DISCORD COMES UNDER FIRE FOR ALLEGED MODERATOR ABUSE AND FURRY CORRUPTION

>platform created by literally ponyfaggot pedophiles
>is filled to the brim with ponyfaggot pedophiles

The whole company should be put in prison awaiting death sentence.

Discord admins ARE the furries, they protect their own

>furry corruption

Attached: Smile.jpg (600x600, 94K)

This thread was deleted from /v/ twice.

ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!!

>>>/reddit/

dont bring ponies into this

Don't bring ponies into anything

>based /v/
I'll say this slowly.
we. dont. care. now. fuck. off.

I just like a cute tv show, I am not deviant

Attached: IMG_4421.jpg (1252x1252, 118K)

>Jow Forums is one person

What's the problem?

The fuck is "furry corruption"? Stop clickbaiting.

>ban lolicon
>allow cub furry

There are ongoing pedo furry threads on Jow Forums at this very moment. You have no right to criticize discord as long as you continue to use this site.

Attached: 1519675224984.png (567x496, 240K)

we can be proud as a species that a term like "furry corruption" exists....

Attached: 1540383580154s.jpg (225x250, 8K)

Attached: 1410691005491.jpg (550x450, 48K)

I really hope nobody of you fags uses discord in the first place.
Gay nigger furries and other degenerates blown the fuck out. What a fucking retarded platform.

I don't give a shit either, user. Sage.

You can tell that discord is run by a bunch of pedos because they have all these weird arcane rules that let them look at porn while being around children.
>You can have porn but it must be in an 18+ channel.
>Its up to the people who start a specific instance to decide who is allowed in the 18+ channel.
>We are not responsible for any of this ;)
>Also kids are allowed in erp channels as long as there is no porn.
Only pedos would do all this autistic rules lawyering instead of just saying that discords with porn have to be 18+.
Also of course it's furrys because they all want to erp with 12 year olds.

who doesn't?

But Hiroshima and his cohorts never went out of their way to protect and favor that group of people and their threads. It merely exists within the cacophony of other junk that populates this site.

4channel cant sage

Pedophiles like you should be killed.

Attached: Frogposters.jpg (700x525, 173K)

we still exist?
the herd was just thinned out

Is there a comfy Jow Forums IRC anywhere?

The only IRC chan I used to visit and still visit now only has two members: the admin and myself. I find that pretty depressing, considering it used to have at least 10 people online at its lowest and 100 at its highest on average.

>Pedophiles mad that zoophilic pedophiles can get away with it and they don't.

Kek. If only you were even more of a subhuman and enjoyed underage fake half-humans instead of underage fake normal humans.

unrelated, but are frogposter's images getting deleted? bless

Braaap

these people don't give a fuck about fairness any more than coke cares about your health

furries are already corrupt

i want to know this too

Discord started by banning porn they don't like like loili/ shota and bsdm. Now they are trying to come up with some bullshit to claim cub is somehow different from loli. They should have just banned porn entirely or said they would allow anything that is legal. Instead they wanted to make exceptions for their furry porn.

>OH NO WATER IS WET!!

kek, what's wrong with wearing fake animal clothes?

Hah why would anybody reveal their IRC channels on this shithole?

They should've just banned "cub" too, whatever the fuck that is (underage furries?). /gif/ does it well. Anything depicting underage people, even if legal, is not allowed.

It's not rape if the cub wants it

>be furry
>pick both
There you go.

I report them and them I have every right to criticize discord, furfag.

Who fucking cares
Imagine getting mad over drawings
Imagine getting mad about furries
They should just say fuck it just don't post anything illegal in the US

Cub porn is pedophilia, faggot. Imagine defending that shit.

>Drawings I don't like should be illegal even though literally no one is hurt by them
Yikes, imagine defending that shit.
Death to those who draw the prophet amirite fellow Jow Forumsentoomen?

Attached: 1530446248652.jpg (868x1228, 90K)

How is them saying just apply a NSFW channel rule and then it's on the server owners somehow weird and arcane?
Isn't part of this thread advocating that server owners have control up to their own discretion instead of Discord stepping in?

I hope Discord gets a database leak so that we can read the Jow Forums mod staff

do you like programming?

Attached: 1529074967242.jpg (700x575, 74K)

I like anime, does that count?

Website owners decides what content they want on their websites. News article written! People outraged!

I'm starting to think people have some sort of agenda here.

close enough, rizon/#dailyprog

Attached: tumblr_pbg3mbY6cu1xz9074o7_400.jpg (333x333, 28K)

>twitter niggers stirring shit up
lol who cares

Imagine tranny conspiracy in Jow Forums

Finally, the downfall of discord shall be the rise of matrix

reality of irc in 2019 is that there's one line of text per week. There are 40 people on a channel, but all are afk.
It's sad but reality. I still have old logs from 10+ years ago when irc was actually alive.

I guess boomers (actual) must have felt the same about bbs.

>reality of irc in 2019 is that there's one line of text per week.
>There are 40 people on a channel, but all are afk.
>It's sad but reality. I still have old logs from 10+ years ago when irc was actually alive.
they all left the channel you're on, user. You got left behind, we've moved elsewhere.

I'm not the one who wants to fuck children and animals, though.

The people saying stuff like "Who cares" ,defending this and saging the thread are also furry pedos. Not surprised, this is Jow Forums after all.

cool story but of all irc channels I was in every but one died. People just gradually stopped talking.
The one that didn't die moved to discord.
I'm sure there are still some channels alive but the average age is definitely 40+ if not worse. The clock is ticking.

You have a problem. You don't need reinforcement, you need help. Underage things are for protecting, not sexual.

Literally nothing wrong with that, the only reason why you'd think that is because of media influence.
Sex between two consenting people harms literally no one, assuming preventatives are used.

Attached: 1504057615016.png (1268x1645, 622K)

Why not both?

Attached: 1549611040076.jpg (1000x944, 643K)

I've had a better mobile experience with Jabber (XMPP) than IRC.

>Pedophile
>Posts some crazy Jow Forums shit like it's an argument.
Kids who are molested have provably worse outcomes in the average case. The risk is just way too high even if they're literally asking for it. You might as well be giving them a coke rail. They're totally unprepared for sex. You will hurt them.

See the above. The two are mutually exclusive. Jerking it to drawn shit is bad for you because it keeps you focused on the fantasy, which will always claw towards reality when the opportunity presents itself. Pedos are always claiming they can just whack it to art and never do anything irl, but that's fucking bullshit. Humans are too sexually impulsive for that to be true for the percentage of pedos who claim it.

degenerates on power trips, does it surprise anyone anymore?

Attached: 1545997007911.jpg (613x667, 64K)

>molested
Funny that you should use just that word, considering that it has literally nothing to do with relationships and doesn't prove anything. Also citation needed.
>Risk is way too high, you'll hurt them.
Prove it, prove that consenting sex between two people, where both of them care for the others well being and doesn't want to hurt them, actually still hurts them.
>Coke rail
Except they're literally not comparable, peepee in vagoo does not compare to fucking coke.
Is your post a joke?

You might want to prove all the claims made in the picture you posted (which has zero citations) first.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

>Swoosh, dodges the question with a roll to the left
Nice.
So I take it that you want me to prove that the age of consent once was lower?
That women are more fertile in their young teens?
That children have an easier time forming strong bonds than adults?
That Jews own the media?

>Is your post a joke?
It is likely a troll or a fanatic. His stance has the "moral high ground", it being the commonly agreed to in today's society. Thus he is able to argue his point very poorly and with zero citations and still come out on top - it is inconceivable to defend the opposition in the eyes of many. You are bound to "lose", even if your performance is perfect. Personally, I think he's a very argumentative troll.

You could prove that the age of peak fertility for a woman is 13-14. That would be a start.

Don't lump us pedophiles in with ponyfuckers please

By the same logic furries should never be allowed to interact with children OR animals.

Is that so wrong?

It's really absurd.
In some states in the USA you can die for your country, but you can neither drink beer nor have sex legally.
Now obviously you shouldn't drink alcohol before your brain has developed. Still though.
Oof, now you found me a funny rabbit hole.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
>Fertility clearly decreases with age
>Most fertile in early 20s
>But there's no data for 10-15, and 15-20
That's a really nice one user, something that can't be tested because of current laws.
Although the chart they show for the egg supply indicates a very high fertility in the teens.
Alternatively we have archive.is/MQeT2
That cherrypicked study says that fertility peaks at 30, would you prefer if we raised the age of consent to that?

Not that user being wrong on this singular issue changes anything.

Attached: 1549142980176.jpg (800x1100, 117K)

>Isn't part of this thread advocating that server owners have control up to their own discretion instead of Discord stepping in?
The faggot is applying liberal logic to his argument
>server admins should not have total control over their own server. discord needs to police each server and set rules accordingly

discord=gubment

have you not paid attention to the last decade?

>you can only say things that i agree with. and if you hurt my feelings on the internet, i should be able to sue you and put you in jail.

>Relationships
This is only true in a pedo's mind. In reality, a child cannot fathom the scope of a human sexual relationship. The mental difference is enormous. If they say yes, you're probably manipulating them. The assumption has to be made because there's no way to be objective when you're horny and they're a goddamn kid.
>Prove it
It's well established in psychological literature.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Psychological_effects
inb4 Wikipedia isn't a citation.
>Not comparable
They're both damaging, with long term effects. I was being a little hyperbolic, but only a little.

Fuck yourself with this cheap non-argument shit. I do not appeal to morality, I appeal to ethics. It's wrong to take actions for personal gain when those actions have a high likelihood of severely harming another person.

This is probably true, but we're not like other animals anymore. Mental maturity is a more important age for us, and it doesn't happen until 18-22 for most people. Pushing a child beyond their mental capabilities is a good way to bake lifelong trauma into them.

Sexual attraction to 14 year olds is semi-normal, but responsible people push the attraction away because they know it's not good for anyone.

Actually I have far weaker opinions about dogfuckers. Adult animals aren't nearly as intelligent as a human adult, so there's a big mental imbalance there, but an animal will never grow up into an adult human with mental disorders from getting plowed by some neckbeard. So the potential harm is much less, to the point where I don't care that much unless it's obvious the animal is being physically hurt. It would be hypocritical for me to take a strong stand against them while I eat meat, use animal based products, etc.

>Not that user being wrong on this singular issue changes anything.
Not really, it derails the entire idea that Jews are trying to keep you from fucking females at the age when they would produce the most genetically superior children.

Past that, you would need some sort of proof that females who formed attachments with a mate at a young age are more likely to be loyal to them long-term, but again you would be hard-pressed to find that.

This argument is entirely based on conjecture, and comes across moreso as someone trying to justify their tendencies to themselves rather than anything based in reality.

For instance, it's well-known that chimps, our closest relatives (99% of DNA shared), have a promiscuous mating system. The idea of a nuclear family is a man-made ideal with no basis in biology, and that is why people cheat - not because they weren't groomed by pedophiles.

Furries are well known child groomers but that just comes with being bi/homosexual hedonists, I suppose.

Okay now this is getting really interesting.
I grabbed one of the first relevant citations from the article.
in.gov/ipdc/files/Complex PTSD in Victims Exposed to Sexual (1).pdf
>Sampled people were primarily those who already seeked help, skewing the sample
>The study puts non violent """""coercion""""" in the same category as violent threats

>About 40% of the kids in that category above 13 and either willingly agreed or were violently threatened
>26% of the people in the sexual abuse category did not meet the criteria for CP or PTSD
>Which is over half of the combined """"coercion"""" group and actual violent threats
Really makes you wonder why they didn't split the categories up properly to give a better look
Or why they didn't give you data on how the sexual abuse group was divided, so that we'd know how many were threatened with violence.
HMMM.
Can you find a better source that includes these separations?

Attached: 1529870436765.jpg (1086x1200, 137K)

Animals also fuck their siblings as well as far younger members. That's a really weird one for you to bring up.

That's a big ask. Studying this shit is non-trivial. I did find an article that focused on the predictors for ptsd, and they found that avoidant or coping behaviors were positively correlated with the onset of ptsd at a later date. Simply regretting, being embarrassed, or denying the event is enough of a predictor. This relation negatively correlates with age, which is expected. The older a child is, the better they are at coping and reconciling their experiences in a healthy way.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754170/#!po=1.35135
The problem with "consent" in children is they are totally unable to drive their own life. They've got no idea what they want, and they're very easy to influence. It's trivial to groom them into saying yes to sex, but later on if they regret what happened they have a high probability of developing issues. You cannot know if regret will set in at a later date.
So let's list the pros and cons here
Pros:
>You get off
>Maybe the kid gets off
Cons:
>You might permanently damage the kid, and the probability isn't negligible.
Society thinks the risk isn't worth it, so we've set the bar at a somewhat conservative 16-18 years old in the US. If you really can't restrain yourself, go to a shithole country where the people are all fucked and you can get a 13 year old virgin prostitute for a few hundred dollars.

Stop being pedophiles. Normal male humans are attracted to big tits, hips, ass and penetrable vaginas, things kid don't have.

It's well-documented that chimps avoid inbreeding. Again, 99% of our DNA is shared. Next.

That one's also weird
I don't see them breaking down the type of abuse, so for all I know it included threats, or even physical abuse.
On another note the demographics are kinda interesting, over half were african american, I wonder why they're overrepresented.
Also all the kids were under 13, the mean was 8, which would be before puberty, which I'm against, don't diddle toddlers. Also strong correlation, but because they don't specify the abuse I still don't know if they were threatened or what.
The study is also based on kids who were known to the county as potentially abused, if any of them were fine and not found they wouldn't be in there, though that goes both ways.

Is there really no study which clearly correlates what actually happened to the trauma.

They still fuck the youngins
Diddle Diddle

Attached: 1529864454180.jpg (478x680, 68K)

>They still fuck the youngins
Provide a source.

necrophilia, rape, cannibalism, incest, homosexuality, and pedophilia are all well documented, commonplace behaviors among chimpanzees

stop using the naturalistic fallacy to derive your sense of morality

>stop using the naturalistic fallacy to derive your sense of morality
I don't think I did? If you recall, the argument I'm making is that pedophilia does not produce genetically superior children, or long-lasting relationships. In other words, it is in no way beneficial or desirable.

that's fucking right, finally

>furries
not even once.

when old hags/old farts fuck, they produce downies and other genetic defects, and it is self-evident that a relationship that starts at a younger age lasts longer than one that started in your mid thirties or later.
pedophilia is thus beneficial and desirable compared to teleio- or gerontophilia, q.e.d.