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

Doppio Vinegar said:
For someone who "isn't attracted to children," it's suspicious how he spends nearly all 24 hours of each day either defending pedos, researching about other pedos, or looking into trans/drag children (or children in general).
Click to expand...
"I-I'm not a pedophile for defending pedos and looking into articles about children, check your resources, baka!!"
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Marvin, Cilleystring, Syntaxion and 2 others
1633721481344.png
1633721408707.png
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Marvin, Doppio Vinegar and 3 others
The way he tries to twist logic around to support his own desires and viewpoints makes me wonder if he uses similar tactics in chat rooms kids frequent or with the local kids. Showing them links and telling them "its not bad to explore your sexuality" and "age is just an abstract number" and whatever other things pedos say to kids to get them to drop their guard.

With how much interaction he has online in forums etc there's no way he hasn't infiltrated some kiddie fandoms. Absolutely no fucking way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Autistic Joe, Marvin and 4 others
Doppio Vinegar said:
For someone who "isn't attracted to children," it's suspicious how he spends nearly all 24 hours of each day either defending pedos, researching about other pedos, or looking into trans/drag children (or children in general).
Click to expand...
This is exactly it, and I don't think he understands why that makes him look so bad. Like I said upthread about him not understanding metatext, he doesn't understand that we can draw conclusions from his patterns of behaviour. He seriously seems to believe that the only things we can draw conclusions about are his words, and if he can "win" every argument he engages in then we have to admit he is not a paedophile. His argument style is pure sophistry, he focuses on irrelevant details, circular arguments, splitting hairs and an obsession about precise definitions of words rather than the real-world concepts they represent. I don't even know how autistic and Reddit-poisoned you have to be to believe:

1 - "Paedophiles are bad people"
2 - "I am not a bad person"
3 - "Therefore if I successfully re-litigate a weird, narrow definition of "paedophile" that does not include my own personal proclivities, I am not a bad person."

Jacob, the issue is not whether what you believe/do meets an arbitrary definition of a certain word. The issue is whether you are a danger to children, and whether you encourage other people to be dangers to children. The answer to both is "yes" and the evidence is overwhelming. That evidence has come from in part from your own words, and the things you have openly admitted to doing (paying people to draw underage children turning into titty ladies for your ... entertainment?).

But this evidence has also come from a meta-analysis of your behaviour, on this website and on many others. You consistently defend people who have a sexual interest in children. You go out of your way to do so and you do it all over the internet, and you have done so for years. You are persistent to the point of obsessive about this. You cannot, ever, let it rest, and argue the same circular points until the other person gives up out of boredom or you get banned. We can, and we do, draw meaningful conclusions from this. In fact those conclusions are much better supported by evidence than what we have from your own words and argument. Your useless debate style aside, we cannot trust anything you say. Again, this is because we have caught you lying (the whole "I used to believe this 6 years ago" thing when you have expressed exactly the same ideas pretty much non-stop ever since) so anything you say about your beliefs, motivations and actions is subject to doubt. You could claim or argue anything, doesn't make it true. But your patterns of behaviour are verifiable, empirical evidence. Thanks to your helpful habit of using the same username all over the internet, we have a massive amount of verifiable data to draw conclusions on. Real data, not links to articles we don't read or understand.

In fact, speaking of metadata, it has become very apparent that you don't use your barrages of links to back up your point, you use them in an embarrassing attempt to throw roadblocks in front of your opponent. I have seen multiple occasions where you have claimed that unless your opponent refutes every point made in the articles you link, they can't "win". (Links which you almost never summarise in your posts, largely because you don't understand them - again there is clear evidence for this because you have often linked articles that are making the exact opposite point to that which you've claimed). If you can't win a debate, you try to alter the rules of the debate to be stacked impossibly against your opponent, hoping that they will give up and you can claim "victory". That might win the autistic game in your head, but it doesn't prove any of the points you were trying to make. In fact (again, reading the metatext of your words and behaviour) it makes you look very guilty - only an inferior sportsman seeks to alter the rules of the game to favour himself.

Oh, and if you're going to argue against this post in your next wall of text that nobody will read or take seriously (except as further metatextual evidence that you feel very guilty and insecure about your sexual preferences), you must respond to EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE of this post and not cherry-pick individual words and phrases. Any links you use must include a full summary of the points they have made IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and at least a 20-word sentence describing the author of whatever you linked and whether it is a primary or secondary source. Plagarism will be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Failing to respond to every single point I made will be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Failing to respond at all will be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Taking any of our points back to Reddit (or anywhere else) will be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

I can set the rules too, pedo fucker.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Gremperor, SentinentCloud, lurking for the deets and 23 others
NerdShamer said:
Well, for starters, there's minors on Reddit.
Click to expand...
one fortunate thing is that, as far as we can tell, Ryu is too busy defending pedophilia on Reddit to actually contact minors on Reddit.

Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Discord, do I still have nightmares about all of the notifications he has on Discord.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkling Yuzu, Hongourable Madisha, DiggieSmalls and 3 others
@Spunt - " he doesn't understand that we can draw conclusions from his patterns of behaviour. He seriously seems to believe that the only things we can draw conclusions about are his words, and if he can "win" every argument he engages in then we have to admit he is not a paedophile. His argument style is pure sophistry, he focuses on irrelevant details, circular arguments, splitting hairs and an obsession about precise definitions of words rather than the real-world concepts they represent. I don't even know how autistic and Reddit-poisoned you have to be to believe:

1 - "Paedophiles are bad people"
2 - "I am not a bad person"
3 - "Therefore if I successfully re-litigate a weird, narrow definition of "paedophile" that does not include my own personal proclivities, I am not a bad person. "

nailed-it-hammer.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: kittyfucker, Prehistoric Jazz, Particle Bored and 4 others
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Autistic Joe, Red Lobster and 2 others
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Lain of the Wired, Professional Lurker, Cilleystring and 2 others
  • Feels
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Autistic Joe, Professional Lurker and 4 others
Syntaxion said:
On his reddit post, linking to the farms' SRS thread:

View attachment 2608981


Yeah, why would doing this to yourself be considered insane:


or this


?
Click to expand...
That loading screen is hilarious, though.

"Gender reassignment surgeries cost $10,000. Facial feminization surgery can cost $50,000. DDoS attacks can cost less than $100 a month. Guess which option they went with?"
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Helvítis Túristi, Autistic Joe and 8 others
Our friend was rather active on Reddit while the Farms were down. Let's play catch up, shall we?

1633763376051.png
Jacob might have given up the argument with Coffey25. Last response was 8 hours ago.

1633763444173.png
Another Geocities-type website. Looking at the sitemap tells us that this site was published September 18th, 2013. Again, he's seeking out things to get mad about. Wow.

1633763866996.png
1633763886454.png
Wow Jacob, Reddit didn't like that one. You're not good with clickbait titles. The video he linked has a whopping 1,109 views. His second link is an article from 2018, and his third link is an opinion piece with comments disabled. Do with that information what you will.

1633764055628.png
1633764074156.png
Another personal army request because he can't do his own research, and Reddit was understandably not fond of it.

1633764121438.png
I wonder when the ParlerWatch mods will get sick of him posting links with zero substance otherwise. Also, is his "b-but muh freeze peach!" whining about Coffey25 telling him to stop trying to push the term "minor-attracted people," and about me telling him that thinking about naked kids is predatory? Hmm.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Autistic Joe, Syntaxion, Much Ado About Nothing and 4 others
Inquisitor_BadAss said:
How does it cost less to cut someone’s dick off then running a dremel to someone’s brow ridge?
Click to expand...
A plastic surgeon's reputation goes to shit if their patients look like the people in the "Eye of the Beholder" episode of Twilight Zone. You can't hide it if you fuck up your patients' faces too badly. Plastic surgeons, as much as they are whores debasing their talents, are actual surgeons.

You can turn someone's crotch into a revolting, necrotizing hatchet wound, like Kathy Rumer does, over and over and completely get away with it because nobody has to look at it if they don't want to (and they don't).

That said, I wouldn't be advertising whatever John Flynt's plastic surgeon did to his face.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Autistic Joe, Red Lobster and 6 others
I think it’s funny how many arguments over pedophilia this guy gets into. Like, I have never gotten into an argument about pedophilia and this dude catches one errday.

the fact he has facts on deck should he fight about pedos says to me that fights over pedophilia is something he expects to have on a regular basis.

This dude a str8 up pedo with internet access.
Pedos being retarded slobs that out themselves makes me feel more easy though.
He looks like a Eastern European Jew
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hongourable Madisha, Helvítis Túristi, Autistic Joe and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back