@Urouge:
I will do my best to protect the children from evil swans and the color pink.
Nice respond, which don't change the fact that sooner or later you will get reported but oh yeah put some irony.
@Tupac's:
What.The.Fuck.
I don't get this. I really don't. KingofSaurus did this too.
It's like you're absolutely completely incapable of comprehending female sexuality. Like women just partake in some same form of male sexual interest (which is intensely ironic given that this would mean they were lesbian).
MALES? SCANTIDLY CLAD??? LOL 90% OF PEOPLE ARE HETERO, THATS WHY PEOPLE DONT WANT THAT.
It defies all fucking sense. I'm not even talking about gays now. You just apparently have no idea that hetero women don't give a fig about seeing other women in less dress.
What the hell. What…I don't even.
I mean god, I know the idea of what women are into is usually kept pretty quiet and personal next to dude's yelling how much they love boobs at all times. But you're on some next level of that shit.
"Such sexual arousal may not lead to an actual sexual activity, beyond a mental arousal. In a 2004 study at Northwestern University, the female participants (both heterosexual and homosexual women) became sexually aroused when they viewed straight as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male participants, however, the heterosexual men were turned on only by erotic films showing women; the gay males were aroused only by films showing men. The study's senior researcher said that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular gender, as compared with men's; and women's desire is more changeable over time."
Name a single other example that isn't Nazi iconography.
"Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period. It occurs mainly in the modern day culture of India, sometimes as a geometrical motif and sometimes as a religious symbol. It remains widely used in Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."
Swans and ballerinas are not sexual or erotic in nature. Crossdressing and transvestitism are not sexual. And Mr. 2's certainly not doing it in a sexual way. There is absolutely no harm that Mr 2 would do for a child, unless you are a homophobic gay basher who thinks these things are inherently harmful.
So admit you are a homophobic gay basher.
Not liking Mr. 2's wardrobe is making me homophobic gay basher HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - ok then, I'm one, according to your absolutely retarded logic, which you need to resort to in order to say something so you can look "right", even tho this wasn't the main topic we discussed, these are things you said absolutely random and we started discussing it. As I already said 3 times - I don't give a shit about what you blame me for, as long as you can prove me wrong. And you're not doing it. When I give argument you simply say "there is no harm", well PROVE IT. Just because you CAN'T, you prefer to blame me for something.
What the hell is "child grooming"?
Are you even aware that children have a sort of sexuality of sorts? Even fetuses have been observed masturbating. Sexuality isn't some terrifying evil force unlocked by puberty once kids hit 11.
Teach your kid when he hits 7 how you fucked his mother then. Or send him to Folsom Street. You're one of those "shit parents" Rin was talking about. Do you even fucking know what puberty means?
Puberty - puberatum - age of maturity, man hood. This word is there FOR A REASON which you're too "incapable of comprehending".
Find a first world country that defines public indecency as crossdressing.
Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence to show any lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour towards a girl who is between the age of 12 and 16. If the female is under the age of 12, it would revert to the common law offence.
there is no straight law saying "DONT FUCKING DRESS LIKE BON KUREI FROM ONE PIECE OR YOU'RE GONNA GET ARRESTED, BITCH!". Laws don't work like that at all. There are CIRCUMSTANCES, thats why there is COURT.
You have made a point, founded on nothing, and powered by intense bigoted ignorance and paranoia. It is a worthless point. As much a point as me saying the moon is made of cheese.
And whats your point founded on? Lol you just like to say random stuffs dont you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_impact_of_thong_underwear
Urogue has never been at any point close to losing against you.
The only stakes at hand is wether he figures out what you're thinking or doesn't.
Are you his mom? This would explain a lot.
It is the very definition.
It is not.
And the majority in the first world are rapidly changing toward acceptance of these things. Much like they have changed in acceptance of women's liberation and racial equity.
Why are you rephrasing me? And yes, these things were destroyed with votes and the changing minds of people towards the problem. There is no way that 1 will want it and 1 billion not, and that the 1 will change it by himself, so the 1 billion can adopt to it.
If you think all progress hinges on absolute thoughts of people, if you deny the age of reason as you did so many posts ago, it shows you know nothing of progress.
Here you contradict yourself. The change in society is beginning in change with people's thoughts. It doesn't appear from nowhere lol.
Magnetic Monkey, you're not even worth quoting and losing my time with you. I reply and after 2 posts, you say the same bullshit again. You're so brainwashed that my words are not enough to describe it.
You want the people on the TV to un-blur the dicks so you can make sure they are right, when even the commentator agrees that there are kids and indecent exposures towards them and in the next post you say "hey where the heck did I wanted that". I post photos you say they prove nothing and the fact that "the police didnt arrested them" makes you think that everywhere in this world this is how it is. You're ignorant, because you don't even take your time having one fast search at google to see that I'm right, you're just posting here from some inner will to look right, because the majority thinks this is how it is, but if you don't have "backup" you will be quiet like a pussy. Or was that too sexist for your taste? Does no one pays you any attention in Germany, so you need to come here and shine in the kids eyes who simply accept you as "gay defender" and me as "homophobic"? Well, you probably dress like Mr. 2 I guess. You're so ignorant that you don't even take your time to look at my previous postings to see that I'm saying its ok for One Piece to have these gays, cuz its ANIME and not real life preaching. How can I not call you retarded when you're blaming me for something which I've proved with my own words that I'm not?
I'm cornered? Haha, I can keep doing this stuff for ages and noone ever can prove me for wrong. And you know it, you're just too hardheaded to admit it. I've posted lots of stuffs that noone replied to, but kept on the discussion about Mr. 2's shitty clothes, because that's the only thing you can easily look at yourself as right, without putting some thought.
I ask, why were the free hugs banned? The saggers? Why can't a gay himself take a clothing like Mr. 2 for offensive? No answer. Just babbling around how much of an evil demon I am, cuz I don't like Mr. 2s clothes and think they are inappropriate for society.
I'm Satan, you'll see me in the 3rd part of the Rec series. I've come to kill the gays, the jews and the pure innocent little kitties, and I'm all bad things in this world (put some evil laugh here). Go get me, defenders of the good and right!