machiavellian approach that focuses on minmaxing pleasure/pain overall in the long term over chasing it in the moment.

Niccolo Machiavelli suggested one would best act in their rational self-interest by making a set of rules for their behaviors that optimized their personal benefit as a trend, and sticking to them even in times they disadvantage you because the important thing is consistency of habits, make one exception and you will be tempted to make more until you fuck up.

 >>/77357/
 >>/73431/
Anyways, we can now ask why anything causes us to feel pleasure or pain, and evolution by natural selection provides that answer.

From Charles Darwin to Thomas Malthus, to John Calhoun, to Bill Hamilton, to Richard Dawkins, to Robin Dunbar, to Robert Putnam, to Robert Trivers, to Martin Nowak, to the most cutting edge thinkers in evolutionary psychology.

The most important ethical concept here being the selfish gene:

We are a an organism, which is a set of genes being expressed throughout a series of environments.

Our genes would like to be immortal but they cannot create an organism that is likely to live forever, and so they instead replicate themselves to extend the duration of the existence of genes identical or similar to themselves through the creation of new organisms that were created from copies of themselves, and carry them forth to make other organisms in turn that will likewise be vectors for replication of that gene.

Our genes are optimized over the course of generations of success vs failure to replicate to become the sets of DNA with the best chance at replicating themselves.

Now, you can factor in things like aging (an evolution that meant older generations don't have to compete with newer ones), mutation (an evolution that meant successive generations can adapt to new or changing environments and become better replicators over the course of generations), and sex (an evolution that allowed good genes sharing an organism with bad genes to end up in another organism with better genes that compliment the advantage the gene can give to replication via sex).

But one development has been that we feel pain to help us avoid the things that reduce put chances at replication by making us averse to them, and pleasure to incentivize us to seek out the things that increase out chances at replication, highest amongst these being a sexual partner or multiple sexual partners who we could use to replicate our genes with via reproduction.

So therefore the closest thing to an objective sense of morality is the maxim that we must reproduce as much as we could, and assist those with whom we share genes in common in reproduction, and also prevent those who have different genes that are in competition with ours from reproducing.

 >>/77359/
 >>/77357/
 >>/73431/
But looking at it more broadly we can see a bigger picture: what is evolution directing us towards?

And that is the ultimate lifeform, an organism whose dna is perfectly optimized for replication across the widest range of environments. But what do we know about this ultimate lifeform?

We know that they are the most technologically advanced species, because with technology you can make yourself fit to thrive in virtually any environment, either by modifying the environment to fit your needs and desires, or by modifying yourself to fit the environment.

I could imagine a future species that changes genetics like we change our clothing today.

So the highest goal moves up further to the actions taken to usher in this ultimate lifeform, so who is the greatest candidate for this?

Why, its humans, and more specifically a subset of humans known as the white race, who at one point could have taken over the world and killed off other races to take their lands as their own, but chose not to because of Christianity, and in modern times is held back by its derivative, Marxism.

So we reject both, and focus on taking the potential within white people and finding ways to bring it back to fill expression.

Another thing that has been a recent development in philosophical discourse has been the blackpill, if you are a national socialist youd be familiar with the Spengler's repiet. Right?

Looks are everything, let's be shameless enough to admit it, even David Hume set the standard when he said that all we are to each other is a collection of sensory data that we bundle together and give a name to. 

You can also explore the concept of a different philosopher (name escapes me) who talked about how we have access only to our own minds, and not to the minds of others, and so other people may be mindless zombies or NPCs or automata operating on a script but giving us the impression they have minds like our own.

Anyways, there's a lot of data to support the idea that the most vital thing about us is how we appear to others, and by that we mean how we look, sound, pose, and move. Those who are sexually attractive gain the largest benefit to replication in our world, and those with the least are subhumans doomed to be genetic dead ends.

So what is most beautiful (by which we mean most sexually desirable) in humans?

Traits like pale to fair skin, blonde or red hair, blue or green eyes.
Basically, skin hair and eyes that are not black or brown in colour, or low in eumelanic content.

Meaning once again that backing the white is the only thing that is right.

 >>/77360/
 >>/77359/
 >>/77357/
 >>/73431/

So wrapping back around, how does this relate to pizza enjoyers?

Well, if a big guy and a small girl gets together when she is as small as can be, and they start to do it together, she develops a pair bond with him, and her body becomes acclimated to his DNA, optimizing her chances of giving him offspring when she becomes capable of it.
For the guy, he's going to be able to make her fall for him even when he's a subthree, and once that's locked in, it will persist for life, plus he gets access to a lover whose never been used before, and so lacks the microchimerism that makes her a low quality incubator, and mist importantly he has full access to her entire reproductive window, since he was in before she had entered into it.
Does it cause her pain? No, it doesn't. You've been lied to by the powers that be, and you took it on faith because, why?
How would they know to tell you? Why would you believe them? And even if we accept on faith that it were true now, how would we know it would still be true if things were different (say post legalization)?
Its not true, in fact it would be the best smex of her life, even in the case where the subthree has a microdicklet to match his face.
This subfive has valuable genes, not in looks but in the places that would matter to the eventual creation of the ultimate lifeform, which as we covered is the entire point of existence.
He also might have those low eumelanic traits that are so important, as well (Hitler had blue eyes and fair skin).
And for him, the pid0pill is probably the best chance he has for procreation.
I should remind you that there is nothing in the bible that days it is wrong, anyone who tells you otherwise can easily be shown to be full of bullshit by actually reading the chapter of the bible they cite a quote from, or by looking at the meaning of the words in the quote that they are taking an English translation from in the original language.
Take a look at our history, as things became more jewed, the position we took towards age relations got tighter legally and morally, this is how even the furthest right of the third position national socialists of today are actually still socially cuckservatives, just of a looser variety.
The biggest enemies of the pid0pill are the ones behind Epstein island, and deer island before it, its a direct challenge to their power, as they depend on being the sole providers of safe and secure chilled-sex to their mist useful assets in exchange for compliance, plus its a means of controlling even those who decline the chilid-sex offers.
Why would the news about Epstein be playing everywhere 24/7?
Why is this even being covered at all and not covered up quietly?
Can't you see how coming down on the pizza was how they took control of the internet?
These are questions you aren't allowed to ask, and they will use psyops to get you to dismiss this, because its original thought.
It all comes down to women's rights, and my position is that they shouldn't have any, you can't take this stance that women should be enslaved to their men without also embracing the p-pill.
Remember the most important thing is the ultimate lifeform, the feelings inside you were the result of both the evolutionary process and the way the post-behaviourist society you were raised in had manipulated it to instill their moral impulses into you.
Your mind is not your own, tour thoughts and feelings are not something organic to you, much if it is conditioning.
You can't trust your own thoughts or feelings, even Renee Descartes assumed too much.

Damn, I made some typos, hope you can still read what I intended to say. Well I guess I'll finish up on religion. Since I started my ethics journey with god.

god is the superking, back in the day kings made you follow orders with a might makes right (by deciding who is left) principle of the strong doing as they please and the weak suffering as they must, this remains the care today FYI.
Well the king and his men can't have their eyes everywhere to catch every subject who disobeys him, so they cleverly invested a suoerking who can see everything and who will punish you after you have died, conveniently the one time when your punishment cannot be verified, and the punishment will be the worst possible pain you could ever experience, delivered unto you forever, while obedience is rewarded with the greatest pleasure one could receive delivered to them forever, but once again only after you are dead.
It's a scam, a con, but we are invested in it because they were also smart enough to make us tie our entire identities to it, its in out art, culture, and government, throughout history. That's western religion in a nutshell.

I took one fork of the Eupythro dilemma, that of accepting divine command theory that anything can be good if god says it is, and went from there to ask why it is that what god says is good, is good.

But the other lath is to say that god is making reference to some third source of goodness, and the end of my reasoning led me to that conclusion, the ultimate lifeform.

And I could further speculate that the reason the ultimate lifeform is of such importance is probably because that's the only way at least some part of the universe can know itself, and perhaps peek out at what lies beyond its boundaries.

Feds/LEA honeytrap

I hope mods blam this crap and report the feds posting this shit to the feds.

We are getting it on zzzchan as well.

All the altchans are being flooded with this type of stuff.

Antimaps are Jews, the same Jews who are enabling the elites operations to raep lolis IRL.

Honestly the far right of /pol/ needs to seriously consider their position on this topic because its probably the most important thing to consider.

As of yet they are helping the kikes out by policing the maps at the bottom who are getting their loli loving down without the approval of the chosen people representatives.

By partyvanning the poor lolicons, the overlords who monopolize the provision of cracking miners are protected in their hegemony on the market, and all the utility this position gives them (a lot, because every third man loves little girls, and every second man would be lying when they say they didn't, the popularity of loli drawings is evidence to this).

Its like a drug Lord whose cartel seizes some Latin american country and makes the government pass laws that make their drugs more illegal and the drug laws more strongly enforced with harsher penalties for using.

Why would a drug dealer kingpin do that? To ensure they are the only way anyone can get the drug safely without getting sent to the gulags.

This gives them more power than they ever had before, as the exclusive provider of an in demand luxury good. >>/77362/

 >>/70776/
Speak for yourself I'm very interested in learning something new about something I know I'm both unfamiliar with and likely being lied to about by mainstream soyciety.

 >>/71081/
We accept that spanking and circumcision don't mess up kids, so they don't.

We accept that having sex with adults or watching videos of kids doing such harms kids, so it does.

The map argument that the thing which harms kids is more how society reacts to their experiences than the experience itself holds weight.

They've done experiments on manufactured trauma, having a kid play with a toy car, then having the kids mother act like the toy car is hurting this child, and seeing that now the kid is scared of the toy car. That's how traumatic experiences form, they can be anything and we can condition people to be traumatized by the experience through administration of protection and recovery. 

Taboo is the origin point of trauma, they learn what was done to them was bad, they learn that they should feel bad about it, they know its something that now distinguishes them from others in a significant and negative way that they should conceal, they feel like the other, my idea is to take a bunch of kids and make them all feel victimized by something completely innocuous.

Suffering is relative, when everyone is totally blind, a one eyed man feels like a king.

The pain of being disabled is living among able-bodied people as the normal state of things, it would be far more bearable if everyone lacked the same functions, because then they are just as capable as everyone else.

It's comparison and societal environments that creates traumatic experiences.