Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:8/20/2010
Last Login:12/07/2016
Comment Ranking:#7511
Highest Content Rank:#4910
Highest Comment Rank:#1362
Content Thumbs: 630 total,  876 ,  246
Comment Thumbs: 12821 total,  15812 ,  2991
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 59 Content: Sammich eater → Level 60 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 57.8% (289/500)
Level 311 Comments: Wizard → Level 312 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:65597
Times Content Favorited:36 times
Total Comments Made:4192
FJ Points:12405

latest user's comments

#99 - See it's idiots like you that give the whole anit-feminism mov…  [+] (14 replies) 03/18/2016 on femenist "art" 0
User avatar
#102 - elenalkarnur (03/18/2016) [-]
>women were essentially owned by their husbands
That's strange, because I feel it was the other way 'round. Women owning their husbands as beasts of burden.
Under coverture, the man was responsible for all her crimes and her debts while she was responsible for none of his and even none of hers. She literally could kill a man and not spend a single day in jail and her husband would be jailed instead. Same with debts. She could rack up astronomical amounts of debt and her husband would be held liable. It was then as it is now: women get all the rights and benefits, while men get all the responsibilities and costs.

>Until 1975 women were allowed to be raped by their husbands
Martial rape is a joke. Both parties consent to sex when they sign the marriage contract. You still can't take sex using physical force, but you should be able to divorce on the grounds of the other party breaking that term of the contract by withholding sex.
When society makes marriage the only legal and/or legitimate venue for getting sex, then abolishes that as a legal right, then marriage in that society, along with the society itself is fucked.

>Throughout the middle ages women were sold to men by their families in exchange for political influence.
And so were the sons of nobility. It's called a political marriage. My son + your daughter for an alliance between our families. If I have lower aristocratic rank than you, then I might consider "sweetening the deal" with a material dowry or gift, even though I'm the one with the male offspring.

>What happens when the women haven't got armies defending them?
That literally never happened. The only times it happens is when the men died first. And even if it did, how is it men oppressing women?

>Women after sieges are won by the attackers were raped murdered and enslaved.
Yeah, precisely. Men were the first to be sent to death, women last. Men were sent in the greatest danger, women were kept in the safest place possible. And were male civilians not murdered and enslaved when a siege was lost? And rape of males in wars is one of the most taboo and neglected subjects in the history of mankind. Also, women were more likely kept alive and NOT murdered as they could serve to increase the numbers of the invaders. A womb, after all, is a womb.

>You're an idiot if you think that because women didn't have to fight wars they weren't oppressed
They weren't oppressed BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN. How thick, exactly, is your skull? In none of the examples you cited were they "oppressed" by their own men more than their male peers. In another example, it was foreigners "oppressing" them because they are foreigners to them, not because they're women.
And can you cite the reason why all men were given the vote in the US? It was in exchange for all men signing up for the draft around WWI. While men were busy paying the price of their vote, women were safe back home and they would later get their vote WITHOUT signing up for the draft. Women still to this very day have not paid for their right to vote by signing up for the draft. And they never will, because they can't. They're shit soldiers and they're still the limiting factor in human reproduction. Even if they were legally signed up for the draft, when shit hits the fan, and a massive war comes, they'll be exempted one way or another.

So next time you want to call someone an idiot, look in the mirror first.
#106 - Jowi (03/18/2016) [-]
Oh you're a troll, I get it now
User avatar
#108 - elenalkarnur (03/18/2016) [-]
>My positions was fucking annihilated
>Lol, the other guy is a troll
I can't say that I haven't seen this pitiful retreat tactic used before by liberals as they bow out of the fight after getting their ass handed to them. So, 0/10 on originality.

And if you sincerely believe I'm a troll, then it is symptomatic of the lbieral mind's solipsism who does not believe opinions different from his truly exist and others genuinely hold them. No, they must be trolls.

Good day to you, sir. And spread some pain relief lotion over your ass. yes, that last comment was genuine trolling.
#109 - Jowi (03/18/2016) [-]
Half of what you said is just impassioned bullcrap. The bits you got factually right were distorted by your own bias.

It's not that you "fucking annihilated" my argument. I'm just not gonna respond to someone who's views are strong enough that they're can't even separate their perceptions from actual human events which have been recorded and studied for centuries. And, perhaps I misunderstood your rambling, but you actually state that in marriage you shouldn't be able to with-hold sex for any reason. So you're condoning marital rape?

I don't know what experiences you've had in life but perhaps it's not me that looks in the mirror but you to perceive why you have this chip on your shoulder about the opposite sex
User avatar
#110 - elenalkarnur (03/18/2016) [-]
Ok, let me break it down for you.
A medieval setting. There's a battle outside the city walls. The men are there fighting the men from another society/country. That foreign country's women are hundreds of miles away, safe within their cities' walls.

Let's say the battle is won. 99.9% of those who died were men defending the city and the women inside it. Let's say the battle is lost. After the foreign army of men is done killing the military men outside the city, they then breach the walls and slaughter the women. They do not do this to the women because they're women, they do it because they're their national/feudal enemies. They're foreigners to them, they do nor owe them any duty, these women are not their compatriots. Those foreigners' women? They're miles away safe in their cities guarded by men.

Now please explain to me how the deal that society gave the men defending the city, in either case of victory or defeat, is a better deal than the one that society gave women? The women are kept to the safest degree of that society's ability, while the men are the first to be thrown at a mortal danger.

>Marital rape
When you sign a marriage contract, and in a society whose laws haven't been disfigured by feminism, you should be consenting to having sex with your spouse, frequently enough, over the course of your married life. This does NOT mean you can physically, forcibly have sex with your spouse when they don't want to in that specific instance, but this does mean that your wife cannot legally condemn you to a sexless life and a sexless marriage and not be at fault and you not being able to terminate the marriage on those grounds. Incidentally, it was feminists who passed no-fault divorce laws.

>I don't know what experiences you've had
Once I was more bluepilled than you, more bluepilled than you can possibly imagine. Then as time went on, I started having experiences with the opposite sex. Now I've had more experience with the opposite sex than I can possibly tell you in days. If I am this cynical and unforgiving and merciless when it comes to my criticism of the opposite sex, gender issues, and gender relations; and letting women easily off the hook, it is because of my experiences with women. No, they were not all bad. I've seen the shit they pull and the shit they get away with.

I don't believe anyone but the stupidest person can keep believing the light shines out women's ass past their first or second relationship. For smart people, that belief does not make it past high school.
#112 - Jowi (03/18/2016) [-]
See you're espousing two completely different rhetorics.
First you say that in the Middle Ages it wasn't men vs women and that it was really a class struggle so the issue of gender shouldn't come into the argument but then you act as if in modern days things have suddenly changed and the only issue is the gender divide and that women "get away" with more shit.
The modern world has multiple problems in which people group together over similar traits they share so they are a stronger unit. Eventually in a lot of those circumstances those groups become overwhelmed by their power and use it to exploit and the rather loud splinter of militant feminism is just one of those groups but by no means that women have the upper hand in our society. Both men and women are screwed by different cultural, legal or moral aspects of the world around us.

This is before even looking at the fact you're looking at a single aspect of life in a period of history that had hugely differing experiences for those living through it.
I concede that yes, on the days when women were sitting behind a city walls being nobly defended, perhaps the had a slight advantage.
But if you look at the reasons why the women were held back entirely from the military hence being unable to even choose to fight for their safety in the first place then you have to admit that the world was controlled by men who deemed women to be too weak to fight at all and were in need of protection. This, I'm sure, is something that we can agree is not true of all women.
I'm not arguing that all the women would have gladly picked up sword and shield and "manned" the walls but let's be honest a lot of the men on the walls probably wouldn't be there if their liege didn't require them to.

If you continue on your focus on the Middle Ages then look no further than inheritance law. If you were a women you would have to have no brothers to inherit anything at all. If you owned a title as a women if you married a man then your powers would be shared, not so with men.
When women were married they were literally passed from their family into their husbands' and were then the property of that families when there and once they had children and if their husbands died they could be remarried by their new family for said families gain. And contrary to what you say the word dowry refers directly to the transfer of wealth from the brides family to the grooms and were fairly common in marriages where the bride was expected to be housed within the groom's family's household.

Your point about the class struggle is something I'd agree with though, feudalism of course being Latin for fuck the poor, but your argument relies on the idea that the two can be mutually exclusive. Yes the ruling classes used the idea of God's Will to suppress the masses for centuries and of course that was wrong but it doesn't mean that within that time women weren't a secondary class within the subcultures of noble, landed and serf.

If you move on from the middle ages you can look at the fact that women weren't given the vote at the same time as men, even when "universal" voting was introduced (perhaps it wasn't called that in your country but in mine that was the contemporary term for when the vote was extended to those who didn't own land)
You talk about the law around debts being shared, women not being responsible for their actions etcetera but that's a falsehood. The wording of the law you refer to is

"by marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage"

(I'm gonna have to sadly split this comment in two hopefully in correct reading order
#111 - Jowi (03/18/2016) [-]
and existed in English law (and inherited by Colonial Law and then the USA) and meant that women were not considered people until the 20th Century. It was repealed in Britain by statute but had to go to the Supreme Court in the USA before women were considered as citizens of the United States and even then refused to give them the right to vote. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett )

What about the Malleus Maleficarum which, although spoke about men as well, stated that women were more susceptible to the devil due to the weaknesses of their gender. The doctrine was used to gain a Papal support for the inquisition for witchcraft in which over three quarters of those condemned were women. It even claimed that these witches sought to steal men's penises.

You claim marital rape is a joke but you're looking at it from a modern perspective. Until very recently a man was legally allowed to have sex with his wife without her conscent. In Britain it took a man breaking into the house of his sister-in-law and raping his wife despite her filing for divorce (R v Miller (1954) I made a mistake it was 1954, my law degree was a while ago) for the law to be changed so that married women had the right to full sexual liberty. I don't know where you live but I would assume it was a fairly recent change to the law there too.

Of course you'll know about the oppression women face in the Middle East and Africa, being unable to drive, unable to travel without escort, unable to show their faces, sold as child brides, face practices like FGM. You surely can't deny that women across the world today are still oppressed. Not in the West but in most other places

You say that there are never women left undefended by armies but you are wrong. Your thought applies to pitched battle warfare but for the last two centuries until recently we've fought frontline/atrition warfare and part of that is the advancing and retreating of lines. Some times where you live is left on the wrong side of the line.
Comfort Women are a famous example of women that were caught on the wrong side of the war and were used as prostitutes. Of course men captured were used as a labour force and the two are both awful but one is an understandable act of war (in as much that infrastructure takes a large hit and whilst your trained labour force is fighting, captured men make a good workforce) the other was unnecessary unless you can argue that mean need to fuck crying women so they can fight. Rape as a weapon of war has no advantage other than to spread fear and as a way of ensuring that the next generation is a half-breed.
Before you repeat your argument that this wasn't done specifically because they were women consider the fact that women can be used as a labour force as well despite not being as strong as men typically.

There are plenty more examples but I am running out of text box

At the end of the day your feelings on this subject are reactionary. Perhaps I take a step too far in assuming that a lot of it is frustration at what the majority of headlines about modern feminism is twinned with the rise in status of everyone's identity as a special snowflake.
I feel the same as you. It's awful that women can say all sorts of shit about how bad it is to be a women but if a man pipes up and says "actually it's not so great as a guy either" everyone will turn around and shout about how men can never let women's problems be spoken about without complaining about theirs or screaming about privilege or whatever.
You can hate all of them of course, but you cannot refute that throughout history women have felt a wide range of oppressions on top of those laid upon males of the same socio-economic level as them and this trend continues in a wide array of places today.

But here we reach the problem. After writing all of the words we have, I will not understand your position and you will not take in mine. We are at an impasse.
I just hope that you read some of what I wrote
User avatar
#118 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]
I doubt you will read all my comments. But if you want I can address your remaining points.

>Female genital mutilation
Almost all of those places also practice male genital mutilation. MGM is far more widely practiced than FGM is, or ever was. The very fact that you ignore, or trivialize, the existence of the practice of male genital mutilation both in those places and in the West shows how distorted your perception of the world is. Feminists and women have successfully deconstructed the culture and rebuilt it from scratch to serve them. A deconstructed man's every thought serves female supremacy.

inb4 medical reasons. No it has no mdical benefits. It was started because of religious reasons and its modern practice in the US and the West is because of puritan demonization of masturbation and male sexuality. It was explicitly originally intended to decrease sexual pleasure for men.
User avatar
#115 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]

>women were not considered people until the 20th Century.
"The bits you got factually right were distorted by your own bias."
From your link:
"The court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States did not explicitly give citizens an affirmative right to vote and that, throughout the history of the nation from the adoption of the Constitution, a wide variety of persons—including women—were recognized as citizens but denied the right to vote."
Again, the right to vote was first given universally to men because they were signed up for the draft, not for free. Women later got it for free.
If you ignore the fact that the vote has a price, then women in the US were "oppressed" in that regard for the duration between when all men got the vote and all women got the vote, which is -45 years. Yes, that's a negative number. Women got the vote in 1920, men universally got it in the US in 1965
But let's suppose it only matters when all white men got the vote universally because, let's say, you think non-white men are not human beings and don't count as men. Then women were oppressed for the difference between the dates of white men getting the universal vote, and women getting the universal vote, NOT the entirety of history.
If you do recognize that voting has a price, then women have had a privilege that men do not have for 96 years now and counting (2016 minus 1920). Meaning, it's men that are oppressed for 96 years now.

>Malleus Maleficarum
Women ARE more susceptible to "the devil". I'll have to explain what the devil concept actually means in this-worldly terms. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe God or the Devil exist. But I do believe that when priests talk about them, what they are actually referring to (even though they don't know it) are completely physical (as opposed to metaphysical) concepts. You'll have to bear with me on this while I explain what the Devil Concept is.
The image of the devil is actually derived from the Ancients' image of the serpent. The serpent does not have legs and as such is seen as more primitive and base. The serpent in the ancient world was symbolic of the unleashed human animal instinct, especially the human sexual instinct. Apep, the Ancient Egyptian serpent god, for example, could never be killed, only restrained. Just like instincts are never defeated, or removed, only controlled or restrained. Why? Because they are in your very body, your very brain. They are a constant biological force, only restrained by socialization.
So now let's look at the garden of Eden story. This story is not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions and was plagiarized from previous polytheistic religions in the region, where it was widespread among them.
You know the story, once upon a time everything was peachy, then a talking snake comes up to the woman, and tricks her into eating the fruit of forbidden knowledge and then humanity falls from a state of bliss and paradise to a shit ton of human suffering. In some versions of the story, the snake comes to the man first who tells it to fuck off.
Now that is very interesting.
That story is a metaphor for the downfall of society. Not of literal, metaphysical paradise, but of actual, implementable, practical societies that can become so prosperous and stable that they might as well be heaven on earth. This society is traditionalist society. The state of human suffering that Adam and Eve fall to is a society that is fallen, decadent or liberal. How they fall from the first state of prosperity to the second state of suffering and destitution is by humans giving in to their instincts and unleashing them. And this always happens to a prosperous society when the WOMEN unleash their instincts FIRST and then men follow and then the society becomes decadent and the country declines in wealth, culture and influence.

User avatar
#116 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]

I extremely highly recommend you read this article:
Women have an excess reproductive capacity. Men have an excess labor capacity.
Traditionalist society creates prosperity. Liberal, especially sexualliy liberal society, creates destitution.
How does traditionalist society create prosperity? In traditionalist society the near totality of beta males are assured high degrees of paternity certainty and sexual security through traditionalist institutions such as monogamy and marriage. They are enfranchised and thus their excessive labor capacity is unlocked and all of society benefit from it, creating massive amounts of prosperity.
Contrast this with a polygamous society where the vast majority of men are disenfranchised and laze about, not being economically productive and even being delinquant or criminal. In liberal / decadent societies, men are likewise not offered or guaranteed high degrees of paternity certainty, sexual security (i.e. having a regular woman to have sex with), and as such decadent societies gradually lose the prosperity that a society created back when it was traditionalist and ascendant. Societies are always traditionalist when they are rising. They then create prosperity. They then slowly forget what created that prosperity and become more liberal and decadent and then start losing that prosperity until they are destitute again. The destitution and hardship again pushes people towards traditionalism, which creates prosperity and it goes on and on. This cycle has been going on for all of history.
History repeats itself. Good times breed weak people. Weak people create tough times. Tough times breed strong people. Strong people create good times.
In ancient times, it was the gradual, very slow, weakening of pater familias in Rome.
In modern times, it is the modern feminist movement destroying marriage and divorce laws and virtually every other law besides, e.g. affirmative action for women.

The Greatest Generation (strong people), who grew up in the Great Depression and WW2 (tough times), created the post-war prosperity (good times). The children of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers (weak people; and Liberal pieces of shit) grew up in the prosperity their parents created without understanding what it took to create it and what it takes to sustain it. So Baby Boomers and Liberals which belong to their generation set about dismantling what their parents had built beginning in the mid-60's. The result of their efforts lead to the increasingly (and already tough enough) tough times we now are in. To cite one example, the mass entry of women into the workforce correlates with the beginning of the trend of the Middle Class wages' multi-decade plummet and the beginning of the trend of the growth of income inequality in America. To cite another example, the date women got the vote correlates with the start of the trend of the monumental growth of the welfare state.

And it's almost always women that are easier to coax en masse into unleashing their instincts. They're the ones to bring about, or at least begin, a nation's downfall.
Women are more susceptible to their instincts. Their hypergamous, sexual instincts.

It is no coincidence that in this latest cycle, it was feminism that began this current multi-decade trend in decadence and degeneracy. First feminism came, then homosexuality, now transsexuality, pedophilia and polygamy. All of these have direct results on society's sexual morality, on the economy, on family breakdown rates, on class-based income inequality, on upwards social mobility, on rates of criminality and psychogical illnesses, etc.

The only reason we ever rose above savagery was because we restrained our instincts.

User avatar
#117 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]

>Marital rape
That case (R v Miller (1954) should have only abolished the right to physically force your spouse to have sex with you, assuming it was legal before. It should NOT have removed all legal entitlement to sex with your spouse. That's just stupid. As I said before, the removal of the legal entitlement to sex with your spouse, IOW the feminist false narrative of marital rape, is a joke. So tell me, do you see nothing wrong in getting married, your wife, for whatever reason, choosing not to have sex with you and you, based on marital rap laws and/or no-fault divorce laws, can't divorce her or she'll take all your life savings plus most of your future income? If you are, as you claim, a lawyer, then surely you recognize the need for having legal protections to one's rights, incl. one's rights in marriage.

Sorry I won't be addressing the rest of your comments, this comment/s is already way way waaayyy too long.
I hope I have left you wiser and more and better informed than I found you.
User avatar
#114 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]

>who deemed women to be too weak... not true of all women.
It's true of 99% of women. Laws are made for the norm and the rule, not the exception to the rule. Even the ultra politically correct modern militaries of the US and Israel have repeatedly tried to integrate women in combat roles and failed miserably over and over again. Women are shit soldiers, they have shit physical strength, shit endurance, shit unit cohesion even among all-female units, they utterly destroy unit cohesion (and therefore morale) in mixed-sex units (the mentality goes from all of us against the enemy, into a white knight fest and rampant jealousy). Over 40% of them as discovered by the US Marines IIRC can't throw a grenade far enough not to kill themselves or their own squad, meaining that if you have women in your unit, you may survive the first time she throws a grenade, but not the second time. Their presence simply does not strike fear in the minds of the enemy. And fear and psychology are extremely important in war.
And if you have in mind someone like Rhonda Rousey, an extreme exception not worth breaking the rule over (see above, effect of mixed-sex cohesion), note that she is till fighting sex-segregated sport with rules. In war, she will not only come up against men, but also against men far above her weight class. And strong men in her weight class will kill her, let alone men far above her weight class.
Signing up women to join the army is literally THE dumbest way imaginable of using women to increase the numbers of your soldiers. Women have wombs, let them stay back home and make babies that will grow in a generation into soldiers. THAT is how you use women to increase the numbers of your army. The ONLY time women should ever have to fight is when all the men are dead and the war might as well be lost and the women are going to get killed anyway, i.e. as a last resort.

>probably wouldn't be there if their liege didn't require them to.
That does not make it any less obscenely unfair to them.

>medieval inheritance law
Again, authority with responsibility. Work back then was dangerous. Men were the workers, they make the money, they get the authority over. They get the responsibility over spending on their families, incl. female members. Therefore they get the corresponding authority.
In modern days, we have clear evidence that women are shit at making and/or managing money. Single mother households are HUGELY economically underperforming compared to married households. That's despite over 95% of alimony and child support being from ex-husbands to ex-wives and not the other way around. This huge disparity does not exist between single father households and married households. Single fathers, though they are one parent and not two, are on average almost as good as married households. Men, for whatever reason, are better with money than women.
If you want to piss all the material wealth you have built up during your life, then prioritize the inheritance of your daughters over your sons, on average.
You'd also be pissing away your genetic legacy as well, since severely economically restraining your sons would reduce their chances of finding a woman and having children with her as women still are hypergamous because they are so on a biological level and this does not change.

>were then the property of that families
"The bits you got factually right were distorted by your own bias." Property, you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Just because someone has authority over you does not mean you're their property. If so, then men were their wives' property under coverture.

User avatar
#113 - elenalkarnur (03/19/2016) [-]

Holy fuck, how fucking simple can a point be and you'd still miss it. Both back then and right now it's both Top 0.1% vs Bottom 99.9% AND women vs men.
Then, as now, the class struggle is real. The Top 0.1% (Wall Street buying Main Street, George Soros types, etc.) oppress the bottom 99.9%. The disparity in wealth is actually far greater today (at least in the US) than it ever was in history (yes, incl. in ancient Rome). The difference is nowadays they oppress the bottom 99.9%, among other methods, by dividing the 99.9% by sex and race and other manufactured identity lines (e.g. "sexuality") by funding feminism and anti-racism and pushing their false narratives.
Back then, just as now, women had a better deal overall. And the rulers among the top 0.1% being mostly male does jack shit to the plight of bottom 99.9% of men. And in the areas where men seemed to have a better deal than women, it was rarely, if ever, without the corresponding responsibilities or not based on men's greater abilities; and in any case, a better deal in those areas pales in comparison to the absolutely raw deal men get in matters of life and death.

>a single aspect of life
>had a slight advantage
Nothing is more important than life and death. And they had the best possible deal in that. Stop trivializing this perpetual, ageless, historic sacrifice by millions if not billions of men throughout history, you horrible, horribly unfair, ingrate.

>in a period of history
No, it's throughout the entirety of history up to this very day. It even predates the emergence of our species as evidenced by primate behavior. Males are protective of females.

>so they are a stronger unit
Disagree. They are divided by the elites along those lines to keep them weak and not realizing that the real war is ultra-wealthy elite vs middle and working class, not white vs black, or women vs men. They are kept divided by the mainstream media who is owned by the elites. The elites reinforce the masses' identification with those traits because those traits are not universal among the non-elite classes; If they didn't the masses would identify primarily with their class, instead of their sex or color, and overthrow the elite class that's REALLY oppressing them. Who creates a national media circus everytime a black thug is shot by a white cop and ignores all circumstances of the case (e.g. it was an armed robbery, the thug was armed, the thug was charging the officer, he was reaching for the officer's gun, etc.)? Who NEVER creates a national media circus when the perpetrator is black and the victim is white? Who keeps running abuse hysteria and rape hysteria stories over and over again, year after year after year to demonize marriage and men? It's the mainstream media entirely owned by the elites.

>that the world was controlled by men
If the world WAS controlled by men and they WERE in fact Patriarchal and out to oppress women and give men a better deal, and if women weren't totally shit soldiers, then this theoretical Patriarchy would prohibit men from fighting and force women to fight. What we have is almost completely opposite to this. In past times, men were forced to fight and women prohibited. Even today, men have the duty to fight (i.e. the draft), while women don't have this duty. Women have the right to fight if they want.

#107 - Jowi (03/18/2016) [-]
Also dowries are paid by the brides family like 90% of the time
#59 - Anybody? 03/18/2016 on did you cum ? +3
#80 - Why aren't you orange any more?  [+] (2 replies) 03/14/2016 on Canada explains 4chan 0
User avatar
#88 - phanact (03/14/2016) [-]
Times have changed my man
#86 - venomthc (03/14/2016) [-]
Its a cumspiracy
#44 - Possibly as one of those short bits during the ending credits?  [+] (1 reply) 03/14/2016 on Comp of imgur's front page +1
#45 - johnthewickman (03/14/2016) [-]
Maybe. I do know for a fact that the dude finds the suit in the trash, and then starts ranting about how he finally got spiderman to quit despite him having nothing to do with it. I could have sworn the bit of him wearing the suit comes shortly after, and later spiderman/peter parker steals it because he realized spiderman is way better then peter parker.
#276 - I don't think he ever once defended child molesters. He just s…  [+] (2 replies) 03/08/2016 on So this is a thing... 0
#310 - somethinginabox (03/08/2016) [-]
Yeah except the person hes defending did molest a child.
User avatar
#357 - ilovehitler (03/08/2016) [-]
The defense of Muhammad was due to a misread on my part- I failed to notice that Muhammad actually did molest Aisha. It was late when I was reading that, so I made a mistake in my comprehension.
I still stand by what I said with pedophilia not necessarily making a person a bad person.