Pol's Roastie Hate is Pedo Apologism

It's another:
"what if the child consents."

>but how?
Where are the virgins?

>but we're anti pedo!
Projection is real.

Attached: images.jpg (298x169, 6K)

>but we're anti pedo!
Maybe newfags. If you aren't lolicon don't come to Jow Forums. This is a lolicon only zone. Antis not welcome

Attached: 092.jpg (640x360, 128K)

Trannies=natsocs desert man again.
Why are you jumping theories so quick? Stick to one.

This thread again.
Not wanting to fuck and especially pay for a whore who can no longer pair bond is not pedophilia.

>natsoc thread
Honestly, that threads started only referencing transgenders. Then I noticed its length and detail/logic had it attaining few comments, so I threw in NatSocs- which do fit, although not perfectly.

The fewer words in a post, the more likely it will get responses- and the more fun responses.

It's too reductive, didn't work yesterday.
Put in a bit more padding, or greentext it.

>used women cannot pair bond
Wrong. They can pair bond- and them jumping from man to man is a sign that they require a stronger man than they have yet met- be that man.

>too reductive
Yes, you're probably right- I can't expect Jow Forums to fill in any blanks in my post, given the blank states of their minds- thing is, if they could vanquish their hate, they might have room for some information.

this post isn’t even making an argument
what the fuck did OP mean by this

>when you are unable to organize incoming data
>so you claim its nonsense

What is it now, blank or filled with hate?
Anyway, it doesn't bite or pop.
Can't get a clear accusation out of this.
An infographic would be good. Lots of arrows.

there are plenty of non-underage virgins, you moronic Hasid inbred.

>you said X and !X
An American would either not notice, or notice but not point it out. Those who did notice would assume I meant "blank (of logic)."

But yes, I have too many questions, and not enough direct points- but I avoid being exact, as to invite confusion and arguments between people who read alternative meanings from the post.

>plenty of 19+ virgins
Most women don't consider anal and oral to be sex.

Plus some don't even consider it sex if the man doesn't ejaculate inside.

go fuck a goat mohammed

*TINK*TINK*TIIIIING*
AHEM.
SETTLE DOWN EVERYONE. I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT.
ISRAEL IS NOT A REAL COUNTRY. ISRAEL HAS NEVER ONCE GAINED TERRITORY IN ARMED CONFLICT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE.
FUCK KIKES
FUCK PILPUL
FUCK THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
FUCK JANNIES
FUCK ROASTIES
AND FUCK NIGGERS

Attached: 1543675796852s.jpg (249x250, 8K)

Here is the thread I spend most time on. It's not the most exciting, but it's my most important. And I didn't loosely integrate any incendiary side-topic to make it popular.

>war must be physical
War is both physical and mental- whatever gets the job done
>but a country who survives by parasitism on others cannot live
Nothing lasts forever- but does that mean it shouldn't have ever existed?

Why lie though? Number of sexual partners is a predictor of marital stability, chance of divorce, and a woman’s happiness in marriage. Chemicals in the brain released after love making facilitate the creation of relationships; if you continually subject yourself to those chemicals but don’t get married or engage in a long term relationship, the effect those chemicals have on your behavior abates (think of how after ripping off a band aid, the band aid may no longer stick or how drugs can lead to tolerance) and you might be unable to find a fulfilling long term relationship (your feelings and emotions are affected).

Attached: 8A8DC377-F977-45C8-80FD-9426B2C8DF1C.jpg (750x749, 108K)

>chemicals, released in lovemaking, help women stay faithful
Or, you could be a man, and not rely on drugs for your wife to stay with you. What I find the most funny is pol will say one thing one day, and another the next- and these things will contradict- and pol will not notice.

And even if the relationship wasn’t causal, a woman’s number of sexual partners is still indicative of her future behavior, meaning that this information is useful in screening for a future wife. Maybe the good ones will settle down sooner while something within the women who sleep around causes them to leave men; regardless, a woman who has had less sexual partners is a much safer bet than a woman who fucks everything.

You're agreeing with me in that some women are harder to keep than others- but we must recognize that men are part of the issue- why would a woman stay with a man who doesn't assert himself?

Those chemicals cause her to be able to pair bond. Without them, she will be unable to. We are biological machines. The chemical reactions in our brains dictate our actions. If she is lacking the chemical or is less responsive to it, she will not have the impetus to commit to someone. Ultimately, she will be unhappy or unfulfilled in the long term because her hedonistic lifestyle is not sustainable and she will have no way of establishing more fufilling relationships.

This is mostly speculation, though- they aren't experimenting on women, over time, being railed by men.

And really, what is the harm of a woman having 2-3 partners- that isn't much. Women used to have many more, and had NO PROBLEM committing (AND ORGASMING!) when conquered by another tribe.