All Porn should be outlawed

Because it harms the kids and causes people to lust. Therefor people who are into porn/ make porn should go to prison for at least 30 years..... Better yet would be the gas chamber.

>>40

Oh shit, I'm sorry but, you are telling me that:

All children pre 1950 were sexual deviants or committed suicide.

Hmm, seems like you don't know what the FUCK you are talking about retard.

Logic prevails, communistic perversion of facts does not faggot.

>>41
Rude! That is quite belligerent of you, mister. Though, I agree. If there were sexual deviants back then, they most likely kept it very discreet.

>>39
You sound like a fascist.

You sound like your daughter got knocked up by a black dude. Fuck off fag needley

>>42

Sorry, getting very frustrated by people proving the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

His statement was so matter of fact, I deconstructed it rather that boasted on how I know how it is .But I have also done clinical psychology and read on how porn affects neuro-plasticity. I am not an expert on the subject, but Porn simply is a NEW outlet for lust, it may even have a positive effect on society that I cannot see, but my initial analysis shows it to be a type of experience that steals from real experiences and takes away from character depth in the same way that Twilight misrepresents relationships, creates a false experience and takes away from real experiences for these young girls to find the perfect angst filled sparkly vampire fag relationship.

>>45
I see. Also, reading about the Dunning-Kruger Effect that you just mentioned just now. Interesting stuff.

>>38
If people try to repress basic human emotions, nothing good can come from it and it will cause more problems
Except for the racists babies...
http://cofcc.org/2010/05/newsweek-bites-the-dust/
There's No Place For Hate...
Not even in the uterus of ur fucking mother.
Screw the racists nasciturus.

>>47

I might look like a retard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgfm8iWrY_4

but at least I'm not a RACIST  ^^
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/04/cure-for-race-realism-discovered.html

HURR DURRR  =p

Inb4getback2/b/pls

>>48
What about us rare breed of anti-racists who are against ALL forms of racism, including racism against whites, and the anti-white bias in mainstream media?

>>49

You do not exist!

Can't...

How?

...

It doesn't make sense.

>>48

WS syndrome is fascinating. The sad fact for people with WS in this world may be that they are very sociable and accepting of strangers, which in this world will in various cases lead them to being stolen from beaten up and sexually abused. If you have a child with WS they need a loving parent and will definitely reciprocate it!

I actually love 47's point on this.

Repressing racism is okay but Lust is not?

There has shown to be links to racism in 'nature' scientifically, (in recognition) and it is not entirely nurture as they would like people to believe. The lefty's have gone mad to actually post it into mass media as they want to promote the nurture avenue, if racism is natural to a species/sub-species, social reform is mandatory and the change would either be, genocide of the unacceptable trait, or a situation that catered to it, like private villages for all people with the 'racist' genes, censored advertising for their sake, etc.

>>50
You do not exist!
I assure you, there are some of us out there. You just haven't run into one yet, until now.

>>52

Very hard to believe that people can be completely objective in terms of race, more often than not people convince themselves that they are objectively looking at it anyway.

I think I am fairly objective, but people would disagree with my perspective as objective anyway. I think it is reasonable for individual cultures to sustain themselves in segregated homelands if they wish to, I am talking about my people, Europeans, who among the world are being crowded by others in every space they inhabit. I think this is reasonable as well for every indigenous people through out the world in their home, does that have bias?

>>53
does that have bias?
I see nothing wrong with that in terms of the nations of continental Europe, being that that is the homeland continent of Whites as Africa is the homeland continent of Blacks. Though, in the new world, (that is comprising of the Americas, specially the nations of the United States and Canada, the area of Oceania that comprises the nations of Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania), that is of a different story and issue altogether (though, if you'd like to discuss that as well, be my guest)

I couldn't really dispense advice on how to implement such a policy on continental Europe, perhaps the newly emigrated could be turned around back, but what of those non-Whites who are now well into their third generation and quite assimilated into European society?

>>54

I'm sure my view point of the Americas and Oceania etc are similar, the indigenous deserve security.

Sadly, I view emotional ties as less valuable than truth.

I would not like to remove those imbedded in to the society, if they were culturally assimilated, it wouldn't make too much difference. But not letting the balance slip is more important than making a people feel at home, in the grand scheme of an ethnic groups culture and heritage being protected.

Saying: "It would be better if a a group were allowed to keep their Swedish country Swedish (for example) but it would be 'hard' to move outsiders". Is right, but it is more worthwhile than not, albeit's connotations and difficulties.

>>55
I'm sure my view point of the Americas and Oceania etc are similar, the indigenous deserve security.
Oh, in that case, I certainly agree.