Misterio wrote:
He says he believes aliens exist.
A lot of people believe aliens exist, including me, that doesn't mean your conspiracy theory is true. Do you think Close Encounters and ET were true stories?
It's not just about making money because Steven doesn't need it.
The reason Steven doesn't need money is because he's so good at making movies and hyping them to make money.
SatanLucy wrote:
Aliens are just government projects for experimenting on population.
So, you are saying we are all victims of the government.
Shoresy wrote:
lol
I recently got a promotion to a collegiate charter school, so I can't be as active as I used to be, sorry.
So you are Greyparrot, you haven't been married that long, I'm surprised she's feminized and Canadianized you so much already.
I'm sure you're already watching Hallmark Movies, and it's only a matter of time till you are a campaign rep for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Anyway, welcome back.
Misterio wrote:
It's really a coincidence that this film comes out just when Trump is fully disclosing all the UFO files the US agencies have.
Do you think this has been coordinated? Is Steven Spielberg part of this agenda of revealing the existence of alien life?
It could certainly be coordinated for marketing purposes; Spielberg knows how to make hit movies happen.
If you watch the trailer, you'll see the movie revolves around how people react to the UFO files disclosure. I think they're preparing people for the first alien contact which is very close.
Steven Spielberg isn't just great at making movies, he is also masterful at promoting movies, what he's "preparing People for" is to go see the movie, building excitement, creating viral conversations about it, it's hype and he's very good at it.
Kohai wrote:
GreatfulGoy wrote:
I didn’t realize shoresh was grey parrot
Me neither, are you guys sure?
GP had a noticeably different style than Shoresy, last we heard from GP he was getting married to a Canadian woman, so you think she already made him Canadian, and now Shoresy is the married version of GP. Interesting, I'm not seeing it, but hey, I still don't really get the internet, it's all so Felliniesque and confusing to me, so, maybe so.
Shoresy, it's time to speak up, are you Greyparrot, or just an unreasonable facsimile?
SatanLucy wrote:
You cant process arguments. But in simple terms, someone capable of ruining tik tok = someone capable of ruining the world if given control over it.
OK, so now you are talking victimhood on a global scale, that's so you lol.
Your appetite for victimhood is very strong Grasshopper.
SatanLucy wrote:
I just see leftists for what they are. They ruined Tik tok.
You still don't have an argument?
SatanLucy wrote:
Not even going to pretend you think the left's corruption is analogous.
to this, I will respond using classical fallacy "ad hominem". Leftists are corrupting our society! that disproves your arguments.
So, what you are really saying is, "Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim of the left"....and also a victim of "ad hominem" attacks too.
Poor baby.
SatanLucy wrote:
"Wah wah wah, boo boo hoo, I still don't have an argument." - Sidewalker
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm still a victim." - SatanLucy
SatanLucy wrote:
Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo.
Is that what you tell to all victims of abuse?
"Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim." - SatanLucy
SergeantLynch wrote:
Yep...Normal is as normal does.
Nope, what some people do is not "normal". That's why we also have the word "creepy"
And one persons normal is the ritualistic abuse of young boys penises...A practice unarguably performed for sexually inspired reasons.
Nope, that's not normal, it's creepy.
Whereas another persons normal is quite the opposite...Leave kids alone and let them make their own decisions about their sexuality, when they are adults.
Nope, what's normal is for parents to raise their kids, leaving them alone is what is normally called "neglect". I suppose people who have sexual thoughts about infants would like parents to "leave them alone", but like it or not, part of raising kids is protecting them from the creepy people who think of them sexually.
And you are an exponent of the former.
Nope, I'm way over here in the normal world where we don't think of infants as sex objects, but hey, if you are so needy that you need to label me an "exponent" of your creepy way of looking at the world, then so be it, your creepy world of sexualized infants has its own rules, I guess.
I would say you and Lucy are the exponents of sexualizing infants and I'm not, but hey, if you see infants through creepy colored glasses, then I suppose you are gonna see me through those same creepy colored glasses, that's how creepy works I suppose.
Enjoy your circumcision porn, and there you go, now I'm an "exponent" of you enjoying circumcision porn.
And furthermore you are just as involved in this conversation as both Lucy and I, so don't try and make out that you are not.
Nope, I'm having a completely different conversation than you and Lucy are having, I just don't join you in having sexual thoughts about infants, but hey, creepy is as creepy does, whatever floats your boat.
Definitely the conclusion to this thread for me, I will not comment further.
Of course, the conclusion to this thread for you is creepy, that's because you see the thread through those creepy colored glasses.
SatanLucy wrote:
Why do you love being a victim.
I don't. I would prefer to have my foreskin back.
Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo.
SatanLucy wrote:
So what you are really saying is, ""Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Why do you hate victims?
Why do you love being a victim.
I suppose a non-sequitur looks better than dumb as a post.
SatanLucy wrote:
Is there any subject where your response isn't "wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Oh, blaming the victim and telling victim to "suck it up".
So what you are really saying is, ""Wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim" of your post.
What a surprise.
You were lucky so that circumcision didn't disrupt your sexual function. If it did, you would be telling a different story now.
Fortunately, I'm not a victim personality, is there anything that you don't turn into your beloved victimhood.
Is there any subject where your response isn't "wah wah wah, boo hoo hoo, I'm a victim"
Poor baby..
You are making an argument for the supremacy of white people over people of color.
No surprise there.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Okay...So we establish you're views on the issue...It was easy...Be proud.
Yes, you have established my views on the subject, instead of me establishing my views on the subject, be proud.
So we think that the ritual abuse of an infants penis is bad.
So you think of the circumcision of infants sexually.
And you think that it is fine.
Nope, what we have established is you think of circumcision of infants as a sexual thing, and like "normal" people, I don't.
End of story.
My thinking is what is referred to as "normal", the way you and SatanLucy think is referred to as "creepy".
End of story.
SatanLucy wrote:
I didnt want to participate in your circumcision world either, but I wasnt asked.
I don't care.
You are boring as hell.
SatanLucy wrote:
I mean, it's the only place you ever had a social life isn't it?
Sure. I guess no more arguments from you.
There never was an argument from me, there was just you harassing me with your infant porn shit and me telling you to fuck off because I'm not participating in your pedophilia world.
SatanLucy wrote:
And why do you feel urge to post male rape porn?
Is it your secret kink?
Don't you miss prison?
I mean, it's the only place you ever had a social life isn't it?
Yes or no, do you miss your friends from prison?
SatanLucy wrote:
No, I dont circumcise infants to alter their sexual functions for religious or arbitrary purposes.
Nobody thinks you actually circumcise infants, what is creepy is that you want to fuck infants.
SatanLucy wrote:
So much for "wah wah wah".
So much for a pedophile that thinks of infants as sex objects.
Do you whack off to potty training videos too, or is it just circumcision porn that makes your keyboard sticky?
SatanLucy wrote:
That is a too difficult question for Sidewalker to answer.
Nope, it's real simple question that I've answered multiple times already, you are just too stupid and perverted to understand it.
If he answers "no", he is agreeing with me, which is impermissible. If he says "yes", he is agreeing with sexual abuse of infants, which is also impermissible.
No, what I've been saying all along is that you are a sick fuck for thinking of infants as sex objects, so it doesn't really matter how I answer Sarge's question, I'm not agreeing with your perverted way of looking at infants.
You can claim anything you want; you can whack off to circumcision videos all day long for all I care, I'm just not going to be a part of your fucking freakshow.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Okay, but one again typical avoidance strategy.
Gee, you think so? I tried to explain the normal world to you, but as I suspected, you just don't get it, fact is, almost all parents avoid thinking about infants in a sexual manner, and we think it's creepy when you do it.
So let me just put the question to you very simply.
OK, but I'll put a question to you very simply also. Why do you enjoy having sexual thoughts about infants?
Do you support the ritual circumcision of infants?
Yes or no.
All three of my sons were circumcised, so yes, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to start sharing your sexual thoughts about my sons when they were infants. Try to dial down the creepy.
SatanLucy wrote:
Actually, I am a victim of circumcision myself. tho my circumcision was worse because it gone wrong and left me with bent dick.
TMI
