Jacob S. Blaustein / ryu238 / ryu289 / 87Blue - Brony, furry, gets banned everywhere, defends pedophiles, transexuals, and pedophile transexuals, to his last breath and needs others to do the arguing for him

[GenociderSyo]

 

[Doppio Vinegar]

View attachment 2594366

Homosexuality isn't a crime. Pedophilia is a crime. @ryu289, you yourself have engaged in one of the fallacies you're so obsessed with (and one you called out Coffey on like a complete retard)- a strawman fallacy. You're misrepresenting their argument by making it easier to attack. This would have stood if we were still in the ages where homosexuals were stoned to death in the streets, or if we all lived in some middle eastern shithole. Yet, we don't. You are comparing apples and oranges. A much better argument would have been:

"Replace 'pedophile' with 'rapist' we can see how absurd your logic is."

Pedophiles act upon those who cannot consent, making them the exact same as (if not worse than) rapists. Notice how your argument therein holds zero water still, considering the fact that both of them are disgusting criminals. This is because you are a dumb retard who fucks little girls and hides behind gay people. You are not a "MAP ally," nor are you a gay ally given you called me a faggot in a derogatory fashion earlier, so don't use gays to support your arguments.

Also, since pedophilia is a crime, if you are a "MAP ally," then you are a criminal accomplice and can go to prison.

(Also, yes. Pedophilia applies to non-offenders as well. You can be a pedophile without sexually assaulting children. The idea that you can't is just fucking stupid, especially when pedophilia is literally a mental disorder that can be diagnosed and can get people referred to therapy.)

Edit:

Hi, Jacob! Taking a break from your loli porn marathon, are you?

 

[ryu289]

Why do you want them to be 9 years old instead of an adult?

I really didn't care about the ages. Like I said there was a werewolf tg.
Sexual attraction is described as looking at or thinking of someone and to thing " I wanna f*ck with that". Sexual arousal is more like the biological reponse of your body to certain acts. You can be not sexually attracted to something but your body still can react in some ways as sexual arousal. You do not need to have a sexual attraction in order to feel arousal. In this case my arousal isn't due to an attraction to children.

Why are you keeping tabs on how the FBI profiles kiddie diddlers? And why do you appear to check every box in their descriptors for different types?

How do I check those boxes again?

you haven't prove me wrong, you did entirely the opposite, you don't know what really naturalization in Japan means.

I gave a link to the process, so how am I wrong?

Yes. Cartoons do count. People have gone to jail over drawn CP/Loli.

Really? So no real children were involved? So is what's right determined by the law or is the law determined by what's right?

Please explain how drawings hurt irl children? That is some interesting magical thinking you got there.

Your article is 17 years old. I think your missing something more basic and I'm not sure how to make your understand it. As psychologists we don't use this anymore because its understood now that molesters do have preferences.

Amazing how you give no research to back this up.

Prove it

Here

Pedophilia is, by Britannica and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders definition, "a psychosexual disorder, generally affecting adults, characterized by sexual interest in prepubescent children or attempts to engage in sexual acts with prepubescent children," which applies directly to child sex offenders. Whether you get off to the thought of children or have gotten off on a child, you are a pedophile.

You only quote Brittania here fyi. Likewise it says:

a psychosexual disorder, generally affecting adults, characterized by sexual interest in prepubescent children or attempts to engage in sexual acts with prepubescent children. The term was used with that meaning in the psychiatric diagnostic literature prior to the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013; DSM-5), which replaced pedophilia with pedophilic disorder.

Sounds like you are ignoring context again Doppio...
The DSM-5 defines it as:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

re: p.697
However similarly to the distinction between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder, the DSM-5 recognizes a difference between pedophilic sexual interest/pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Specifically, it asserts that if individuals:

“report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about [their] impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder”

re: p.698

In short it is labeled as a DISORDER if they act on it, otherwise they are defined as simply having an interest.
However even this definition has it's flaws.

First “acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. Thus current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. This is even more complicated as it doesn't distinguish between art/fictional stories, or real life child porn.

That can (and clearly has) caused confusion, suggesting that the current definition of Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

Can you explain then what is gotten out of it? The other people in those threads seem to get sexually aroused from it. So people make an assumption of course that if you are in that crowd you do as well.

Again the arousal is from the transformation aspect. People like to mastrubate. It seems you are conflating sexual attraction to sexual arousal.

Thanks for clarification that you're a pedophile that into bestiality as well. How lovely of you

The transformation is the fetish, not animals or children. Is it that hard for you?

>I’m not a pedophile
*proceeds to make novel sized posts defending in intricate detail the types of sexual offenders and how they fuck kids*
>stop misquoting me
*proceeds to post obscure child

So me pointing out I am not doing anything remotely related to what child molesters are doing, I am one?

Why are you attracted to them?

I am not.

"as well"

You can't even keep your admissions out of your writing. No one cares about your other reasons.

Look again:
View attachment 2590945

Also, this source says that homosexuals wear pink a lot because of the pink triangle, so there was no way that he didn't think my profile picture was a gay man. This was a targeted attack!

Funny, it doesn't say that.

And since that word he used was so illegally violent against me, the FBI says that it's a hate crime.

No it doesn't.

You know we already know you never read your sources and project this onto others.

(and I have a source showing that girls wear pink! It's not a boy color, so the only men that wear it are homosexuals!

It says that isnt true though.

I did a lot of reading on the history of these two colors, and it turns out there’s a lot of history behind them. It all started in the 19th century when pastel colors started becoming popularized for babies. The two colors were first chosen because of how they complimented hair and eye colors. Blue was meant to go with blue eyes and/or blonde hair, and pink for brown eyes and/or brown hair. Then, blue was actually the color that was assigned to girls, because it was seen as a dainty color, and pink was seen as a stronger color, so it was assigned to boys.

Okay, that actually sort of makes sense. But how then did pink become a color for girls and blue for boys? In my further reading, I found that girls were reassigned with pink because it was close to red, a romantic color, and women were seen as more emotional. But by the 1960’s during the women’s liberation movement, women challenged this social norm and threw gendered colors out the window. However, this did not last long once prenatal testing came out, which led to parents pre-planning for their babies and retailers realizing that they could capitalize on selling specific content tailored for each gender. So we’re back to square one.

You know Doppio, I know you are trying to mock me, but that just means you aren't attacking my arguments
Doppio, your mocking is pathetic because you miss the mark so much.

I could not give less of a shit if this child isn't real: you are jerking off to a small, youthful body that can't even be excused as a young woman. No breast development, a clear baby face, fashion typically associated with toddlers/young children, never above 5 feet tall. You are jerking off to children's bodies.

And you think that is what I am attracted to?
You are getting your paraphilias mixed up.
A transformation fetish is more of a paraphilia like formicophilia. As in not about attraction to a person but an event.

yo @ryu289 you wanna explain the first part of this comment in it's original context?

I should've only just mentioned the child molestations part yes.

Much darker he likes it when they are underage and a part of fetish transformation images.

And off course you only have the ONE pic. And ignore how it is fictional. Why do you lie about me?

Even if you squeeze a definition out of him, he'll go,"actchually, it's not pedophilla because I didn't use a camera!"

No it's because a) those girls were fictional, and b)transformation fetishes aren't about having sex, but getting aroused by the transformation.

No, no, fuck off. Say what you want about the gays. They're degenerates, or valid, whatever. At the end of the day, it is two consenting of age parties doing so of their own volition.

A child doesnt even know what it wants for breakfast, let alone what else it wants in its body. It's more concerned with just goofing around and pulling pranks then anything else.

Why do you think I believe otherwise? You seem to think that having thoughts is the same as committing the action. Likewise a pedophilic interest doesn't mean someone thinks children can consent. I had pointed out that the DSM makes a difference between pedophilic interest and pedophilic disorder. I don't want people treated as thought criminals.

Homosexuality isn't a crime. Pedophilia is a crime

Your link says:

While pedophilia itself does not give rise to criminal liability, acting on it does.

I get the feeling you are using the fallacy of ambiguity here. Tell me, are you persecution others for their actions or THOUGHTS! Really that's quite Orwellian of you.

Pedophiles act upon those who cannot consent, making them the exact same as (if not worse than) rapists

And then you go on to mention non-offenders....so Pedophiles act on those who can't consent...unless they don't but are still criminals because of their thoughts...is that right?

Also, yes. Pedophilia applies to non-offenders as well. You can be a pedophile without sexually assaulting children. The idea that you can't is just fucking stupid, especially when pedophilia is literally a mental disorder that can be diagnosed and can get people referred to therapy

Your first link again states:

For the condition to be diagnosed, an individual must either act on their sexual urges or experience significant distress or interpersonal difficulty as a result of their urges or fantasies.

And again they poorly define what "act on" means in this context.
The term pedophile is commonly used by the public to describe all child sexual abuse offenders.[8][12] This usage is considered problematic by researchers, because many child molesters do not have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles.[11][12][25] There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia,[81] such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner,[102] general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.[103] As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders can be separated into two types: pedophilic and non-pedophilic[104]

You are not a "MAP ally," nor are you a gay ally given you called me a faggot in a derogatory fashion earlier, so don't use gays to support your arguments.

And you give no evidence I said that to you. Everyone here call gays derogatory terms anyways, so why not take a dose of your own medicine.

 

[Sprate Header]

@ryu289 could make a great Tragic Poet archetype: he writes so much from sheer passion, but not one person ever reads it!

And really, Jacob? A wall of boring text riveting prose that huge, and not even one quote from me? I'm hurt

 

[Cubanodun]

In my book only someone that gets that passionate defending pedophilia must be a pedophile

 

[A Gay Retard]

In short it is labeled as a DISORDER if they act on it, otherwise they are defined as simply having an interest.

There's no denying you have an interest.

 

[Sprate Header]

There's no denying you have an interest.

I wasn't lying when I said I didn't read his post, he actually fucking said that???

 

[GenociderSyo]

Archive:

Jacob S. Blaustein / ryu238 / ryu289 | Page 35 | Kiwi Farms

archived 4 Oct 2021 05:58:05 UTC

archive.md

 

[IKOL]

Don't you fucking dare to think nobody have seen the original post. You HAD a choice you pedophilic shmuck. You had to:
1. Not doing that commission at all
2. Ask for age raise.

But no, you, sick fuck, decided to ask age degress a 9 years old fictional characted to even younger state of her.
Give me the e-mail adress of your parents, I shall notify them that their beloved manchild is a groomer and kiddie diddler. Pretty sure they'll be proud of ya.

 

[A Gay Retard]

In my book only someone that gets that passionate defending pedophilia must be a pedophile

There's some small comfort in knowing that for every minute he spent on that autistic, unreadable screed, there was a brief span of time he wasn't searching out and sharing child pornography.

 

[Doppio Vinegar]

Holy fucking shit, he took me seriously when I was complaining about him committing a hate crime against me and took time out of his day to disprove the links I spent 2 seconds finding. This isn't just documenting some retard, it's an interactive experience! The gift that keeps on giving!

And you give no evidence I said that to you. Everyone here call gays derogatory terms anyways, so why not take a dose of your own medicine.

Eyewitness testimonies and an edited timestamp are evidence enough. I'm devastated that you'd be so harsh. Why can't you be better than us nasty, transphobic Kiwi Farmers? Why must you stoop down to our level, Jacob? My heart is aching.

I get the feeling you are using the fallacy of ambiguity here. Tell me, are you persecution others for their actions or THOUGHTS! Really that's quite Orwellian of you.

"Not letting me jerk off to the thought of naked children is literally 1984." -Jacob S. Blaustein, 10/4/2021

And then you go on to mention non-offenders....so Pedophiles act on those who can't consent...unless they don't but are still criminals because of their thoughts...is that right?

Why the fuck does it matter? Sex offender or not, someone who is attracted to children needs to either be given extensive therapy in a mental asylum or be thrown in prison. The idea that you think society will suffer from not having pedophiles in it is depressing and speaks numbers about you.

And again they poorly define what "act on" means in this context.
The term pedophile is commonly used by the public to describe all child sexual abuse offenders.[8][12] This usage is considered problematic by researchers, because many child molesters do not have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles.[11][12][25] There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia,[81] such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner,[102] general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use.[103] As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders can be separated into two types: pedophilic and non-pedophilic[104]

You keep mentioning this, yet I keep giving you legal definition after legal definition that child sex abuse means pedophilia regardless of attraction. You keep giving me the same source over and over with different coats of polish. I don't give a shit about whether or not a sex offender was attracted to the kid they raped. They still raped a child, yet you are fighting an uphill battle insisting that child rapists are not pedophiles. I cannot believe that there is genuinely a person like you breathing the same air as me.

In my book only someone that gets that passionate defending pedophilia must be a pedophile

There are zero sane people who type gargantuan essays defending pedophilia if they don't have skeletons in their closet.

Ooh, skeletons. October's upon us! Shame for Jacob, given no children are allowed within 100 feet of his house.

 

[Spoonomancer]

"I didn't have a choice in the matter"
could have just, you know, not claim the commission, you know? It's not that hard.

ALSO YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT ACT ON MEANS YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT "NO-CONTACT" MEANS YOU ABSOLUTE DOUBLE-NIGGER

In fact, between here and Reddit you are the the biggest defender of pedophilia I've seen on the internet. Literally stays up 24/7 to defend pedophilia when you claim to not be a pedophile on Reddit is the cringiest shit you can ever do @ryu289

 

[GenociderSyo]

I wasn't lying when I said I didn't read his post, he actually fucking said that???

He also admited to masterbating to the photo.

 

[FreakyFredsTrannyGranny]

Ryu is forgetting a cardinal rule of the internet, especially when he links to cultish-looking migraine-inducing Angelfire websites from 1993:

Don't believe everything that you read on the internet.

I guess the rule doesn't even apply here since he doesn't read the things he links to.

 

[ryu289]

There's no denying you have an interest.

In my book only someone that gets that passionate defending pedophilia must be a pedophile

Or you know pointing out you don't even know what you are talking about...

But no, you, sick fuck, decided to ask age degress a 9 years old fictional characted to even younger state of her.

Uh no, it was an adult turing into a 9-year old fictional character. I am beginning to think you never even paid attention to what was going on here. Likewise you are conflating arousal with attraction. Sexual attraction is described as looking at or thinking of someone and to thing " I wanna f*ck with that". Sexual arousal is more like the biological reponse of your body to certain acts. You can be not sexually attracted to something but your body still can react in some ways as sexual arousal. You do not need to have a sexual attraction in order to feel arousal.

In short I find the act of transformation arousing, but don't have an attraction to children.

You keep mentioning this, yet I keep giving you legal definition after legal definition that child sex abuse means pedophilia regardless of attraction

Ah yes because legal definitions never change all the time are are 100% objectivly true. Tell me Doppio, do you only use those definitions because they are objective, or that they support your argument.
Also remember that even the DSM V doesn't quite support your argument either.

Why the fuck does it matter?

Because you contradict yourself on definining terms.

Sex offender or not, someone who is attracted to children needs to either be given extensive therapy in a mental asylum or be thrown in prison.

So you would jail people for their thoughts and not if they offended at all? Again you are very authoritarian here.

Eyewitness testimonies and an edited timestamp are evidence enough.

Which you don't give.

I wasn't lying when I said I didn't read his post, he actually fucking said that???

No.

 

[GenociderSyo]

View attachment 2594642

Don't you fucking dare to think nobody have seen the original post. You HAD a choice you pedophilic shmuck. You had to:
1. Not doing that commission at all
2. Ask for age raise.

But no, you, sick fuck, decided to ask age degress a 9 years old fictional characted to even younger state of her.
Give me the e-mail adress of your parents, I shall notify them that their beloved manchild is a groomer and kiddie diddler. Pretty sure they'll be proud of ya.

He has since edited his reply:

@ryu289 Why do you want them to age regress then? If you get off on transformation why do you want under age people in it? You have commented on a bunch of 14 year old ones as well. Biological arousal is also what is used as part of testing therapy for those who are pedophiles since its not NORMAL to be aroused by that shit.

You make the same arguments that these people do:
https://watchdocumentaries.com/a-place-for-paedophiles/

 

[ryu289]

Why do you want them to age regress then? If you get off on transformation why do you want under age people in it? You have commented on a bunch of 14 year old ones as well.

Didn't I already explain several times. Do any of you understand? I found other parts of the transformation arousing, not the age regression in of itself. I get the feeling you are comitting the spotlight fallacy here, that because something has one fetish, that must mean I must be there for that as well as the rest...

 

[Doppio Vinegar]

Which you don't give.

This is a link to What the shit's post, where you can scroll down and see more eyewitness testimonies to people noting that you did indeed say faggot. The post What the shit made was at the 16 minute mark in the hour, your main post's edit was at the 24 minute mark in the hour. Suspicious indeed, Mr. Blaustein...

Ah yes because legal definitions never change all the time are are 100% objectivly true. Tell me Doppio, do you only use those definitions because they are objective, or that they support your argument.

I use the most up-to-date legal definitions available because they determine whether or not people like you rot in prison. Cope and seethe all you'd like, the law is above every single definition from every single Wordpress website you scour through. Then again, I don't expect pedophiles like you to enjoy legality very much.

So you would jail people for their thoughts and not if they offended at all? Again you are very authoritarian here.

You need to take a break from your computer for a while and really reflect on what you're saying. You are literally defending pedophiles. If you aren't one yourself, why do you care so much about whether or not they're imprisoned? Do you have a friend who is a pedophile or something? Do you know any genuinely productive members of society who are non-offending pedophiles, and do they outweigh the number of fat neckbeards living off welfare jerking it to loli porn? I sure don't.

Didn't I already explain several times. Do any of you understand? I found other parts of the transformation arousing, not the age regression in of itself. I get the feeling you are comitting the spotlight fallacy here, that because something has one fetish, that must mean I must be there for that as well as the rest...

Jerk off to and commission adult transformation porn, then. There's a lot of it out there. Or... answer me this: Why do you not jerk off to adult transformation porn?

 

[Newman's Own]

@ryu289 - "How do I check those boxes again?"

Like a completely oblivious retard. You check all the boxes in such obvious fashion that any neurotypical human being could see it from space near sighted. No one believes you because it's plain to see that you have no idea how to lie convincingly and the only one who can't see that is you.

I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so despicable.

"Sexual attraction is described as looking at or thinking of someone and to thing " I wanna f*ck with that". Sexual arousal is more like the biological reponse of your body to certain acts. You can be not sexually attracted to something but your body still can react in some ways as sexual arousal. You do not need to have a sexual attraction in order to feel arousal. In this case my arousal isn't due to an attraction to children."

This is what I mean. You just admitted to having a physical response to children. This is not a thing for people who aren't pedos you sick sack of shit.

Holy fucking shit, he took me seriously when I was complaining about him committing a hate crime against me and took time out of his day to disprove the links I spent 2 seconds finding. This isn't just documenting some retard, it's an interactive experience! The gift that keeps on giving!

He's to autistic to recognize sarcasm or any kind of nuanced writing. Don't hold it against him.

Hold it against him that he's a sick MAP fuck.

 

[A Gay Retard]

Or you know pointing out you don't even know what you are talking about...

Even if I were speaking from ignorance, it wouldn't preclude you from being a pedophile, furry brony autistic pedophile that you are.