I had to filter like 50 different phrases just for this board so i have no real way of knowing if there's any bad...

prove it

vietnam war id get

please do

i'd prefer if you reserved that for the mentally ill undertale spam threads since they aren't good ones
i have never made a morally lacking (objectively bad) post
>b-but morals are subjective
prove it

i wanted you to prove that other threads were bad but if i'll ask you this as well
there is no universal definition for morality (or quality posting) and you cannot base your claim on something that is neither proven nor widely accepted as correct

Fair enough.

Looks like you'll have to do it yourself. OP says no shitting.

kot

Attached: 3e678e0c54f1aa199cebb144150b9b1a.jpg (1200x886, 706K)

christian morality is widely accepted as objective morality since it is the basis for all relevant civilizations and has gotten us this far
but i wouldn't expect a jew to concede to that

blessed thread

Attached: basically.jpg (397x321, 22K)

christian morality seldom applies to Jow Forums threads
if anything christian morality would determine your thread as bad since its op picture depicts a nude animal which promotes bestiality, regarded by christians and jews alike as a sin

all animals are nude and she is closer to a human
the only reason humans regard nudity as sinful is because adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit which gave them both lust and shame
if animal people never did that then they are objectively not sinful for being naked

me 1 jew 0

>all animals are nude and she is closer to a human
except in your picture the focus is clearly on the ass of the animal with clear detail to the ass and teats
animal people do not exist in the real world and thus cannot be logically punished for anything by anyone so in order to choose whether or not animal people are morally allowed to be nude you must employ simple and basic logic. so considering that a) nude humans with focus on their genitals are immoral b) sexual depictions of animals are immoral c) two wrongs don't make a right, sexual depictions of nude animal-people are immoral

i win you lose

>18 hidden threads

Attached: 1542937905674.jpg (500x621, 78K)

>Gayland

>doesnt make a reference to schrodingers kot

Attached: IMG_1719.jpg (1125x1358, 276K)

there is literally nothing wrong with the position she is in and no excessive detail applied to either the breasts or vagina
there's no reason people should be limited to static poses in art just because they're naked
a is therefore debunked
b is irrelevant since she is not an animal and the image can be separated from sexuality if you wish
c is not an argument and has no basis in this conversation

me 2 jew 0

>there is literally nothing wrong with the position she is in and no excessive detail applied to either the breasts or vagina
>there's no reason people should be limited to static poses in art just because they're naked
you exclusively post images of naked animals where their genitals are clearly visible. not once have you posted a furry image that does not hint at sexual things whatsoever. so that would imply you're not simply posting animals because you like animals but rather because you like animal genitals, i.e. you're a zoophile, i.e. you're considered a sinner by christian morality and that makes your thread "bad", supposing that christian morality is to determine the quality of threads

Attached: 1530834323185.jpg (361x254, 28K)

>Isrealgay

>you exclusively post images of naked animals where their genitals are clearly visible
incorrect
>not once have you posted a furry image that does not hint at sexual things whatsoever.
incorrect. there's really only a few i'm even on the fence about in that regard. i'm quite selective with what i view/save/post.
>so that would imply you're not simply posting animals because you like animals
i do like animals very much so, just not in the way you would accuse me of.
i don't like people very much, but still have a normal sex drive and feel for human women.
i view animal people both as something inbetween and completely separate. my obsession doesn't manifest as lust, but some type of comfort.
>you like animal genitals
no i don't. all of the female characters i post have humanoid vaginas, and animalistic ones simply aren't very aesthetically pleasing. the artist depicts most of his male characters with animalistic penises, and he may have a thing for that, but i don't like men or animals in that way and think it serves as a natural form of censorship so it doesn't bother me.
>i.e. you're a zoophile
absolutely not
>i.e. you're considered a sinner by christian morality
i would be if your accusation were true, but it isn't since i'd rather off myself before harming an animal like that
>that makes your thread "bad", supposing that christian morality is to determine the quality of threads
wrong

me 3 jew 0

hiiiii
i'm waiting for the weekend to end

Attached: 1548897354614.gif (320x240, 1.5M)

hello

every single one of your statements made in this post may only be perceived as a speculation since i cannot know if you're speaking the truth or not so i cannot determine whether or not your actions and threads are moral

i have no reason to lie and debate myself over this constantly
you're not much of an opponent compared to my own intrusive thoughts

Attached: snap.jpg (483x323, 21K)

dumb canadian summoner

Fucking lol'd

10/10 if troll
7/10 if copypasta