Pixar's 1st Gay Movie for Kids

[chocomel]

1 hour ago, hayed joe said:

Trouble with trying to see from their point of view is a lot of paedophile's "conquests" turn out to be damaged individuals who then go on to have really shitty relationships (If they ever get the chance). Nobody is there to pick up the pieces.

And the bigger problem is mentioning them in a thread about homosexuality by muddying the waters. They spent so much time going "Oh they thought I was a paedophile!" then going on and on about it. As opposed to the main issue.

There's a difference between them. I'm sick of seeing the P word thrown at Gays. Full on apple's and oranges.

Why talk about fly fishing in a thread about football? Muddy the waters. Keep them at their throats and divided. 

 

 

Gay, LGBTDigital people are used as pawn in the bigger scheme of things. The ultimate goal is to legalise paedophilia.

[EnigmaticWorld]

5 hours ago, Edgecrusher said:

Paedophillia, the final taboo - it is coming...

 

Some are trying to rebrand themselves as MAPs (minor attracted person). It's messed up big time.

[mrbookrah]

1 hour ago, chocomel said:

 

That may be so but what separates hetroman loving another hetroman because they are good friends, neighbour vs gay men?

Only one thing that makes difference, it's about sex.

 

As OP stated, it's tiptoe.

Soon Paedos will be demanding their rights for their sexual preference....so long as it's loving......................

Have you ever been in love or in a relationship? 

If yes than how you compare your relationship with your friends and neighbours to a relationship between a gay couple? 

"" Only one thing that makes difference, it's about sex."" 

Yes, and the fact that they are GAY. 

 

 

[hayed joe]

2 hours ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

 

I take your point about their being 2 different things. I don't think it's muddying the waters though - it's a train of thought that follows on naturally from the increasingly overt pushing of sexuality on kids, because of the agenda.But of course you are right in saying gayness and paedophilia are 2 different things.

 

So what is you opinion on the film subject?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I at least put my money where my mouth is and didn't bring kids into this world. My "prime" was around the 90's, 2000's if lucky. "Well the world is in a mess! I know! Let's conceive!". Yeah, no.

Remember when there was that fuss about Bugs Bunny BUGS. FUCKING. BUNNY encouraging homosexuality? 

Are Christians into S&M by looking at Jesus on the cross? They must do, right? It's an image that's everywhere. That big bearded man with a body all helpless nailed and tied to a cross.

As for the clip. Are you kidding me? There doesn't seem to be anything that wrong from it. Tastefully done from the trailer. The FUCK Pixar are going to show animated sodomy! 

If anything the clip suggests killing your pet dog before they reveal every dirty secret. 

Shut it down and something else will come up. Then another thing. And another.

If you really want to come down hard on homosexual propaganda, ever thought of relocating to Iran? 

 

It's some piece of shit animation. File next to Alex Jones's ahem "research" into transgender porn.

I've come to terms with not getting any. If the world moved on from what may or may not be between their legs, and who belongs in what box, you never know! We might actually get somewhere.

[Tinfoil Hat]

Woah - Jesus on the cross being described as S& M sounds like some very confused reasoning indeed to me.

 

The film won't sit next to anything of Alex Jones though will it! It will be paraded in front of kids - that's the point.

 

I doubt I'll be relocating to Iran.

 

Again, no, I doubt you'll persuade anyone that a platonic life-style is the answer either. In fact that's a sure fire way to end the human race lickety-split!

 

If you believe a tastefully done push on homosexuality to kids is OK, I can see we'll not be seeing eye to eye then. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Tinfoil Hat

[Messenger]

Ugh, I despise Disney now and Hollywood. Black witches, dark witches. That's what "holly" wood is, it is the wood that witches use to make their wands. I figure some of you are aware of this.

 

And Hollywood targeting kids with pedo stuff has been going on for a very long time here in the states. They start off slow and just keep getting worse and worse.

 

Someone made a documentary on this years ago about all the subliminal shapes and words in the cartoons. Aladin, The Lion King, Alice in Wonderland, etc. It may still be on youtube.

I recommend people stay away from Soy too. It has female plant estrogens in it which is what is destroying the thyroid gland and I believe feminizing men and giving women breast cancer.

[QuodHumana]

6 hours ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

 

...Masquerading as 'love'.

 

Yes. Sex has replaced love.

[chocomel]

41 minutes ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

Woah - Jesus on the cross being described as S& M sounds like some very confused reasoning indeed to me.

 

The film won't sit next to anything of Alex Jones though will it! It will be paraded in front of kids - that's the point.

 

I doubt I'll be relocating to Iran.

 

Again, no, I doubt you'll persuade anyone that a platonic life-style is the answer either. In fact that's a sure fire way to end the human race lickety-split!

 

If you believe a tastefully done push on homosexuality to kids is OK, I can see we'll not be seeing eye to eye then. 

 

We all see it based from our world so if BDSM is something a person practise then obviously they'd see everything and anything in that context.

That's another community which is fcuked up....so many mentally ill people. Since this world is upside down, anything flawed and possibly dangers to other people are looked as a good thing. I'm sure if I said this in BDSM community forum, they'd come up and say, it's consential even sticking needles in the skin and they 'play' responsibly yada yada yada.

 

[alexa]

God said it is an abomination on to him! It's no wonder all these Satanic Elite & Celebrities push for the LBGT  & they've even stolen the rainbow offa God. 

[TrueSon]

3 hours ago, chocomel said:

it's consential even sticking needles in the skin

Playing acupuncture? By the way, I get no sexual satisfaction from acupuncture. I may get some from spanking a sexy woman's ass.

What's disgusting to me is severe physical torture masquerading as SM.

Edited May 24, 2020 by TrueSon

[labrats]

14 hours ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

I have no hatred for gay people - I've said this before. When it's consenting adults, each to their own is my motto. I know some, personally, who I like and respect. To those people, it seems arrogant of me, and demeaning to them, to even voice my approval, because if they're not trying to slip me a length, their sex life is none of my business.

 

What I do object to in the strongest terms, is the drive to thrust it at kids (pun intended) who imo, shouldn't even be contemplating such issues.  Childhood innocence is precious, but it's being robbed from them all the time now, and it's time for a backlash.

 

I'm getting blocked - will try the link in the next post.

 

"The latest heartwarming tale from Pixar"

 

They'll be trying to normalise paedophilia next.

It's quite simple - dont show them the movie, keep an eye (try anyway) on what they are watching if you dont agree, I mean lets face it - you can get any obscene images at your fingertips and so can kids, that should be blocked at an ISP level - why dont they introduce opt-in with credit card verification.

[labrats]

Just now, TrueSon said:

They will want to block David Icke website, too.

And what message did that send out? Trying to silence a "conspiracy" theorist, and I dont agree with that term anyway, he's an alternative theorist.

[Messenger]

12 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

Some are trying to rebrand themselves as MAPs (minor attracted person). It's messed up big time.

What!? I have not heard that one yet. :/ *facepalm*

Chocomel, not only the pedo agenda but also the depop agenda since those kids probably won't have a normal family life with a wife and kids of their own.

[Messenger]

Here is one video that was published on that channel in 2015, but may have come out before that.

Lion King, when was that released? Aladin? In the 90's I think. They started off with sexualization and then moved into multiracial, then into gender confusion, next up will be pedophilia, if they haven't began already. Mickey mouse club, a lot of those kids were abused and had mk ultra used on them. You can see the documentary called, An Open Secret, which covers some of this about Hollywood.
 

 

[Tinfoil Hat]

Reply to Trueson (tried quoting, but was blocked, so have re-formatted)

 

'There is also 2D or 3D pedophile porn which doesn't involve real children'.

So if they are using materials for sexual  stimulation,  connected with kids that theoretically stops them from actually harming real children, it's to their credit that they attempt to contain their urges. That said, they are a time bomb, imo. They are still fantasising about sex with children. How do you know they're not going online to watch real children being brutalised and raped for kicks?  Is fantasising a crime? Yeah, if they're picturing themselves doing anything to my kids, I'm not happy about it. It reminds me of 'Twilight' where the family of vampires choose not to attack humans. I'd not feel comfortable with them living next door, and would want their teeth extracted -  and the paedo's chemically castrated to neutralise the threat.

 

"We can divide pedophiles into luciferians, rapists, and virtuous pedophiles as we can divide heterosexual men into rapists, luciferians, and normal men".

There's no such thing as a 'virtuous paedophile' in my book - just a threat & a ticking time bomb. You can divide up as many categories as your imagination fancies. We're talking about children being abused and regardless of the perpetrator's motivations, I want it stopped, as opposed to normalised or encouraged. And a rapist who isn't a Luciferian does not  equate to a 'normal man' at all in my book.

 

"Perhaps, I should be despised for seeing (heterosexual) porn, too.I don't think watching porn is a crime."

Well you've answered your own question then. You may have noticed in the OP I mentioned that so far as I'm concerned, what goes on between consenting adults is of no interest to me. 

 

'I think incriminating pedophilia is a slippery slope that can easily lead to incriminating heterosexuality.'

I think that incriminating paedophilia is the only correct stance from the viewpoint of any moral person who wishes to protect the most vulnerable and precious souls. I think your assertion is nonsensical, and you seem to be striving really hard to protect  the interests of monsters. I think defending paedophilia is the slippery slope to this vilest activity becoming the accepted norm.

 

'We've seen women who cry rape after regrettable sex and women who think watching porn constitutes "mental" cheating and women who cry that heterosexual porn inherently produces victims. Those (probably lesbian) women view men as we view pedophiles. The common theme is that sexuality is incriminated even though there is no real victim involved. It's like the movie, minority report. People incarcerate others before they do anything to anyone.'

None of those scenarios have any relevance at all to the issue being discussed. What I'm seeing is you, again, throwing straw man arguments at it in an effort to condone paedophilia. My  gut response to which would get me banned from the forum, if I chose to type it here.

 

'Once you start seeing pedophilia as a sexual orientation, you see attack on sexuality and exploitation of sexuality to drive certain agendas.

Erm - yep. The agenda is, protect children from dangerous deviants.

 

Disorganized pedophile masturbators are no threat'

Not interested in wankers.

 

Do you know that luciferians kidnap kids, rape them, and kill them to obtain adrenochrome on jeffrey epstein's lolita island and various other places?

On jeffrey epstein's island, hundreds of kids were killed each year. There are other such operations.

You should worry about them, not some poor masturbators. Conflating masturbators with murderous rapists is a big mistake.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Lucifarians. Why you appear to think they are some separate category of rapist that were negligently excluded from previous mention of paedophiles is a bit of a mystery to me. They weren't. And nobody's set out to persecute sad wankers that I've noticed.

 

If you can do it for pedophiles, you can do it for heterosexual men, too.

Not really, because a declaration against paedophiles, is a declaration against paedophiles - not heterosexual men - by definition. Do you see the logic there?

 

 

 

[Tinfoil Hat]

10 hours ago, labrats said:

That's actually a very good point...It's the same slippery slope were in now, they want to censor, they will, nothing anyone can do.

 

Is it really though? Is that the non-verbal deal? Stop trying to censor DI & the like, and we won't object to you brainwashing our kids your sexual agenda?  

 

 

 

Not in my world.

 

 

 

[TrueSon]

1 hour ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

So if they are using materials for sexual  stimulation,  connected with kids that theoretically stops them from actually harming real children, it's to their credit that they attempt to contain their urges. That said, they are a time bomb, imo.

You can apply the same exact logic to heterosexual men. That's what anti-porn feminists have been doing in various places including this forum.

 

They are using gays and transgender people to push their depopulation agendas. But, most gays aren't going to rape men. Most heterosexual men feared gay rapes a few decades ago. A gay watching gay porn doesn't automatically rape a heterosexual man. A heterosexual man watching heterosexual porn doesn't automatically rape women. Pedophiles watching 2D or 3D pedophile porn don't automatically rape children.

 

Your assumption is that a specific sexual orientation makes a person more likely to rape others.

 

Pedophiles aren't rapists just because luciferians are pedophile rapists. I think that's a prejudice.

 

Your sexuality is either genetic or fixed at an early age. I wouldn't conflate wankers with rapists. Pedophiles don't need to feel guilty just because they can't change their sexual orientation. At this age, I haven't seen an adult who doesn't masturbate.

 

If pedophiles are potential rapists, everyone is a potential rapist including you and me. That's like trying to make humans feel bad for being human. Let's be honest. Who is not a potential rapist? Should I be put in jail for wanking at home just because wanking to porn makes me more likely to rape women? What makes you think porn makes pedophiles more likely to rape while it doesn't make other kinds of people more likely to rape?

 

We need to draw a line. Wanking is not a crime. Don't incriminate people even before they do anything wrong. If we accept your arguments, we have to put every pedophile in prison just for being a pedophile wanker.

Edited May 25, 2020 by TrueSon

[TrueSon]

1 hour ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

Is it really though? Is that the non-verbal deal? Stop trying to censor DI & the like, and we won't object to you brainwashing our kids your sexual agenda?

We need to aim for a free market of information where every information freely flows. That means illuminati agendas have to be available on the market, too.

Brainwashing is another story. No one is trying to branwash people with David Icke's theories in public schools.

 

People should be able to come to their own conclusions after consuming various kinds of information in a free market of information.

They should be free to believe illuminati agendas, David Icke, or anything.

Edited May 25, 2020 by TrueSon

[Tinfoil Hat]

I can't speak for what others have said elsewhere on the forum about heterosexual men watching porn, because I've not seen those comments, and to me it makes no sense to assume that a hetero watching porn would indicate a likelihood to attack women. I suppose it would depend on the nature of the material, and I'm not a purveyor of pornography, so I don't really know, though plenty of women do watch porn too - as do couples. If consenting adults want to use that for enhancing their sex life, for titillation, I've no objection.

 

It's a different situation I believe, where you're saying that there are paedo's who watch customised porn, instead of inflicting themselves on kids (and I emphasise that we're talking about stuff that contains no actual harm to real kids). Here, we're saying that this constitutes the entirety of their sex lives, without them ever progressing to the real thing. I acknowledge that there may possibly be some that it works for, but for one thing, I struggle to believe it, and also, anyone who is not kiddy fiddling (or viewing images of such) is not what I would consider to actually be a predator.  I wouldn't trust anyone with those urges to keep them under wraps for their entire lives - that may be doing a disservice to some, but my distrust of it is a fact. And they should be ashamed of it - because otherwise, there would be no incentive for them to remain unpredatory. 

 

I do agree that gaynesss & transgenderism are being used to push the depopulation agenda, and also to weaken society generally by destabilizing the traditional family unit

 

And yes, I will certainly emphasise that a specific sexual orientation - namely paedophilia, does, in fact, make a person more likely to rape others - namely children!

 

That you think only Luciferian paedophiles rape kids, whereas good old common or garden paedophiles don't, frankly bewilders me. Every sleaze who preys on kids is not a Luciferian.

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting on bringing up wankers, when I've said repeatedly that I'm not bothered about them, so you're arguing with yourself.

 

I can't speak for you, but I'm not a paedophile, so I'm not a potential rapist of children, and you're talking tripe again.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Tinfoil Hat

[Tinfoil Hat]

1 hour ago, TrueSon said:

We need to aim for a free market of information where every information freely flows. That means illuminati agendas have to be available on the market, too.

Brainwashing is another story. No one is trying to branwash people with David Icke's theories in public schools.

 

People should be able to come to their own conclusions after consuming various kinds of information in a free market of information.

They should be free to believe illuminati agendas, David Icke, or anything.

 

I for one say that we do not want a free flow of gender-bending to children. The feeding to them of these concepts being normal, in jolly cartoon form, is brainwashing. 

[TrueSon]

On 5/25/2020 at 2:36 PM, Tinfoil Hat said:

I for one say that we do not want a free flow of gender-bending to children. The feeding to them of these concepts being normal, in jolly cartoon form, is brainwashing. 

The brainwashing occurs in the larger campaign. The movie is merely a small piece of the larger campaign. Nothing wrong with the movie itself, but the ways it is used in the larger campaign are evil.

 

On 5/25/2020 at 2:23 PM, Tinfoil Hat said:

And yes, I will certainly emphasise that a specific sexual orientation - namely paedophilia, does, in fact, make a person more likely to rape others - namely children!

 

That you think only Luciferian paedophiles rape kids, whereas good old common or garden paedophiles don't, frankly bewilders me. Every sleaze who preys on kids is not a Luciferian.

 

[labrats]

Said it before and I'll say it again, control the information and you control the perception, there is little free flow of unbiased information in the main stream.

[Tinfoil Hat]

7 minutes ago, labrats said:

Said it before and I'll say it again, control the information and you control the perception, there is little free flow of unbiased information in the main stream.

 

The point as it pertains to the subject of this thread, is do you believed there should be uncontrolled pushing of any sexual agenda to our children?

[Tinfoil Hat]

On 5/25/2020 at 2:46 PM, TrueSon said:

The brainwashing occurs in the larger campaign. The movie is merely a small piece of the larger campaign. Nothing wrong with the movie itself, but the ways it is used in the larger campaign are evil.

 

 

 

If the movie is part of the larger, evil campaign, then in and of itself, that makes the movie evil.

 

Whether paedo's who are not Luciferian's are more likely to rape children than men are likely to rape women is not the point of this thread at all, and is just an irrelevant distraction. If you wish to debate the likelihood o men raping women, please go and start a thread about it, because when your repeated non sequitur approach here is getting tiresome.

 

According to the NSPCC, there were 73,260 cases of child sex abuse in the year to March 19 in the UK It does not specify the proportion of those that were perpetrated specifically Luciferians. They were all perpetrated by paedophiles. I sincerely doubt they were all Luciferians. Paedophiles generally (not limited to Luciferians) knowingly maintain rape culture. They do not need to be in an organised group, they can be a loan predator. No distinction needs to be made, to my mind - simply stamp out all paedo's. 

 

Nobody, , has advocated imprisoning anyone who hasn't committed a crime. I'm unsure at this point whether your straw man arguments are just your natural attempts at expressing your views, or a deliberate attempt at derailing the thread. 

[greatdayforfreedom]

Paedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation, never was, never will be. The elite want you to believe it is that so they can normalise paedophilia. Paedophiles can then demand  rights and protection from laws as it is their sexual orientation. The elite don't care about LGBT people, they only use them to further their agenda.