Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: astor on August 09, 2013, 08:46 pm
-
For some strange reason, I still had access to the forum while it was "down" for the rest you. Maybe it's because circuit handling works differently in Whonix than in TBB, but it got down to three people on the forum. onion.to and onion.sh are both down now (I checked), so I'm not sure how the others accessed the forum, but it was just the three of us. I got bored from the lack of new posts, so I started reading some of the earliest posts on the forum, looking at the first people who registered, etc. I looked at kmf's first post and it was amazingly prescient in light of the FH exploit.
Take a look:
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=7998.msg72828#msg72828
Of course you should isolate firefox and other network facing applications using virtualization technology. You can even isolate Tor to a VM that runs a secure OS. Anyone who says this is counter productive to anonymity has no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Don't be confused by police PSYOP agents and the countless people who speak their (incorrect) opinions as if they are certainly factual. It really boils down to this:
If you do not isolate network facing applications, if they have critical remote code execution vulnerabilities (they do, although none may be publicly known at any given time), an attacker can take over the permissions of the application. After doing this, the attacker can deanonymize you without breaking Tor by by passing it on the application layer, for example instructing firefox to send data around Tor to a malicious server. This is only one of many ways the attacker could get your IP address after identifying a vulnerability in one of your network facing applications.
If you do isolate your network facing applications using virtualization software, even if an attacker exploits a vulnerability in one of them and roots your VM, they will not be able to get your external IP address. The VM itself is unaware of your external IP address, only knowing an internal IP address assigned to it. Now the attacker needs to find an additional vulnerability in Tor, or a vulnerability that allows them to break out of the virtualization solution, before they can get your external IP address with a proxy by pass attack. It is worth noting that if an attacker roots your VM they will be able to reduce the anonymity Tor provides you from traffic analysis attacks to roughly the same as Tor provides to hidden services, which is substantially less than Tor provides to non-hidden service clients. This is because an attacker can force a hidden service to open an arbitrary number of new circuits, but can not force a normal client to open an arbitrary number of new circuits. However, if the attacker has rooted the VM of a network facing application that routes its traffic through Tor, they can force Tor to open an arbitrary number of circuits.
Follow the tutorial linked above that OVDB admin made, but do not use polipo. Polipo is insecure and has anonymity degrading bugs in it, and should not be used. Modern versions of firefox allow for socks proxy routing without the need for an additional http proxy, you probably need to allow proxified DNS in your about:config though. Nobody should be using polipo anymore. But do follow the linked tutorial just skip the polipo portions.
OpenBSD provides a wide range of automatic security features which further increases your security from application layer exploits. For example, if you have a 64 bit CPU and or CPU with nx bit capabilities , OpenBSD will prevent an attacker from exploiting entire classes of potential vulnerabilities that may be (read: are) present in your network facing applications.
You may also be interested in reading about mandatory access control systems, like the previously mentioned virtualization technique mandatory access controls offer security via isolation. However, it is harder to use mandatory access control systems to isolate applications from Tor / external IP address.
Law enforcement are going to start doing all of their wiretap and tracing operations on the application layer, because they can't break GPG or reliably break Tor (although they probably can break it for small random selections of users, they can't break it for a given selected target in the majority of cases), but they can exploit one of the endless streams of vulnerabilities in applications like Firefox. They are starting to work with corporations that sell them prepackaged exploit kits for such attacks.
It is worth noting that law enforcement will have a much easier time to trace SR users with such attacks after they have taken over the SR server, although it is not impossible for them to 'leap frog' the server (for one example, GPG has had remote code execution vulnerabilities that allow an attacker to launch arbitrary code merely by having the target decrypt exploit ciphertexts...such a ciphertext could be sent through a secure non-compromised SR server).
It is also worth noting that the NSA stockpiles as mny remote code execution vulnerability intelligence / exploits as possible, and can trace through Tor on the application layer / steal plaintexts / keys on the application layer, with ease.
-
Well what do you expect from him? Kiddie porn collectors like him need to keep on their toes.
-
I tired another service like onion.to and it wouldn't connect either. So wtf was going on? Some kinda of attack against the forum?
-
Well what do you expect from him? Kiddie porn collectors like him need to keep on their toes.
rofl. +1
-
Well what do you expect from him? Kiddie porn collectors like him need to keep on their toes.
Harsh.
Those are fighting words...
-
Well what do you expect from him? Kiddie porn collectors like him need to keep on their toes.
Harsh.
Those are fighting words...
Have you never read any of Kmfkewm's posts about CP and "how it will be legal" and "doesn't hurt anybody" and how "a 14 year old should be able to fuck a 40 year old"? :-\
-
Well what do you expect from him? Kiddie porn collectors like him need to keep on their toes.
Harsh.
Those are fighting words...
Have you never read any of Kmfkewm's posts about CP and "how it will be legal" and "doesn't hurt anybody" and how "a 14 year old should be able to fuck a 40 year old"? :-\
Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol.
-
Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol.
That does not make it right.
-
Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol.
That does not make it right.
It being illegal in USA doesn't make it wrong either.
-
Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol.
That does not make it right.
It being illegal in USA doesn't make it wrong either.
You're correct. It being illegal in the US does not make it wrong. It being wrong makes it illegal in the US.
-
Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol.
That does not make it right.
It being illegal in USA doesn't make it wrong either.
You're correct. It being illegal in the US does not make it wrong. It being wrong makes it illegal in the US.
But it isn't wrong so that argument cannot possibly be correct.
-
Isn't this rich. Drug dealers preaching puritan fake morality?
Drug dealers, that is people who make money by abusing their customers thanks to the fact that the government has outlawed 'some' drugs have the cheek to defend the state's dictates when it comes to "age of consent"?
What a fucking stupid joke.
-
Jeesh why take all these security threads off topic. I made a fucking post in off topic for this issue why not keep it there instead of derail every single thread with your rants about how wrong viewing CP is. Nobody gives a fuck what you think, and you guys go to every thread you can to let people in it know that pedophiles must be killed, all sex with anyone under 18 is bad, CP viewing is the same as raping little kids, etc. I made a special thread to run logical circles around you guys in, stop taking all these other ones off topic already.
-
Isn't this rich. Drug dealers preaching puritan fake morality?
Drug dealers, that is people who make money by abusing their customers thanks to the fact that the government has outlawed 'some' drugs have the cheek to defend the state's dictates when it comes to "age of consent"?
What a fucking stupid joke.
I don't think they're over-reacting or being hypocritical.
Drug deals have the potential to damage their customers, depending on the drug and the usage by the recipient. Many drugs here help people that would otherwise get sub-grade quality or go without medication, some of that prescription.
Who benefits from an adolescent being lured into sexual deeds before reaching sexual maturity?
-
Isn't this rich. Drug dealers preaching puritan fake morality?
Drug dealers, that is people who make money by abusing their customers thanks to the fact that the government has outlawed 'some' drugs have the cheek to defend the state's dictates when it comes to "age of consent"?
What a fucking stupid joke.
I don't think they're over-reacting or being hypocritical.
Drug deals have the potential to damage their customers, depending on the drug and the usage by the recipient. Many drugs here help people that would otherwise get sub-grade quality or go without medication, some of that prescription.
Who benefits from an adolescent being lured into sexual deeds before reaching sexual maturity?
Fine I guess we just derail all threads. Okay this is easy question to answer, sexual maturity is reached at 14, guess it isn't an issue. Also lured is a very loaded word. Also I don't think they are being hypocritical I think they are being hypercritical ;).
-
Isn't this rich. Drug dealers preaching puritan fake morality?
Drug dealers, that is people who make money by abusing their customers thanks to the fact that the government has outlawed 'some' drugs have the cheek to defend the state's dictates when it comes to "age of consent"?
What a fucking stupid joke.
I don't think they're over-reacting or being hypocritical.
Drug deals have the potential to damage their customers, depending on the drug and the usage by the recipient. Many drugs here help people that would otherwise get sub-grade quality or go without medication, some of that prescription.
Who benefits from an adolescent being lured into sexual deeds before reaching sexual maturity?
Fine I guess we just derail all threads. Okay this is easy question to answer, sexual maturity is reached at 14, guess it isn't an issue. Also lured is a very loaded word. Also I don't think they are being hypocritical I think they are being hypercritical ;).
I agree that this discussion is moot, as you're trying to slyly imply.
It's an ethical issue, so you trying to argue with annals of biological facts vs. that of a culture is going to make those who oppose science look ludicrous. It's the same way atheists dismiss theists.
However, most people are not going to agree that the ability to produce an egg and sperm is enough for sexual maturity.
It's a pretty common sentiment.
People are pretty united over the age limit, even moreso than drugs. Criminals convicted even face harsher treatment by inmates in prison than their actual sentence.
-
Jeesh why take all these security threads off topic. I made a fucking post in off topic for this issue why not keep it there instead of derail every single thread with your rants about how wrong viewing CP is. Nobody gives a fuck what you think, and you guys go to every thread you can to let people in it know that pedophiles must be killed, all sex with anyone under 18 is bad, CP viewing is the same as raping little kids, etc. I made a special thread to run logical circles around you guys in, stop taking all these other ones off topic already.
Rants? You're ranting in several threads about how viewing CP should be made legal. And aside from a few guys who post attention-seeking threads almost obsessively, I have yet to see anyone take your side. Perhaps if you want to discuss your philosophies on CP and don't want to get verbally attacked by all of us "drug dealers", you should post on a board dedicated to CP; not drugs.
Child Porn is frowned upon on SR, what made you think the SR boards would be different?
You made no logical, valid points. All you have done thus far is get defensive about your views, opening rebuttals with cap-locked laughter, and poor grammar. Run logical circles around who?
You're running in circles alright, but I don't think you're getting anywhere here.
-
Drug dealers and drug users are nothing but criminals, and yet they pretend to have the high moral ground?
The stupidity of some people is more than infinite.
-
Drug dealers and drug users are nothing but criminals, and yet they pretend to have the high moral ground?
The stupidity of some people is more than infinite.
Go to your nearest prison, even maximum security prison, and ask what the most despised crime is. 90% of the time, it will be CP/rapists. American jails have had to build special spaces for such individuals as they tend to be frail and targeted.
It seems society considers crimes against children as two-fold. People here are (hopefully) all adults. No one is making them purchase anything.
-
Isn't this rich. Drug dealers preaching puritan fake morality?
Drug dealers, that is people who make money by abusing their customers thanks to the fact that the government has outlawed 'some' drugs have the cheek to defend the state's dictates when it comes to "age of consent"?
What a fucking stupid joke.
I don't think they're over-reacting or being hypocritical.
Drug deals have the potential to damage their customers, depending on the drug and the usage by the recipient. Many drugs here help people that would otherwise get sub-grade quality or go without medication, some of that prescription.
Who benefits from an adolescent being lured into sexual deeds before reaching sexual maturity?
Fine I guess we just derail all threads. Okay this is easy question to answer, sexual maturity is reached at 14, guess it isn't an issue. Also lured is a very loaded word. Also I don't think they are being hypocritical I think they are being hypercritical ;).
I agree that this discussion is moot, as you're trying to slyly imply.
It's an ethical issue, so you trying to argue with annals of biological facts vs. that of a culture is going to make those who oppose science look ludicrous. It's the same way atheists dismiss theists.
However, most people are not going to agree that the ability to produce an egg and sperm is enough for sexual maturity.
It's a pretty common sentiment.
People are pretty united over the age limit, even moreso than drugs. Criminals convicted even face harsher treatment by inmates in prison than their actual sentence.
Agreed. To say sexual maturity is reached at 14, is to not know anything about child psychology. Let alone from a biological aspect; this is a very vague attempt at an arbitrary generalization of the 'exact age' for girls to be deemed 'sexually mature' ... some girls aren't even fully sexually developed until they're 16/17. And most women aren't fully maternally developed until well into their 20's. Rounded 'child baring hips', larger uterus, etc.
Women also hit their sexual peak in their 30s. Men hit theirs between 17-20.
Drug dealers and drug users are nothing but criminals, and yet they pretend to have the high moral ground?
The stupidity of some people is more than infinite.
Yup. Nothing but criminals. That's why you're on the Silk Road, right? Because you want to see what all us criminals are up to? LE.
-
Did I mention what kind of scumbag a drug dealer is?
It is a criminal who, instead of having a legal job at McDonalds and earning what ordinary people earn, chooses to sell illegal drugs. A drug dealer is a lazy and corrupt abuser who gets money by selling wildly overpriced garbage.
Drug dealers are nothing but an arm of the state. Drug dealers exist only because of prohibition. And yet they pretend to have the moral high ground? What a fucking joke.
-
people are NOT at ALL united over the age limit, in the USA it ranges from 16-18 and internationally it ranges from 11 to 21.
-
kfm,
There's no point in trying to reason with people who are mentally sick.
-
Jeesh why take all these security threads off topic. I made a fucking post in off topic for this issue why not keep it there instead of derail every single thread with your rants about how wrong viewing CP is. Nobody gives a fuck what you think, and you guys go to every thread you can to let people in it know that pedophiles must be killed, all sex with anyone under 18 is bad, CP viewing is the same as raping little kids, etc. I made a special thread to run logical circles around you guys in, stop taking all these other ones off topic already.
Rants? You're ranting in several threads about how viewing CP should be made legal. And aside from a few guys who post attention-seeking threads almost obsessively, I have yet to see anyone take your side. Perhaps if you want to discuss your philosophies on CP and don't want to get verbally attacked by all of us "drug dealers", you should post on a board dedicated to CP; not drugs.
In every single thread I discuss about CP I am REPLYING to other people who are foaming at the mouth about how bad they want to kill all pedophiles, how CP viewing is child rape, blah blah blah. I do not go to random threads and talk about how I think CP should be legal to view, but several people on this forum , like in this thread, go to random threads and derail them into rants against CP, rants against lowering the age of consent etc. The single thread I actually started about CP was a thread I made to point people to when they start foaming at the mouth in unrelated threads, so that we can keep other threads on topic with out you crusaders becoming hysterical on other threads. Sorry that I do not join the crowd in screaming for death and censorship, but I am not the one who is derailing this threads it is the people freaking out and becoming hysterical.
You made no logical, valid points. All you have done thus far is get defensive about your views, opening rebuttals with cap-locked laughter, and poor
Sorry I cannot help but laugh when somebody makes the claim that almost all CP is fucking snuff, because they obviously don't have a god damn single fucking clue about what they are talking about. It is funny to me. If somebody makes a post about how smoking weed will make your dick fall off, and they say it with a straight face, I will give a similar laughing reply.
-
I guess this thread
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=199155.msg1433592;boardseen#new
was not the thread to end all CP threads...
-
Agreed. To say sexual maturity is reached at 14, is to not know anything about child psychology. Let alone from a biological aspect; this is a very vague attempt at an arbitrary generalization of the 'exact age' for girls to be deemed 'sexually mature' ... some girls aren't even fully sexually developed until they're 16/17. And most women aren't fully maternally developed until well into their 20's. Rounded 'child baring hips', larger uterus, etc.
Go read the fucking tanner scale you retard. It has nothing to do with psychology, sexual maturity is a biological state of being. Sexual development stops, on average, when a female is 14.5 years old. God I have researched everything I talk about you are not going to find something that I am wrong on, you on the other hand are just talking out of your ass and acting superior when in reality you are just saying a bunch of bullshit you know nothing about.
Women also hit their sexual peak in their 30s. Men hit theirs between 17-20.
Uhm no, females hit peak fertility around 14.5 years old you dumbshit, they start to become less fertile already in their 20's.
-
Jeesh why take all these security threads off topic. I made a fucking post in off topic for this issue why not keep it there instead of derail every single thread with your rants about how wrong viewing CP is. Nobody gives a fuck what you think, and you guys go to every thread you can to let people in it know that pedophiles must be killed, all sex with anyone under 18 is bad, CP viewing is the same as raping little kids, etc. I made a special thread to run logical circles around you guys in, stop taking all these other ones off topic already.
Rants? You're ranting in several threads about how viewing CP should be made legal. And aside from a few guys who post attention-seeking threads almost obsessively, I have yet to see anyone take your side. Perhaps if you want to discuss your philosophies on CP and don't want to get verbally attacked by all of us "drug dealers", you should post on a board dedicated to CP; not drugs.
In every single thread I discuss about CP I am REPLYING to other people who are foaming at the mouth about how bad they want to kill all pedophiles, how CP viewing is child rape, blah blah blah. I do not go to random threads and talk about how I think CP should be legal to view, but several people on this forum , like in this thread, go to random threads and derail them into rants against CP, rants against lowering the age of consent etc. The single thread I actually started about CP was a thread I made to point people to when they start foaming at the mouth in unrelated threads, so that we can keep other threads on topic with out you crusaders becoming hysterical on other threads. Sorry that I do not join the crowd in screaming for death and censorship, but I am not the one who is derailing this threads it is the people freaking out and becoming hysterical.
You made no logical, valid points. All you have done thus far is get defensive about your views, opening rebuttals with cap-locked laughter, and poor
Sorry I cannot help but laugh when somebody makes the claim that almost all CP is fucking snuff, because they obviously don't have a god damn single fucking clue about what they are talking about. It is funny to me. If somebody makes a post about how smoking weed will make your dick fall off, and they say it with a straight face, I will give a similar laughing reply.
Jack N Hoff made a one sentence comment that was funny. I 'lol'd. Jack of Spades quoted Jack N Hoff saying "those are fighting words" ... Jack N Hoff simply made mention of your other threads and likely would have left it that. In fact, it's a 99.999% probability that if you didn't come here to rebuttal and 'defend' yourself this thread would not have continued to derail. But, I'm getting the impression you seek the attention of a debate.
-
Agreed. To say sexual maturity is reached at 14, is to not know anything about child psychology. Let alone from a biological aspect; this is a very vague attempt at an arbitrary generalization of the 'exact age' for girls to be deemed 'sexually mature' ... some girls aren't even fully sexually developed until they're 16/17. And most women aren't fully maternally developed until well into their 20's. Rounded 'child baring hips', larger uterus, etc.
God I have researched everything I talk about you are not going to find something that I am wrong on
Women also hit their sexual peak in their 30s. Men hit theirs between 17-20.
Uhm no, females hit peak fertility around 14.5 years old you dumbshit, they start to become less fertile already in their 20's.
Sexual peak and fertility are not the same things. Off the bat. So, once again wrong again. No research required.
"As we age, women often experience less desire due to many factors, including illness (their partners' and their own), and issues associated with self-image. However, although many of us are familiar with the notion of sexual prime in relation to the physical--body, genitals, and hormones--it is not the full picture. An emotional prime also exists, related to spirit, maturity, and fluidity with life. Physical and emotional factors are intertwined and interact in unpredictable and exciting ways. Many women experience a sexual renaissance in their later years."
But no, you're right. And all women who actually go through it are incorrect. You are a man, correct? Have to be. You'd know more about this topic, and actually have valid points otherwise. Just stop before you hurt yourself bro.
-
Do you know what the word renaissance means?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/renaissance
A rebirth or revival.
-
Do you know what the word renaissance means?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/renaissance
A rebirth or revival.
In their 'later years' ... not in their 'mid life years'. Read before you rebuttal please.
-
Do you know what the word renaissance means?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/renaissance
A rebirth or revival.
In their 'later years' ... not in their 'mid life years'. Read before you rebuttal please.
I don't even understand the point of what you posted then. The only possible sense I could make from it is that you thought renaissance meant peak, but now that you don't appear to think this, I just wonder why you posted that?
-
"Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol. "
Sick fuck. Paedophile logic on display here. Of course it was consensual, didn't you see the way the 10 year old was flirting with me?
-
"Have you ever read any of my posts where I show that CP is legal to possess in half of the world and how fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well? Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago lol. "
Sick fuck. Paedophile logic on display here. Of course it was consensual, didn't you see the way the 10 year old was flirting with me?
I said nothing but factual statements? One of the things I am noticing is that the biggest idiots and most rabid crusaders here use UK spellings, God your country must be completely over run with rabid retards huh? Maybe it is because you guys seem to have the most outlandish tabloids and they have brainwashed you exceptionally well.
-
Yikes! This thread has turned into a dog's breakfast :P :o
-
I don't even understand the point of what you posted then. The only possible sense I could make from it is that you thought renaissance meant peak, but now that you don't appear to think this, I just wonder why you posted that?
Of course you were looking for a flaw, so you jumped on what you assumed was a vocabulary word you were assuming I could not define. You, however, failed to even rebuttal the point, instead... you're left with a mind full of curiosity, eh?
Here's a reiteration, and the heart of the quote:
"However, although many of us are familiar with the notion of sexual prime in relation to the physical--body, genitals, and hormones--it is not the full picture. An emotional prime also exists, related to spirit, maturity, and fluidity with life."
YOU defined sexual-peak a 'simply biological'. I was showing you that you were, once again, wrong. But it's okay because you saw a word that you thought looked fancy, and that was your entire rebuttal. My understanding of vocab.
Appears that you can't decide whether we're debating CP, or vocabulary. I was still debating CP, but I guess you have to try to find ways to discredit me now?
"Man, I wonder if this guy knows the definition of the word Renaissance, I'm running out of argument" ...
~kmfkewm
-
I don't even understand the point of what you posted then. The only possible sense I could make from it is that you thought renaissance meant peak, but now that you don't appear to think this, I just wonder why you posted that?
Of course you were looking for a flaw, so you jumped on what you assumed was a vocabulary word you were assuming I could not define. You, however, failed to even rebuttal the point, instead... you're left with a mind full of curiosity, eh?
Here's a reiteration, and the heart of the quote:
"However, although many of us are familiar with the notion of sexual prime in relation to the physical--body, genitals, and hormones--it is not the full picture. An emotional prime also exists, related to spirit, maturity, and fluidity with life."
YOU defined sexual-peak a 'simply biological'. I was showing you that you were, once again, wrong. But it's okay because you saw a word that you thought looked fancy, and that was your entire rebuttal. My understanding of vocab.
Appears that you can't decide whether we're debating CP, or vocabulary. I was still debating CP, but I guess you have to try to find ways to discredit me now?
"Man, I wonder if this guy knows the definition of the word Renaissance, I'm running out of argument" ...
~kmfkewm
I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development, is reached on average, at age 14.5 in females. I also said that peak fertility is reached at about the same age, and then starts to decline sometime in the 20s. I said nothing about some emotional-spiritual-fluidity prime, whatever the fuck that means, but apparently it happens late in a females life (at first I figured you meant in 30's, but then you came back and said it is even later) and can cause a REBIRTH of her inherently previously existing peak sexuality.
"Man, I really have nothing to say that makes any sense at all, I wonder if I can quote a completely unrelated article and try to pass it off like it proves I am correct" ...
~praetorian
-
I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development, is reached on average, at age 14.5 in females. I also said that peak fertility is reached at about the same age, and then starts to decline sometime in the 20s.
Wrong again. http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/fertility-101
"Most women hit their fertile peak between the ages of 23 and 31, though the rate at which women conceive begins to dip slightly in their late 20s. Around age 31, fertility starts to drop more quickly — by about 3 percent per year — until you hit 35 or so."
Okay, so you were wrong about fertility. No biggie. Your argument was about SEXUALITY and sexual prime; so I'm glad we're finally back on your chosen topic. We're going to start with those hormones you say are the biological root of sexuality:
"In men, testosterone levels reach their apex around age 18, while women’s estrogen (and fertility) hits a high-water mark during the mid- to late-20s. This hot-and-heavy stage of sexual maturity is known as the genital prime, because it’s when the body responds most quickly to arousal."
But Actually ...
According to Dr. Marc Goldstein of Cornell University, hormones don't decide when you hit your sexual apex. People aren't soda bottles that just reach a point of maximum pressure and then pop. Your "sexual peak" has more to do with your attitude toward sex and level of experience, which is one reason millions of awkward young men spend their entire sexual prime on a computer(this means you KMF).
Oh, and it has nothing to do with psychology? That's profoundly stupid and narrow thinking on your part.
"With pharmaceutical companies in hot pursuit of a pill that could do for women's sexual fulfillment what Viagra has done for men's, experts are busy investigating what's responsible for female passion.
Researchers are finding that the sex experts Masters and Johnson were wrong when they claimed that female and male desire were alike. New studies suggest that women need to be aroused physically or psychologically to get in the mood for sex. Unlike men, who can get aroused by the sight of a buxom babe in a beer commercial, women rely on different--and subtler--cues."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content
Early Sex. Research has long established that teens who watch movies or listen to music that glamorizes drinking, drug use or violence tend to engage in those behaviors themselves. A 2012 study shows that movies influence teens’ sexual attitudes and behaviors as well. The study, published in Psychological Science, found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in movies, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.
In another study, boys who were exposed to sexually explicit media were three times more likely to engage in oral sex and intercourse two years after exposure than non-exposed boys. Young girls exposed to sexual content in the media were twice as likely to engage in oral sex and one and a half times more likely to have intercourse. Research also shows that teens who listened to music with degrading sexual references were more likely to have sex than those who had less exposure.
Why are teens more likely to have sex after being exposed to sexual content in the media? Just as we read specific books and show educational movies to our children in hopes that they learn lessons from the characters, the media provides a type of sex education to young people. Media messages normalize early sexual experimentation and portray sex as casual, unprotected and consequence-free, encouraging sexual activity long before children are emotionally, socially or intellectually ready.
High-Risk Sex. The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions. Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.
Sexual Violence. According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.
Have you not had an epic enough fail on your topic? This will be my last post on the matter.
Good luck explaining away the experts with your vast knowledge of the sexuality of a 14 year old girl. I'm sorry, a 14.5 year old girl. Or boy.
-
Actually, here's my last post... and proof that you're "running circles of logic" around everyone here:
I said that full sexual maturity, a developmental stage in biological development
Oh, it's a developmental state of development?! It all makes sense now...
You genius...
-
Praetorian just handed you your ass on a plate kmf. Why dont you just go back to jacking off on little kids you sick fuck :)
People dont like it for a reason, I wonder if you have kids, If you do would you like some sick fuck taking advantage of them and sexually ABUSING them and then posting it all over the deepweb so paedophiles like yourself can jack off to it? If your answer is still yes, Then you are even sicked than I first thought. Now if your answer if no which i doubt it is, Then you must realize that you cannot treat some children one way and others another. It is wrong for a reason.
-
fuck....... i wonder where this thread coulda went if kmf's name wasnt attached? but yea this one had potential to go somewhere helpful but now..... some of the people who are hating on this dude for what he may or may not be into should read some of his post hes been an asset to SR. i get it he may post some sketch stuff to some of us, but are we judge now? like with cops its not the ones you see that you should be worried about, its the ones hiding in plain sight. in this shitty analogy im tring to get across that im sure there are way more creepy fuckers lurking about that just are not vocal like kmf. i hate defending people cuz it has came back to bite me n the ass, but lets not chase kmf away creepy or not hes helped the community more than most of us.
and just on i wayyyyyyyyyy side note. not cp realaed at all but if mothers fuckers are being judged at the type of porn they look at im sure there would be alot of red faces. anyone seen 2girls1cup?
ok now maybe we can get this fucker steered back where astor started it.
-
Praetorian just handed you your ass on a plate kmf. Why dont you just go back to jacking off on little kids you sick fuck :)
People dont like it for a reason, I wonder if you have kids, If you do would you like some sick fuck taking advantage of them and sexually ABUSING them and then posting it all over the deepweb so paedophiles like yourself can jack off to it? If your answer is still yes, Then you are even sicked than I first thought. Now if your answer if no which i doubt it is, Then you must realize that you cannot treat some children one way and others another. It is wrong for a reason.
Praetorian has a bad habit of quoting random big articles and then acting like he has won the debate,when in reality what he quoted is completely and totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. It is really strange behavior.
Me - "Apples are fuit"
Praetorian - "
I TOTALLY JUST PWNT YOUR ARGUMENT LOOK AT THIS:
Bananas are the fruit of Musa acuminata. Acuminata means long-pointed or tapering, not referring to the fruit, but to the flowers giving birth to the fruit.
Antonius Musa was the personal physician to Roman emperor Octavius Augustus, and it was he who was credited for promoting cultivation of the exotic African fruit from 63 to 14 B.C.
Portugese sailors brought bananas to Europe from West Africa in the early fifteenth century. Its Guinean name banema, which became banana in English, was first found in print in the seventeenth century.
The original banana has been cultivated and used since ancient times, even pre-dating the cultivation of rice. While the banana thrived in Africa, its origins are said to be of East Asia and Oceania.
The banana was carried by sailors to the Canary Islands and the West Indies, finally making it to North America with Spanish missionary Friar Tomas de Berlanga.
Sweet bananas are mutants
These historical bananas were not the sweet yellow banana we know today, but the red and green cooking variety, now usually referred to as plantains to distinguish them from the sweet type.
The yellow sweet banana is a mutant strain of the cooking banana, discovered in 1836 by Jamaican Jean Francois Poujot, who found one of the banana trees on his plantation was bearing yellow fruit rather than green or red. Upon tasting the new discovery, he found it to be sweet in its raw state, without the need for cooking. He quickly began cultivating this sweet variety.
Soon they were being imported from the Caribbean to New Orleans, Boston, and New York, and were considered such an exotic treat, they were eaten on a plate using a knife and fork. Sweet bananas were all the rage at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, selling for a hefty ten cents each.
OH YEAH WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW I EPIC PWNED YOU
"
me - "LOL"
Praetorian - "Wow dude you sure are manic shizoid dysphoric pedophile!"
Praetorian - "Almost ALL apples are poison"
me - "LOL"
Praetorian - " I WINZ TEH INTERNET"
-
is it just me, or is the title of this thread no longer fitting (except in the case of it fitting humorously in my mind)?
-
It is funny because I have been right all along on this issue as well, and hopefully in the future society will be ready to accept that people should be free so long as they do not directly harm others, and hopefully people will grow out of their magical thinking. I deleted the locked CP thread in off topic, I don't think DPR will care about it at all and would let it be unlocked, but it is pointless to argue with people who think with their emotions. It is clearly censorship to tell people what they can or cannot look at , and it is absolutely horrible that people have their lives ruined for looking at pictures, but there are just too many stupid emotional people so we will just need to let time pass and wait for a brighter future (that I will probably never live to see) where people will be judged by the actions they take against others rather than the feelings they have or the pictures they decide to look at.
Time changes more things than you realize when you are stuck inside of your society and culture of an era, just a little over 100 years ago people took 12 year old wives regularly, prior to that black people were traded like livestock and if you asked a person then will this change in 200 years they would laugh and say no black people are animals and not humans and that will never change, and the thought that a black person could be treated as a human is preposterous. Today you say people will never be allowed to look at child porn without being sent to be tortured and raped in prison, and you say they are filthy vile child rapists, but in time people will look back and see your over reaction and your jumping to conclusions and they will be shocked at the barbaric way you treated people for looking at pictures without actually harming anybody. So have fun being smug in the present with the others supporting you, because in the future you will be seen as barbarians.
-
I said nothing but factual statements
Oh you want to play it that way? OK, let's deconstruct.
CP is legal to possess in half of the world
So?
fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well?
So?
Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago
So?
For argument's sake, I'm happy to accept that these are indeed facts. And in your sick world I have no doubt they are irrefutable rebuttals to someone accusing you of being a collector of child porn, as if that's a bad thing or something. That's where the paedophile logic comes in.
-
I said nothing but factual statements
Oh you want to play it that way? OK, let's deconstruct.
I mean, when I say two factual statements and you say I have pedophile logic because of it, the only conclusion I can come to is that you think pedophile logic is solid and based on facts. So I guess that means you are a pedophile ?
I mean, I know what pedophile logic is. I know I don't have pedophile logic.
CP is legal to possess in half of the world
So?
So the original poster I replied to said
Have you never read any of Kmfkewm's posts about CP and "how it will be legal" and "doesn't hurt anybody" and how "a 14 year old should be able to fuck a 40 year old"? :-\
and I pointed out that the "will" in "how it will be legal" is a bit misleading, in that it already is legal in half of the world. Does that explain it well enough for you, or would you like to be foam at the mouth some more?
fucking 14 year olds is legal in several countries as well?
So?
So I was pointing out that in many countries it is already legal for a 14 year old to fuck a 40 year old, I thought it was pretty self explanatory but clearly you are a little on the slow side.
Fucking 14 year olds was legal in Canada until a few years ago
So?
So before the imperialist US pressured Canda to raise their age of consent they already had an age of consent at 14. Many other countries still do. I am just pointing out that, like, it isn't so unthinkable to have an age of consent at 14, considering several countries do, and even a neighboring country of the US had such an age of consent. Have I clarified that well enough for you yet ?
For argument's sake, I'm happy to accept that these are indeed facts. And in your sick world I have no doubt they are irrefutable rebuttals to someone accusing you of being a collector of child porn, as if that's a bad thing or something. That's where the paedophile logic comes in.
What? I don't understand dumbshit logic so I am not sure what you have even just said. Did anybody actually accuse me of being a child porn collector in this thread? I don't think so. I mean, I don't think being a CP collector is really is a bad thing, apparently you agree with me? Where exactly is the pedophile logic? Usually I hear them saying things like "5 year old kids love to be ass fucked by grown men" or "That 3 year old was really flirting with me!". I mean, if you actually had an argument with a real delusional pedophile, you would really think that nothing I have said sounds like anything a delusional pedophile would say. If you note, all of my arguments have been either based on research and statistics, or philosophy of freedom of information, or philosophy of leaving people the fuck alone unless they cause real harm to others, whereas real pedophiles arguments tend to be that having sex with kids is good for them and that 5 year olds love sucking cock.
-
Time changes more things than you realize when you are stuck inside of your society and culture of an era, just a little over 100 years ago people took 12 year old wives regularly, prior to that black people were traded like livestock and if you asked a person then will this change in 200 years they would laugh and say no black people are animals and not humans and that will never change, and the thought that a black person could be treated as a human is preposterous. Today you say people will never be allowed to look at child porn without being sent to be tortured and raped in prison, and you say they are filthy vile child rapists, but in time people will look back and see your over reaction and your jumping to conclusions and they will be shocked at the barbaric way you treated people for looking at pictures without actually harming anybody. So have fun being smug in the present with the others supporting you, because in the future you will be seen as barbarians.
More paedophile logic. Just about every unrepentant paedophile trots out this kind of bullshit. We're just ahead of our time - in the future everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about. Actually, you people who want to stop us raping children are actually depriving children of their human rights!
Now, let's talk seriously.
Do you deny that there's a strong positive correlation between consuming child pornography and sexually abusing children?
Do you deny that the demand for child pornography results in children being sexually abused to satisfy that demand?
Apparently, in some countries it's illegal to possess animation that depicts children being sexually assaulted. I think that's wrong, and I would agree with you in that instance that possessing such material should be perfectly legal, as it harms no one directly or indirectly.
But you aren't talking about animation, are you? You seem to think that because you only jerk off to video of someone raping a child means you've done no harm. Wrong. Once you possess images of children being sexually assaulted, you become an accessory to that crime. Not being directly responsible for harming someone doesn't make you innocent.
Let's say someone breaks into your house and steals your TV. Then they sell that TV to me. I know the TV has been stolen and I buy it anyway. According to your logic, I am totally in the clear and have done nothing wrong. Do you agree that I have done nothing wrong in purchasing your TV, which I knew to be stolen?
-
Did anybody actually accuse me of being a child porn collector in this thread?
Pretty much, yeah. Oh sure you came out with some "those are fighting words" bullshit in response but then went on to defend the morality of possessing child pornography. It's not hard to join the dots.
-
Praetorian just handed you your ass on a plate kmf. Why dont you just go back to jacking off on little kids you sick fuck :)
People dont like it for a reason, I wonder if you have kids, If you do would you like some sick fuck taking advantage of them and sexually ABUSING them and then posting it all over the deepweb so paedophiles like yourself can jack off to it? If your answer is still yes, Then you are even sicked than I first thought. Now if your answer if no which i doubt it is, Then you must realize that you cannot treat some children one way and others another. It is wrong for a reason.
Praetorian has a bad habit of quoting random big articles and then acting like he has won the debate,when in reality what he quoted is completely and totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. It is really strange behavior.
Me - "Apples are fuit"
Praetorian - "
I TOTALLY JUST PWNT YOUR ARGUMENT LOOK AT THIS:
Bananas are the fruit of Musa acuminata. Acuminata means long-pointed or tapering, not referring to the fruit, but to the flowers giving birth to the fruit.
Antonius Musa was the personal physician to Roman emperor Octavius Augustus, and it was he who was credited for promoting cultivation of the exotic African fruit from 63 to 14 B.C.
Portugese sailors brought bananas to Europe from West Africa in the early fifteenth century. Its Guinean name banema, which became banana in English, was first found in print in the seventeenth century.
The original banana has been cultivated and used since ancient times, even pre-dating the cultivation of rice. While the banana thrived in Africa, its origins are said to be of East Asia and Oceania.
The banana was carried by sailors to the Canary Islands and the West Indies, finally making it to North America with Spanish missionary Friar Tomas de Berlanga.
Sweet bananas are mutants
These historical bananas were not the sweet yellow banana we know today, but the red and green cooking variety, now usually referred to as plantains to distinguish them from the sweet type.
The yellow sweet banana is a mutant strain of the cooking banana, discovered in 1836 by Jamaican Jean Francois Poujot, who found one of the banana trees on his plantation was bearing yellow fruit rather than green or red. Upon tasting the new discovery, he found it to be sweet in its raw state, without the need for cooking. He quickly began cultivating this sweet variety.
Soon they were being imported from the Caribbean to New Orleans, Boston, and New York, and were considered such an exotic treat, they were eaten on a plate using a knife and fork. Sweet bananas were all the rage at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, selling for a hefty ten cents each.
OH YEAH WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW I EPIC PWNED YOU
"
me - "LOL"
Praetorian - "Wow dude you sure are manic shizoid dysphoric pedophile!"
Praetorian - "Almost ALL apples are poison"
me - "LOL"
Praetorian - " I WINZ TEH INTERNET"
Actually, it was Bruce Campbell who said you were a schizophrenic, and dysphoric. I also don't remember calling you a pedophile once. I don't recall ever even using the word through your entire fail of a thread that got locked. Of course, you're more than welcome to comb through and provide actual quotes of me saying these things, and not just random teen-mentality level attempts at insulting my intelligence by quoting things no one ever said once.
I will admit calling you manic, which has been reiterated in profoundly stupid outcries such as the very post I am quoting and responding to this very second.
I definitely called you an idiot, because you lack tact and you're not educated enough on the topic you were 'trying' to talk about. Censorship. You were trying to justify some self-proclaimed validity in using Child Pornography as the catalyst for your argument; stating that it should not be illegal to 'simply view' it, because you 'are not causing that person any harm yourself.'
Yes, you cited valid sources; namely Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse#Views_on_the_relation_between_child_pornography_law_and_sexualization_of_children <--in which everything you posted in your other thread and this one could have easily been copied and pasted from.
Regardless; the argument is over. Mods said they let it go for 11 pages waiting for you to get to some kind of point; but that point never came. Using CP in wake of all the drama surrounding it, as an example of censorship is complete bullshit. Any number of things could be used to form a better argument; achieving perhaps the very personal freedoms you're arguing on behalf of. But, you're not thinking about this 4th-dimentially Marty... you're attracting all the wrong attention.
Anyway, hopefully you take my advice and stop wearing your ass as a hat one of these days... I look forward to seeing you stick to what you actually know --Tor. And stop pretending to be the SR spokesperson of personal freedoms, using CHILD PORN as an example. It harms children period.
They make plenty of "barely legal" and animated shit to keep the creepers at bay; and some of those girls look 15-16(and are 18-22). Perfectly fine, legal, consenting adults- and fucking pixels(literally). There's no valid argument 'for' ACTUAL CP.
End of discussion.
-
More paedophile logic. Just about every unrepentant paedophile trots out this kind of bullshit. We're just ahead of our time - in the future everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about. Actually, you people who want to stop us raping children are actually depriving children of their human rights!
But I don't think people should be able to rape children and I think pedophilia is a mental disorder... I just don't think there should be laws against looking at pictures of anything. And I don't think pictures are magic.
Now, let's talk seriously.
Do you deny that there's a strong positive correlation between consuming child pornography and sexually abusing children?
I am aware that there is a large body of evidence showing that availability of child pornography negatively correlates with the rates of child abuse, many researchers say there is no enough evidence one way or another, and some government groups that are funded via arresting people for viewing CP say that there is a huge correlation (but they have been debunked). It continues to emerge in research that the groups that abuse children are very distinct from the groups that view child pornography, they have minimal overlap. This will become more and more common knowledge as time passes. Regardless of this, there is a strong correlation between being a rapist and being a male, this doesn't mean we should arrest all males because they might rape somebody at some point.
Do you deny that the demand for child pornography results in children being sexually abused to satisfy that demand?
I don't deny that this has happened in the past, I do say that in modern times it happens next to not at all. There is essentially no remaining financial market for child pornography, and nobody is going to run out and molest children just because people want to see pictures of it. Furthermore, there are technical solutions that would allow people to view child pornography without any demand being identifiable, and yet when I bring these solutions up none of the crusaders think they change anything, which shows pretty plainly that the crusaders are actually not arguing that child porn viewing should be illegal because of demand, even though they ostensibly are. I already have given citations to Ph.D researchers who claim that there has been no empirical evidence inherently linking child pornography consumption to the production of child pornography. Furthermore, if there is demand for photographs of you cutting your dick off and jamming it up your asshole, are you going to fill the demand? I guess demand is not inherently linked to supply after all. Furthermore, I have no demand for pictures of you taking a shit, are you going to stop taking shits now?
But you aren't talking about animation, are you? You seem to think that because you only jerk off to video of someone raping a child means you've done no harm. Wrong. Once you possess images of children being sexually assaulted, you become an accessory to that crime. Not being directly responsible for harming someone doesn't make you innocent.
And this is bullshit. What is the difference between pictures of a child being raped and pictures of the holocaust? There is no difference. You are attributing magical properties to pictures of child molestation. It is insane to think that someone is an accessory to a crime simply because they looked at pictures of the crime, end of story.
Let's say someone breaks into your house and steals your TV. Then they sell that TV to me. I know the TV has been stolen and I buy it anyway. According to your logic, I am totally in the clear and have done nothing wrong. Do you agree that I have done nothing wrong in purchasing your TV, which I knew to be stolen?
You funded theft. Someone who views a picture of child molestation has not caused child molestation. I already said it should be illegal to pay for pictures of child pornography.
Let's say you want a certain job, and you compete with someone else for it. Someone who you do not know brutally murders the person who was your competition, and now you got the job. Are you an accessory to murder because you benefited from the murder?
-
Actually, it was Bruce Campbell who said you were a schizophrenic, and dysphoric. I also don't remember calling you a pedophile once. I don't recall ever even using the word through your entire fail of a thread that got locked. Of course, you're more than welcome to comb through and provide actual quotes of me saying these things, and not just random teen-mentality level attempts at insulting my intelligence by quoting things no one ever said once.
I made that thread so other threads would stop going off topic when everybody felt the need to express their disgust at people who look at CP and I felt the need to tell them that they are bigots and fucking retards. The thread got locked but I am sure DPR would have said it is fine to unlock it considering he posted in other CP debate threads in the past. Regardless I deleted the thread after concluding you are incapable of rational discourse as your brain is an emotional rather than thinking one.
I definitely called you an idiot, because you lack tact and you're not educated enough on the topic you were 'trying' to talk about. Censorship. You were trying to justify some self-proclaimed validity in using Child Pornography as the catalyst for your argument; stating that it should not be illegal to 'simply view' it, because you 'are not causing that person any harm yourself.'
I know a lot about this, you just refuse to accept that I am correct and refuse to acknowledge the citations I have given. When pressed on it, you quote various unrelated things and act as if they give any credibility to your argument or are even anything against mine. This manifested itself when you posted some general anti adult pornography bullshit and also when you posted something about females having a sexual rebirth in their late age, and also in all kinds of other examples. Almost none of your quotes made any sense to be added, and I think you just had to post a lot of text to make it look like you had done some research and had some facts yourself. Anybody who read anything that you wrote in the other thread would see that you were just posting blocks of random hardly related at all bullshit and then acting as if it proved you were the victor.
Yes, you cited valid sources; namely Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse#Views_on_the_relation_between_child_pornography_law_and_sexualization_of_children <--in which everything you posted in your other thread and this one could have easily been copied and pasted from.
Nothing I posted came from wikipedia, all of it came from memory and hunting down old things I have read in the past when actually researching shit.
Regardless; the argument is over. Mods said they let it go for 11 pages waiting for you to get to some kind of point; but that point never came.
That is not what the single mod who locked the thread said, he said he had to ask DPR if we are allowed to have threads debating CP, which I am pretty positive we are as DPR has posted in them in the past, but regardless I deleted the locked thread because I am done arguing with someone who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the fucking ground. I should have seen that you are nothing more than a troll from the moment you claimed that almost all child pornography is snuff.
Using CP in wake of all the drama surrounding it, as an example of censorship is complete bullshit. Any number of things could be used to form a better argument; achieving perhaps the very personal freedoms you're arguing on behalf of. But, you're not thinking about this 4th-dimentially Marty... you're attracting all the wrong attention.
CP being illegal is an excellent example of censorship.
Anyway, hopefully you take my advice and stop wearing your ass as a hat one of these days... I look forward to seeing you stick to what you actually know --Tor. And stop pretending to be the SR spokesperson of personal freedoms, using CHILD PORN as an example. It harms children period.
Viewing child porn does not harm children, period, end of story, game over. I know facts about CP and ages of development, I have read probably a hundred different documents and other things related to this, which is why I was able to flood you with citations and cause you to start posting random shit to make it look like you had done the same.
They make plenty of "barely legal" and animated shit to keep the creepers at bay; and some of those girls look 15-16(and are 18-22). Perfectly fine, legal, consenting adults- and fucking pixels(literally). There's no valid argument 'for' ACTUAL CP.
End of discussion.
No such thing as a fucking non consenting pixel people don't live in photographs Harry Potter was a god damn work of fiction, you fucking retard, end of story end of discussion game over you lose go fuck yourself.
-
No such thing as a fucking non consenting pixel people don't live in photographs Harry Potter was a god damn work of fiction, you fucking retard, end of story end of discussion game over you lose go fuck yourself.
The entire Silk Road just LOL'd
-
kmfkewm if you're so convinced of the morality of fapping to kiddie porn why do you hide behind 10 layers of anonymity? Why don't you have the courage of your convictions? Maybe you should be a man and stand up for what you believe in. I think a little civil disobedience is needed. You can be the Rosa Parks of kiddie porn! Go to your state capital and hand out kiddie porn pamphlets to all the passers-by. Take a stand! Just think of how history will remember you :)
(anyway that's a joke, it doesn't need a 2000 word response about why you're utterly convinced the joke isn't logically)
In reality I just think you're a lonely autistic man trying hardest to convince /himself/ that his sexual proclivities -- so universally abhorrent to people with normally functioning brains -- aren't really /that/ bad...
I do agree with you on one thing though. It is tedious to see every one of your threads degenerate into this.
-
I would have fucked a 40 year old when I was 14. I still feel the same way. I don't see what's wrong with it.
This thread oozes of psyops trying to discredit kmfkewm.
-
No such thing as a fucking non consenting pixel people don't live in photographs Harry Potter was a god damn work of fiction, you fucking retard, end of story end of discussion game over you lose go fuck yourself.
The entire Silk Road just LOL'd
i sure did.
-
I was really hoping this would be a thread about the importance of VM isolation...
kmf, I've told you before you need to learn how to pick your battles. A lot of people could improve their security from VM isolation, but it's easy for them to hand wave away this advice when you obsessively argue about CP everywhere.
Luckily, I have the power this time.
GET THIS SHIT OUT OF SECURITY.
Edit: And fuck you Jack for starting this here.