magnetize 💰🟨⬛️💲🏴☭⃠ 🚁
343 posts
magnetize 💰🟨⬛️💲🏴☭⃠ 🚁
@magnetizedepose
Ancap objectivist
Katılım Nisan 2026
36 Takip Edilen121 Takipçiler
im not reading that
magnetize 💰🟨⬛️💲🏴☭⃠ 🚁@magnetizedepose
Why Libertarianism is Inherently Anti-Lolicon: a 🧵1/4
English
QME
@libosto @Ancap_doggo @magnetizedepose Observably false. Basically every time someone tries to dunk on lolicons, they almost always get outed as a pedophile with ACTUAL child porn, which involved IRL children in their creation.
English
Why Libertarianism is Inherently Anti-Lolicon: a 🧵1/4
English
@magnetizedepose I got too retarded and now looked at your profile. What a great self own, you've just announced that you would not fit by your own classification
English
@8bitProdigy @Ancap_doggo Explicate the contradiction.
English
@magnetizedepose @Ancap_doggo But you just said both are immoral and anti-libertarian. This is a contradiction. Resolve it.
English
@k4ns3n Nice strawman, point to where exactly I said/implied that.
English
@magnetizedepose i don't think the nap applies to cartoon characters but ok bud
English
@magnetizedepose @Prikitiw_sss The concept of thoughtcrimes is anti-libertarian and immoral.
English
@crystalserpant @Prikitiw_sss Yes, no innocents were literally aggressed upon. No one is saying this. Finding enjoyment in the *idea* is anti-libertarian and immoral.
English
@magnetizedepose @Prikitiw_sss An innocent can't be aggressed if the innocent doesn't exist.
English
@magnetizedepose But wouldnt you be violating that degenerates NAP and hurting the free market by banning his goon material made by heckin based judeo-capitalist free market?
English
@clockworkchime You did not read it, lmao. It's just complete bullshit, I don't know what you want me to say.
English
@magnetizedepose Then please, feel free to elaborate. That's the main idea I got from the text, so tell me in what ways I misread it
English
Long thread simplified:
Lolicons bad because fictional characters can be victims of real people somehow?
magnetize 💰🟨⬛️💲🏴☭⃠ 🚁@magnetizedepose
Why Libertarianism is Inherently Anti-Lolicon: a 🧵1/4
English
@Ancap_doggo I don't need to prove what you say I need to prove because it's the wrong definition. There are no hidden premises, I laid the premises right out. Either attack those, or shut up.
English
The definition was never the fucking problem, i literally already said this, i genuinely dont think you are capable of tracking basic conversations The fact you thought your definition was the hidden premise clearly shows how shit you are at just tracking the conversation i even asked to demonstrate the relevant difference between them is in the current context. But none of that matters because that was never the problem just actually engage with any of what i have said.
English
@Ancap_doggo Well this is just the wrong definition, so it's not a hidden premise. There is only one correct definition.
English
Do you have the memory of a gold fish? Are you even reading what im saying? And you also have not even demonstrated a relevant difference in those definitions in relation to the current context (The definition i gave is one Zulu has directly used before btw) Now literally just justify your position and actually engage with any of what i have said x.com/Ancap_doggo/st…
Ancap doggo@Ancap_doggo
You still have not demonstrated that enjoying fictional depictions of actions that would be aggressive in the real world correlate to finding literal aggression legally permissible. You're equivocating alot on what "Love" means in relation to law and also incapable of distinguishing between fiction and reality in relation to claims about law. What YOU have to do the Burdon on YOU is to demonstrate that Enjoying a fictional simulation of something that would be aggression in the physical world, is the EXACT SAME as "Aggression is legally permissible" That is an insane claim, and you have not actually substantiated it.
English
@Ancap_doggo Because the alleged hidden premises were relying on a faulty definition of libertarianism, hence I didn't have to respond to them.
English
@Ancap_doggo What hidden premises? And use the correct definition of libertarianism this time.
English
@Ancap_doggo You contended my definition numerous times, do you have the memory of a gold fish? But okay, I gave the argument here, but you didn't address it, just asked me to give it to you personally x.com/magnetizedepos…
magnetize 💰🟨⬛️💲🏴☭⃠ 🚁@magnetizedepose
Children, in real life, are incapable of expressing their will in regards to sexual intercourse. Lolicon, therefore, is an attraction to people who do not consent to sex. It's a love of aggression;evil;anti-libertarianism... 3/4
English
@Ancap_doggo I already proved how it's in contradiction to "agression is always evil."
English
@Ancap_doggo Do you retract these statements then? Since I don't have to prove it's in contradiction with the claim "aggression is impermissible"
x.com/Ancap_doggo/st…
Ancap doggo@Ancap_doggo
You still have not demonstrated that enjoying fictional depictions of actions that would be aggressive in the real world correlate to finding literal aggression legally permissible. You're equivocating alot on what "Love" means in relation to law and also incapable of distinguishing between fiction and reality in relation to claims about law. What YOU have to do the Burdon on YOU is to demonstrate that Enjoying a fictional simulation of something that would be aggression in the physical world, is the EXACT SAME as "Aggression is legally permissible" That is an insane claim, and you have not actually substantiated it.
English
@Ancap_doggo Definitions must be as broad and fundamental as possible, that imply all other characteristics about the concept.
English
@Ancap_doggo The question you must ask yourself is, can someone be a libertarian and deny that aggression is evil. Is the claim that aggression is evil more broad and fundamental than the claim that aggression is impermissible.
Both of these are true, therefore, my definition.
English