Sign into an existing account

I'm not aware of such an instance, if you're going to move the goal post, you'll have to define it a lot better than that.

...and unfortunately your retarded ad hominem is pretty meaningless. You get a gold star for effort though.

Re the account: Yeah, it appears to be the same person, you're right. See edit above about badge.

Re child nudity: Because children's breasts aren't inherently sexual, and acting like they are is just as weird as getting off on it. Before puberty, a girl's breasts are no different from a boy's. I can't believe this has to be explained.

His reputation is irrelevant because it does not change the content of the image. I can't believe that has to be explained, either.

Podesta's images, of children lined up in the pool and the like, were clearly sexual. You seem to have a hard time separating the person from the content, applying properties of one to the other. I don't really understand why you're doing that.

Podesta being a politician doesn't make every picture he ever owned political, or prevent them from being pornographic. Likewise, blumen4alles being a degenerate doesn't make every picture he ever posts sexual, or prevent it from being political. The man and the message are two separate things.

Yeah, looks like b4a is the same person. I never picked up on that before. Maybe just because I had all SBBH subs blocked back then.

deleted

As mentioned, I remember you from Voat and I remember you being a better person than this. Maybe our interactions were just too short to form a full picture.

Porn is not speech. A flapping vagina doesn't have anything to say.

Free speech is about sharing information, exchanging ideas, discussing opinions, questioning conclusions. Porn is to that as vomit is to opera, or diarrhea is to baking. Ask yourself where you even got the idea to invoke "free speech" in defense of sexually debasing your own people (if you are one of us), and who would benefit from such a thing. Because you did not come up with that yourself, whether you realize it or not.

Many of those drawings are based on real events. And many real events are inspired by those drawings.

That does not mean those drawings should be illegal. I don't think any information or image of any kind should be illegal. I don't need the government to protect me from seeing things, and I certainly don't need a government that will rob me of my freedom for laying eyes on something it deems forbidden. But that doesn't mean anything and everything should be promoted. Or that anything and everything must always be available anywhere and everywhere.

Porn doesn't belong here any more than it does in a school, a library, or a town hall meeting.

There's a difference between leaving something available and tolerating its promotion, which will inevitably have ulterior motives. There's a difference between allowing a time and place for something, and forcefully shoving it into every facet of everyone's lives.

A society that tolerates sexualization of its children, for profit or pleasure, whether by action or image or drawing, is a society that has been subjugated and demoralized, utterly and completely, and therefore has no future.

You broke rule 7 ya sick fuck.

1. Why are you posting degenerate porn?

2. What is with your fixation on nude kids?

3. Even if it wasn't a rule then, you linked to it again from V1 which is a violation of it now, so your subversive efforts are noticeable and I'd love to know just what motivates you to do it.

4. By that standard your underaged nude girls pic shouldn't have been deleted. Yet you were okay with that, why if it's supposed to be innocent?

5. Rule 7 came about as a direct result of that pic, and you posted this shit after it was made.

You're the one posting that shit, don't project your pedophilia onto those calling it out.