💰 Grifter Kino Casino - Read Kiwifarms with abortionist A-a-andy Warski and lardy PPP. A lolcow drama show. 2/28/2019, never forget.

[Londo]

are you genuinely mentally handicapped? just highlight what you're replying to, everyone else has figured this out. You make a point to kvetch that you can't quote massive posts every single time instead of just using the site correctly.

View attachment 7699887

1. On mobile
2. You're such a bitch dude, you will try to pick the least important thing to address
3. I don't think out of us I'm the one that's mentally handicapped given your conduct recently, so perhaps avoid throwing stones around in that glass tower of yours.

Your definition of CP isn't the definition of most of the world. Most of the world considers any depiction of children in sexual positions to be CP; real or animated. Just because YOU use that definition doesn't mean that IS the definition.

Please continue to defend Warski being a coked out mess and grifting off of images of young girls. Coke makes it okay? Alright buddy. We can all see which side your bread is buttered on.

 

[Null]

2. You're such a bitch dude, you will try to pick the least important thing to address

you've finger wagged about my ethical compromise literally 50+ posts already, I have nothing more to say to you. You couldn't convince me to voluntarily say what you want, you tried and failed to force me to say what you want, now you're going to pretend to be disappointed I don't say what you want. There's no point talking to you. You have a vendetta and are going to pretend it's my fault I won't dance like a monkey for you.

 

[Guntkvd]

re: Snapchat
Where is the evidence of the person he was texting was of any particular age? I don't actually see anything about where this actually comes from. It's just loose screenshots from the least likeable and least trustworthy people imaginable with zero information about the recipient.

She streamed with analvape or some other guy, where she also explained all discrepancies in screenshots. Like why Warski has different name in different screenshots, and lying about being 17y old.
Basically, it's her own word and snapchat screenshots.

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

I do not call it child pornography. I am careful to refer to it as "drawn child pornography" or simply "lolicon" or anything else. Lolicon does not have a victim (except for the viewer who is training himself to be attracted to people with no mature sexual characteristics), so it's important to delineate between those two concepts.

Well, your new stance on this is news to me, but whatever. Better to leave it alone than get sucked into some anime/vtuber spergery.

The main point of contention is whether or not Andy Warski streamed CP on 2/28/2019. So far we're both in complete agreement that Warski believed he was showing his audience images of sexualized children showing off their breasts, and that at least one of the images positively identifies one of the subjects as being 14 years old while the others are of an unknown age. Your point is that because the images either show the subjects as being partially clothed or are edited to obscure the areola, they do not constitute porn, correct? In other words, unless we have full nudity, it isn't porn, even if the images (where one is indisputably a child and the rest were believed to be children by the host) were explicitly sexual in nature?

 

[Londo]

you've finger wagged about my ethical compromise literally 50+ posts already, I have nothing more to say to you. You couldn't convince me to voluntarily say what you want, you tried and failed to force me to say what you want, now you're going to pretend to be disappointed I don't say what you want. There's no point talking to you. You have a vendetta and are going to pretend it's my fault I won't dance like a monkey for you.

The irony.

You only care about the defence of children when it benefits you, you absolutely morally bankrupt serpent.

It's your fault that you have used the defence of children and animals as one of your main points as to why this website deserves to exist. You do that. You say that. Then when you had the opportunity to look at someone that you financially benefit doing the same shit you will shit your pants in a rush to expose people you don't like for doing far less.

One day you will have to answer to God for your Judas tongue and I assure you judgement will not be kind to you.

You're beneath me, and you're beneath everyone that tried to show what Warski had done. An insecure little child that never grew up and never learned how to play nice with others, beating a drum he himself does not hold himself to the beat of. Pathetic really. This is all you have and you can't even do that right.

 

[RetardRising88]

Where is the evidence of the person he was texting was of any particular age? I don't actually see anything about where this actually comes from. It's just loose screenshots from the least likeable and least trustworthy people imaginable with zero information about the recipient.

This stream, at around 1:41:50 they begin discussing her age, referring to her as being 17. Later at 1:47:17 it is said she was lying about her age to Andy and is actually 15, but this is neither confirmed nor denied. In any case they were still certainly a minor, and based on the messages, her being a minor was a core part of Andy's fantasy (e.g. fucking her in the broom closet, picking her up from school, etc).

 

[Thomas Hendricken]

re: Snapchat
Where is the evidence of the person he was texting was of any particular age? I don't actually see anything about where this actually comes from. It's just loose screenshots from the least likeable and least trustworthy people imaginable with zero information about the recipient.

Here you go:

Sorry for the double post but on Anal Vape’s stream, Tanya said that she was 17.

https://www.youtube.com/live/l8XwkVaG6qM?si=LqY_9Ge5OAay931o (They start discussing her age around 1:41:54).

I think that the only person pushing that she was 15 was Zoom but she herself said she was 17.

Dishonesty like that from Zoom was why people had a hard time taking this seriously. Because people like Zoom prioritized trying to make situations look as bad as possible for the people they dislike instead of telling the truth.

Edit: Sorry at 1:47:32 they mention that she was actually 15 and lied to Andy about her age. At the timestamp I initially posted (1:41:54), they were talking about how she initially told Andy that he was 17 and that it was still weird for him to be macking on her.

They also discussed other cases of Youtuber’s fans lying about their age afterwards so it wasn’t her claiming that she was actually 17.

In the absolute best-case scenario this is Ralph-tier behavior from Sephardski. But you have no problem streaming with Ralph when you think it will get you e-clout, so I can't fault you for this one, I guess.

If you're just going to disregard everything I have to say then I will simply not look into this further. If you don't respect my opinion I have no patience for you.

You're the one who disregarded the extensive posts of longtime users like @Balldo's Gate and @AltisticRight documenting the evidence. You said you wouldn't even *look* at any of their posts until after you had done the big sweepy stream with Daddy Ashton. Now you come back in and get MATI that every detail isn't being spoonfed to you after your tantrum. Demanding others respect your opinion is the pot calling the kettle a nigger.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The irony.

You only care about the defence of children when it benefits you, you absolutely morally bankrupt serpent.

It's your fault that you have used the defence of children and animals as one of your main points as to why this website deserves to exist. You do that. You say that. Then when you had the opportunity to look at someone that you financially benefit doing the same shit you will shit your pants in a rush to expose people you don't like for doing far less.

One day you will have to answer to God for your Judas tongue and I assure you judgement will not be kind to you.

You're beneath me, and you're beneath everyone that tried to show what Warski had done. An insecure little child that never grew up and never learned how to play nice with others, beating a drum he himself does not hold himself to the beat of. Pathetic really. This is all you have and you can't even do that right.

>Invoking God
>Saying Josh is beneath you
Lolcow behavior. You sound no different than Ralph.

 

[Null]

She streamed with analvape or some other guy, where she also explained all discrepancies in screenshots. Like why Warski has different name in different screenshots, and lying about being 17y old.

So he was 28 and she was 17?

Well, your new stance on this is news to me, but whatever. Better to leave it alone than get sucked into some anime/vtuber spergery.

This is not a new stance and I have been consistent on this for years.

i lover niggerdick

you are seen, you are heard.

Later at 1:47:17 it is said she was lying about her age to Andy and is actually 15, but this is neither confirmed nor denied.

How is this his fault then?

You said you wouldn't even *look* at any of their posts

Correct, because when I open the forum this is my notifications:



And before today it was all caps giant red text posts calling me a pedoguard sweepysquad niggerjanny, so yes I am going to disregard everything you say.

 

[Guntkvd]

So he was 28 and she was 17?

She's 15, lied to him that she's 17.
Even if she was 17 that's still fucked, he's almost double her age.

 

[WelperHelper99]

She's 15, lied to him that she's 17.
Even if she was 17 that's still fucked, he's almost double her age.

If you want to be technical, the AoC in Canada is 16. So it would be legal at 17.

 

[Minus One]

1. On mobile

Im on mobile and I just quoted you.

Your definition of CP isn't the definition of most of the world. Most of the world considers any depiction of children in sexual positions to be CP; real or animated. Just because YOU use that definition doesn't mean that IS the definition.

I don't think you guys understand that spamming in big fat bold red text ANDY WARSKI LIVE STREAMED CP carries with it really dark and heavy implications, like speaking as a casual observer I was picturing Andy giggling to himself while livestreaming a child getting brutally raped and murdered. In reality he just briefly skims through a bunch of censored pictures of teens in suggestive positions. Is that bad? Ya sure, but not on the level of severity you implied it was- and certainly not enough to claim he's Satan or whatever.

If you want to be technical, the AoC in Canada is 16. So it would be legal at 17.

Let's not go that route.

 

[RotPockets]

If you want to be technical, the AoC in Canada is 16. So it would be legal at 17.

Same as the majority of the US according to Reddit.

 

[Guntkvd]

I just checked, Tardski was 29.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Same as the majority of the US according to Reddit.
View attachment 7700074

Yes. I make no moral judgements. I'm just saying if he thought she was 17, he probably thought he was OK, because that is legal in Canada, and most of the US frankly.

 

[Diggus Bickus]

>Invoking God
>Saying Josh is beneath you
Lolcow behavior. You sound no different than Ralph.

Can you at least make your profile public before sucking off Josh's cock? Be a man, pussy.

If you want to be technical, the AoC in Canada is 16. So it would be legal at 17.

Yes. I make no moral judgements. I'm just saying if he thought she was 17, he probably thought he was OK, because that is legal in Canada, and most of the US frankly.

I don't trust a guy who knows this by memory. I'm not the kinda person who thinks "anyone who turns 18 magically becomes 40 in mentality" like twitter thinks but it's still very weird this is the shit you pull to argue devil's advocate.

 

[░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓ด้้้้้็็็็็้้]

This is not a new stance and I have been consistent on this for years.

If you say so.

But going back to my main point, I just want your clarification on one thing. We both agree that Andy Warski streamed pictures that were explicitly sexual in nature, with some of the images positively identifying the subjects as <15 and the rest believed to be underage by Warski, as well as captioned text intimating sexual content. Are you asserting that because some of the subjects are partially clothed, or that because some of the subjects have their images censored such that, for example when images show off the subject's breasts, the censorship will cover the areola only, that these images do not constitute pornography, and therefore do not constitute child pornography?

 

[Thomas Hendricken]

Yes. I make no moral judgements. I'm just saying if he thought she was 17, he probably thought he was OK, because that is legal in Canada, and most of the US frankly.

"I make no moral judgements."

Everything is kosher when you're an e-daddy.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I don't trust a guy who knows this by memory. I'm not the kinda person who thinks "anyone who turns 18 magically becomes 40 in mentality" like twitter thinks but it's still very weird this is the shit you pull to argue devil's advocate.

I used Google Search. Imagine that. You too can learn this information too. Sorry I shattered the circle jerk. Legally Andy did nothing wrong. He got lied to. Fuck off fag.

 

[Diggus Bickus]

I used Google Search. Imagine that. You too can learn this information too. Sorry I shattered the circle jerk. Legally Andy did nothing wrong. He got lied to. Fuck off fag.

I think you've got the whole situation in reverse. This thread is the one who broke through the Kiwifarms circlejerk of "Everyone I don't like is a pedo" and personally I joined it when Null started saying the epstein files are false when daddy trump started saying it.

You're not gonna get yourself points with him. You're an anime avatar AKA; A pedophile automatically in his own logic, and a mormon who was humiliated by his e-girl sock account.

But hey, have this picture of a ship. Sure works as a pick up line