How do people stomach seeing this shit?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
How do people stomach seeing this shit?
How do people stomach seeing this shit?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
good actress. I'd rather her being ugly. You some kind of pedo ?
>Calls a little girl ugly
>Accuses others of being a pedo
Brainrot
I don't. I haven't watched a teevee series since better call saul.
>needs child actors to be ugly so he doesn't get turned on
have a nice day freak
mentally ill democrats defending their trans kids cult’s precious religious product regardless of quality, many such cases throughout the board right now
Trumpgays vote against their own economic interests
Yes I should vote for the party who wants to tax me more so they can supposedly fix with the weather with it but won’t ban insider trading for their country club.
Dumbass
Yeah bro keep voting for more billionaire tax cuts as society crumbles.
1. Show me where trump only cut taxes for billionaires. Raw data only. No cherry picked article from leftist news sources
2. I know you’re going to reference the TCJA 2017 and I guarantee you, you don’t read the entire bill, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting this stupid shit
3. The federal government doesn’t need any more tax revenue. They can find all the stupid lefty shit if they wanted to, they just spend money on dumb shit like borders in other countries. Bet you haven’t looked into any of those omnibus bills they pass every year huh?
>Muh society gets worse because we don’t transfer wealth from a private citizen to the government all whilst we push the most degenerate shit possible on the youth
>moronic homosexual projects politics into his im not a pedophile i just want to find 13 year old characters sexy thread
lmao
>those damn liberals wanna frick kids!
>they should've just made the 14 year old girl hot so I can enjoy the show!
The actress is 19 years old if there were to cast a hot 19 year old no one would be a pedo for lusting after her.
You dumb frick
That dude is probably in a discord chat with a bunch of 11 year olds right now.
The character isn't 19, though.
Who the frick cares about the character on a live action thing? The character is physically portrayed by an actress and the actress is what I'm lusting for.
Then look up some fake nudes of said actress and stop crying.
I can't and I won't because the actress they cast is ugly as sin.
this is fricking insane that people actually think like this
>The character isn't 19, though.
Then hire someone who isn't 19. It's incredibly daft to hire a woman in her adult prime and then worry about her being sexualized.
This is her prime? Isn't that the goofy frick who bumrushes a giant, howling like a donkey mid-coitis, in GoT and got squished hilariously?
She’s only 17 and 24 months you sick frick!
Biggest self own I've seen in ahes. You're a disgrace.
Kys
>if you don’t celebrate ugliness you are a pedo
Kys
One. She's mediocre at best
Two. You yourself acknowledged that she's ugly
Three. There's plenty of actual good young actresses that are not an insult to the eye, like Malina Weissman, McKenna Grace, Dafne Keen, Kitana Turnbull, etc..
These are the people on this thread who called others pedos because they weren't upset with the casting.
fricking lol
not him but, cant a child be ugly? and if thats true, then cant a child also be cute? just try to answer that. I actually view it as way more of a self report when someone cant admit a kid is cute or not. everyone can clearly tell the difference between an ugly and cute kid. i get serious red flag vibes when someone is shown a cute kid and they go UHH THEY ARENT UGLY OR CUTE THEY ARE JUST A KID I SWEAR THEY ARE JUST A GREY BLOB TO ME *sweats*
thats like, a million times worse than just being able to say "ya sure thats a cute kid"
>not him but, cant a child be ugly?
Yes but the fact that you care enough to actually get mad and argue about it is pretty sus. Most adults genuinely don't care whether a kid is ugly or not.
who is mad? im simply saying for a young heroic girl character, most adults were prefer to see a cute kid over an ugly one. if you agree with this, then what is the problem?
>most adults were prefer to see a cute kid over an ugly one
Prove it. I don't think modern audiences care much one way or the other how cute or attractive the children are in it.
damn ur right, most people just want to see ugly people all the time. this in no way betrays our understanding of all art and fiction since the beginning of time
Strawman. I said I don't think most people don't care about how attractive children in a film are, not that they want to see ugly people. Try again.
>I said I don't think most people don't care about how attractive children in a film are
This is a ridiculous discussion altogether. When a father comments on his daughters beauty, does that mean he wants to frick his own daughter? One can appreciate the aesthetics of a person of any age without it being sexual. People desire to see aesthetic people, and if the character is meant to be objectified, then it's very important.
Someone is not a pedo for seeing a person of any age as beautiful, they're a pedo if they want to frick them.
Everyone wants to pet the cute dog, but that doesn't mean they want to frick it. A portrait of a gallant horse in its prime is beautiful, that doesn't mean they want to frick it. The sky is beautiful today, that doesn't mean they want to frick it.
Only deceptive fricks pretend this is a hard concept to grasp because they are liars.
>This is a ridiculous discussion altogether. When a father comments on his daughters beauty, does that mean he wants to frick his own daughter?
False equivalence. Getting angry that a film doesn't have attractive enough children is not the same as a man complimenting his daughter. You are mentally deranged.
>One can appreciate the aesthetics of a person of any age without it being sexual.
Go ahead and tell all of your friends and family that you appreciate the aesthetics of a beautiful prepubescent child. Let me know how they react. Be sure to tell them that no no, it's not creepy or inappropriate because you don't actually want to jam your dick in them.
When you INSIST on everything you see and interact with being the pinnacle of beauty, including getting angry when a child isn't beautiful enough for you, you have a mental illness.
>Go ahead and tell all of your friends and family that you appreciate the aesthetics of a beautiful prepubescent child
you may not realize this, but in non pedophile circles, it is completely normal to say a kid is cute
No matter how much you try to weasel and equate this, it will never work. Getting angry over children not being beautiful is creepy. The very fact that you're trying to conflate the act of calling a child "cute" and whatever nonsense creepy shit is happening in this thread is indicative of your deranged mental state. The very fact that you think these parents are critically evaluating a child's beauty in whether they tell them they're cute or not it highly revealing of your brainrot.
Jesus christ you fricking idiot, it's not wrong to call a kid ugly. And if calling kids adorable for doing stupid silly shit only means you're thinking of "cute" qualities while you want to frick them, you're the one who needs help. Kids are the little people, they do shit like adults, just smaller. Holy frick man, if you can only associate "cute" with wanting to frick, you're beyond help.
>it's not wrong to call a kid ugly
not him btw but like in public? in front of friends or the kid's parent? i hope your not that clueless
Dogs are cute. cats are cute. Babies are cute. Do you agree?
>Getting angry that a film doesn't have attractive enough children is not the same as a man complimenting his daughter
Someone is not a pedo for desiring aesthetic people in cinema. Most men desire to see aesthetic boys in movies, but most men are not gay. Even the so-called 'ugly' or 'fat' people in many older movies were also very aesthetic.
It's very clear the creators desire unaesthetic actors for many roles today. It's extremely jarring.
>Go ahead and tell all of your friends and family that you appreciate the aesthetics of a beautiful prepubescent child.
I had no issue telling my sister that her daughter was beautiful from the day she was born to the day she grew up to be a woman. At no point was I accused of being a pedo.
At 15 I told her she was a very pretty girl and that all the boys would want her, but she needed to be careful. People that talk like you have a similar lack of life experience as the incels you complain about. You're both freakish groups that have no strong personal friends or family ties.
>Be sure to tell them that no no, it's not creepy or inappropriate because you don't actually want to jam your dick in them.
You don't need to. That's the point. Only freaks like you make an issue out of it. Normal people don't think you're a sick degenerate for being a normal person that compliments and observe natural organic beauty, especially in family members. It's a source of pride and collective bonding. You're as bad as incels. You have no life experience.
>When you INSIST on everything you see and interact with being the pinnacle of beauty
Yes, I do insist. As does everyone else who is normal. Most can't articulate their feelings, while I am gifted enough to do so, and every normal person reading what I am saying agrees.
You're the freak outsider here.
sure, but that guy has that image saved and is upset that a child on television is ugly.
sure saving that image is weird, but most people would rather see a cute kid hero over an ugly kid hero
Dude, Malina Weissman was in ONE movie, ten years ago, when she was ten. Let it go, you fricking weirdo.
isnt it kinda weird that you recognized her by face and know her full name? are you really in a position to call anyone else weird
Yeah because she's had autists on this site simping for her for the past decade. I've never even seen Series Of Unfortunate Events. I m 100% only aware of this person because of Cinemaphile
It was a TV series and it ended 5 years ago.
She was in A Series of Unfortunate Events, the series. That's where anyone knows her from, it aired from 2018 to 2020.
The difference in mouth and lip size
hey face is like a word document with the margins set to maximum
Those eyes are heavenly
slay queen
friendly reminder that libertards are real pedo irl
OP is clearly talking about the show. Pretty interesting how you immediately focused your attention on the child though.
Hi
yeah..sure there are some ugly people irl but WHAT THE FRICK WHERE DID THEY SHART THAT FRICKING GOLBO POTATO OUT LOL!!?!? SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THAT FRICKING THING, I FEEL FRICKING EMBARRASSED TO SHARE THE HUMAN RACE DAWG
I go outside a lot and see people like this everywhere so it doesn't shock me. Unlike your terminally online warped reality incel headcanon where everyone looks like a supermodel.
>Uhm actually, chud, real people look like they have Down syndrome like me!
>”W-Wait, don’t open IG or TikTok on your phone! Those are just bots. They’re not real people!”
If you think IG or TikTok are representative of the general population, you are precisely as moronic as that anon claimed. Touch grass.
>twitter isn't real life, lefty!
>wtf i was banned?? US government, please come and nationalize this website!
Pick one.
>What? It's totally representative of the general population! Surely all Americans are out there making TikToks and posting selfies online?
>What, me? No, of course not. I'm too based and redpilled for that, but I don't count!
>It's definitely not the higher percentiles of normal looking people using that platform, that is what the average person looks like!
Be honest: when is the last time you went outside? I'm sure this photo of a random graduating American class probably fills you with horror and disgust. Don't worry, it's totally not real according to you people and none of these average women(oh, sorry, horrendously ugly fat slampig trash) actually exist.
Incels are literally afraid of being alive.
I’d frick any one of those piggies before that messed up beast in the OP. Nice try though, troonoid.
The red is symbolism for menstruation?
The bears can smell the menstruation
>Touch grass chud!
>All those humans you see on social media are not real!
>Everyone looks like me
Who needs to touch grass again, troony?
Ah yes, all the women in this college sorority aren’t real and def not part of the general population. Is this what you tell yourself to cope with the fact you look like a freak and it was HRT that was responsible?
Surely these women are representative of the general population.
Incels are literally mentally ill and braindead moronic. They ACTUALLY think the majority of the population looks like this. Do these ugly homosexuals ever even look in the mirror? Do they just think they don't exist either?
>A random selection of college women aren’t representative of the general population
Must be hard to cope when you’re poor and work at Starbucks around other trannies
wow they can put on dicksucker lipstick and stand together with the fatties on the sides to activate the cheerleader effect. If any one of these was the actress instead, this board would say she's ugly.
They aren't random you fricking idiot. The number of people who are even comfortable or happy taking photos of themselves to begin with is a narrow number of people. I ensured that mine weren't cherrypicked by posting photos of entire graduating classes so that it's actually representative of the broad sample. You are posting cherrypicked photos of a handful of friends of the hottest groups of college girls and saying they are a random selection of the general population. You are an ACTUAL fricking moron if you think the majority of women look like that.
Please, for the love of god, actually go outside sometime in the next year. You don't have to be afraid of normal people. It's okay not to be a supermodel.
>The number of people who are even comfortable or happy taking photos of themselves to begin with is a narrow number of people.
Why do you keep self owning yourself? This is just you and your troony group of friends. It’s nobody else’s fault but your yourself for looking like pic related. Even through all your cherry picking, you still can’t post a woman who looks as ugly as Ramsey
You unironically say this as you post on an anonymous message board specifically designed to completely hide your identity, which includes your own image. The number of people on Cinemaphile who would be comfortable posting their own image without being self conscious is probably less than 10%. You are just completely delusional on all levels.
Post a pic of yourself with a timestamp and put your money where your mouth is if you're so confident in your own appearance.
>POST YOURSELF RIGHT NOW
No. Seethe troony. You can’t refute my argument. Here’s another attractive woman form IG to accelerate your gender dysmorphia.
>WHO IS SO SELF CONSCIOUS THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN POST THEIR OWN PHOTO ONLINE LOL YOU MUST BE UGLY
>Okay post your picture
>N-no...
Absolute top kek. You lose so hard. You literally just called yourself ugly by your own logic you moronic dipshit.
Nobody is falling for your schizo bait For someone so proud of being ugly and is so convinced everyone else is to, you seem really upset about it
You baited yourself moron. You claimed that only ugly people were self conscious about their appearance and that the majority of the population isn't shy about posting their picture unless they're ugly. And here you are balking and refusing to post your picture. You literally owned yourself and called yourself ugly, idiot.
>Hahah you won’t doxx, yourself, I win!
Ok ugly. I’ll let you have your win in your schizo head. Kek, ugly ass.
Extremely weak cope. Go ahead and edit out identifying features you fricking moron. Not hard to do. You lost this hard. You are an ugly goblin that is afraid to post your own picture after you just spent 30 minutes LARPing as some kind of beautiful chad. You're pathetic.
>I dont wanna be doxxed?
1. No one wants to find you
2. You started it :^)
Now post those beautiful breasts babe!
Why would I want to prove that im horribly ugly? I have to look at myself in the mirror everyday isnt that enough?
wrong picture?
Why did you post a picture of a zoo animal?
>t.
Probably about 2/3rds of the girls you are posting are mid to low. You're getting played by the cheerleader effect. Women do this shit on purpose and you're falling for it, it's like when fat chicks decide to get a bunch of tattoos and dye their hair and wear a frickload of makeup to distract from how fat they are. Or plain chicks in general that go goth
did i miss the girls at usc. granted i never fricked any of them but still nice to be around
is it really so hard to wrap your head around the fact that social media is biased towards pretty people because ugly people dont like having their pictures taken? the vast majority of sorority girls dont look like that
Your projection isn’t reality. This isn’t Reddit, we’re not going to validate your delusions. You’re ugly, we get it. The rest of us aren’t.
>Real women look like Hollywood actresses chud!
>Real women don’t look like those girls posting pictures of themselves to social media!
Actual unironic low-IQ posting. A good adjective for you would be "numbskull"
Not an argument, troonoid
You started it
yikes
holy manfaces
Lol @ them positioning the two hottest/prettiest ones in the middle in order to cheerleader-effect the ones on the wings (far left pretty cute though). The brunette in particular is doing a lot of heavy lifting, helps distract from the fat bug next to her
>I see ugly women when i go outside
>BUT IF YOU GO ONLINE AND LOOK UP HOT WOMEN YOU FIND HOT WOMEN HEH OWNED
I see hot women outside too though. What is this nonsense where hot women don't exist in your world?
>No no! None of those pictures of real attractive human women with verified accounts on social media are real! People are ugly like me and this Hollywood actress!
Cope troony and 80% of the people in that picture you posted are more attractive than the Ellie chick
your logic doesnt even make sense. if everyone was this hot then those accounts wouldnt be popular at all and nobody would bother filming and taking pictures of them
>humans don’t take pictures of themselves and post them to social media.
>Only good looking people do
Confirmation bias much? Nah because you’re a freak, it doesn’t mean everyone else is.
All the women there look more attractive than the troony in the OP nice try. How long did you have to search to find that?
>If I keep cherrypicking random photos of people in the top 10% of attractiveness, that will totally mean the other 90% of the population doesn't exist!
I can literally go all day. There's endless google images of graduating American classes full of normal people(oh sorry, hideous gutter trash troony garbage 0/10's).
Why do normal people terrify you so much?
I have a theory that many ugly people are actually just overweight or dealing with something else that they can in fact fix. Of course there are some people who would need surgery or whatever, but I think it's generally true for a lot of people
actors should not look like random people off the street
Explain why they shouldn't.
because nobody wants to see that lol, we want to see pretty people on the big screen. we want our heroes to be good looking. can you explain why nobody wants an ugly hero/ugly heroes are considered to be breaking convention? why is that?
Because the masses are moronic sheep who are concerned about their boners while watching movies that star old people or children
lets say hypothetically, you had to pick an extreme to have for the rest of your life
all heroes are now good looking, or all heroes are now incredibly strange and ugly
which would you pick and which do you think most people would pick
I think I would choose strange and ugly characters, I think most people would choose attractive ones
That is because I am based for having a minority opinion, and the public are sheep for having a majority opinion. The public are never on the right side
do you literally just form all of your opinions based on doing the opposite of popular thing?
No, I form them with the knowledge that if there is a right answer, it's definitely not what moronic people choose. It's eliminating one possibility
>heroes are now incredibly strange and ugly
She's not "incredibly strange and ugly". She's just ugly by star standards, and most likely so are you and so am I.
she is LITERALLY ugly when looking at the average face. the average female face is a fricking knockout compared to her.
You are powerfully moronic if you think that's the average. You really do know nothing. You have no clue how that image was created even. You are mentally ill and need to stop using the internet so much and see a therapist for your extreme aversion to regular humans. It's a mental illness at this point.
that is LITERALLY an average, it was created by compiling hundreds of faces. how can you argue with this lmao
yknow, i dont usually bring up trans shit, but im starting to unironically think the people pushing for the acceptance of ugliness are actually trannies who want everyone to think of women are ugly freaks so they can pass because they themselves are ugly freaks
>that is LITERALLY an average
No it is literally an average OF facial feature placement and skin tone, not an image of "average attractiveness" you fricking idiot. An average of facial proportions is on the extremely attractive end of attractiveness because generally, more extreme features(like being walleyed or having larger than average features like noses or eyebrows) are generally viewed as unattractive by humans. Facial averageness is extremely desirable and indicative of higher attractiveness.
This has already been studied and your moronic incel interpretation of it that it is the average attractiveness of a person just shows how completely stupid and uneducated you are.
>bro that average was actually just the result of 50 wide eyed people and 50 narrow eyed people
ahahaha you dont actually believe this do you?
No because I'm not a complete idiot like you and understand that the sample includes both outliers and people more close to the average in some features and further away in others. It encompasses the entire spectrum. The "average" facial placement in this case would automatically trend towards symmetrical, highly attractive features, but I don't expect a moron like you to get that.
You would not expect a human of average attractiveness to have such a perfectly symmetrical and unremarkable evenly distributed face. Just like your ugly incel mug probably has a big nose or a weak chin or whatever.
>The "average" facial placement in this case would automatically trend towards symmetrical, highly attractive features
wow its almost as if average placement of features does not result in some ugly frick. you are literally proving my point here
It really feels like you're being moronic on purpose. Either that or you're allergic to thinking.
>average facial feature placement trends toward attractive features
okay so you are admitting the average placement of features results in a somewhat attractive face
>NOOO FRICK FRICK YOU MUST BE moronic
lmao okay dude
>okay so you are admitting the average placement of features results in a somewhat attractive face
No. I am saying average placement of facial features results in an extremely attractive face. You presented it as "average attractiveness" and are still trying to weasel and change your argument just to try and headcanon yourself as not losing this argument(which you did, horribly).
if a population were uglier on average, wouldnt that average face have wider or narrower eyes? a bigger more unsightly nose? you can literally get a less attractive average face if those average features of a population added up to that
>if a population were uglier on average, wouldnt that average face have wider or narrower eyes? a bigger more unsightly nose?
No because collectively, they may and very probably will have attractive features when you average the sample out. This "ugly population" would have to deliberately trend towards extremely ugly features in one direction for it to have a noticeable impact on the average(like the entire population having large, bulbous noses, which is unlikely to be the case given how general distribution works).
You can literally take two extremely ugly faces and average them and it could result in an extremely average face. The more faces you involve without cherrypicking or deliberately altering the sample, the more likely it is to average into a very attractive face. Maybe you should actually look up the work done in this regard rather than out yourself for being a complete moron when trying to cluelessly bring it into an argument you know nothing about.
>This "ugly population" would have to deliberately trend towards extremely ugly features in one direction for it to have a noticeable impact on the average
which is my point, the average is not resulting in this, meaning that population is not trending toward some insane ugly feature, which leaves your only remaining argument "well actually there's just so many crazy weird people that they all just average out to an attractive face" which is a hilarious argument, that its just a bunch of crazy wide eyed and really narrow eyed people all evening out to a good looking face.
lets try this
if you took 100 conventionally attractive people and made an average face, and 100 ugly people and made an average face, which would be more attractive?
scale this up to an entire population and hopefully you realize why you're being moronic. the argument is that the average person is not a deformed freak and is probably closer to that average face than not. its LITERALLY an average. how the frick else would you discern what kind of face the average person is closer to if not this method?
>which is my point
It's not. Your point was that the picture in OP was ugly when compared to an "average woman" and you posted a picture of two extremely attractive imaginary people made from a composite of average placement of facial features. Your post and argument has been completely moronic from the get go and nothing will change that no matter how many times you move the goalpost and try to pretend it was about something else.
>the average is not resulting in this, meaning that population is not trending toward some insane ugly feature, which leaves your only remaining argument "well actually there's just so many crazy weird people that they all just average out to an attractive face" which is a hilarious argument, that its just a bunch of crazy wide eyed and really narrow eyed people all evening out to a good looking face.
This is such a heinously stupid interpretation of what is actually being done that I don't even know how to respond to it. You are literally just too dumb to understand this very simple concept. I can't help you.
>if you took 100 conventionally attractive people and made an average face, and 100 ugly people and made an average face, which would be more attractive?
It's impossible to know. Either one could wind up more attractive. Unless you deliberately poison the sample by ensuring that every single person in it has the same type of extreme feature, it's unlikely to show up in the final average. I don't see what this even has to do with anything.
>the argument is that the average person is not a deformed freak and is probably closer to that average face than not.
Oh god, you really are a complete fricking idiot. A person of average attractiveness has uneven facial features and is unlikely to be anywhere NEAR the kind of facial symmetry present in the population averages. Even the top 20% won't be close.
I think you are just honestly too hopelessly stupid to grasp this basic shit.
jesus christ so many words to say you have no argument, lets try this INCREDIBLY simple line of reasoning
sure, its silly to say the average british woman LITERALLY looks like that compiled average, however, can you agree the average woman is closer to that face than a deformed freak? this HAS to be the case any i dont know how you could argue otherwise. that picture shows, inarguably, that the average woman in britain is closer to that face than some other compiled average face. There is no possible way you can argue against this
I already disproved this absolutely moronic way of thinking and you are quite literally just too stupid to understand it. I could explain the same thing 5 more times and you still won't get it. This is like trying to teach English to a chimp.
so you think the average female face in britain is close to some other average face? how can you possibly think this with the evidence staring you on the face?
i completely understand your non argument. to steel man your position, you are saying that when you have a large sample size of faces, you will get an average face that trends toward symmetry, aesthetic placement of features, etc
and im simply going a step further and saying that speaks to an average, it LITERALLY tells you the average face is closer to that than any other face. what other face would they be closer to if not that? if you cant answer this you're just
conceding and thats fine
To add to this conversation. Genuinely ugly people are actually quite rare. Rarer than beautiful people. Most people are average, and average is attractive. It wouldn't be average if it wasn't attractive. Beautiful people are highly sought after and have far more children as a result. Ugly people are generally kinda fricked.
So what occurs overtime is that the averages will continue have average looking children, highly beautiful people (while rare) will have lots of children sometimes mixing with average people, and ugly people will have the least number of children.
This is why we no longer look like freakish neanderthals. It's why blue eyes and blonde hair spread and continues to spread despite being a recessive gene. It's highly desired.
As a result, there are more desirable features over all than undesirable features overtime.
To further add to this, look at almost any photo of a person from the pre1950's. They are all incredibly attractive and highly aesthetic, from all walks of life. They generally had a very healthy and actively physical lifestyle. There's that great meme of some overweight freak side by side with the photo of his gallant high t grandfather. It is clear that the genetics for attractiveness is there, but it's hidden by a lifetime of obesity, stress, poor eating, lack of physical activity and higher estrogen as a result of obesity.
There is always going to be a trend towards more desirable features over time.
thank christ someone who finally understands. watch non argument man swoop in and try to reiterate that an average of british female faces even out to something symmetrical and attractive even though thats literally proving our point lol. Average is not ugly. Average is actually quite nice. Bella is anomalous
Bella is average though
nope, her feature placement (attractiveness) is much farther from the average than a random girl off the street. that average face compilation proves this mathematically
I don't think you spend much time outside then, many girls look worse than her.
if i go to the mall right now, the average 19 year old mogs her to hell and back. do you live near irradiated ground or
something?
>Average is not ugly. Average is actually quite nice.
Correct. This highly aesthetic average is hidden behind terrible modern behaviors and eating patterns.
>This is also woefully incorrect and an extreme misinterpretation of how things work.
>This is also woefully incorrect and an extreme misinterpretation of how things work.
It isn't. You're wrong.
>Two beautiful people having children does not guarantee beautiful children and two ugly people can, in fact, produce a supermodel.
These are outliers. While two beautiful people can have an ugly child, no doubt, they spread their desirable traits so even that ugly child will spread those desirable traitors to their kids if they have any. But that ugly child is less likely to have children than their beautiful siblings. Most beautiful people with have mostly beautiful children, and two ugly people will generally have ugly children. If they have a beautfiul child, that child will have more children than their uglier siblings. Overall, the trend for desirable traits continues, even among outliers, and that has been ongoing for at least five thousand years since the advent of agriculture.
>It depends on the features they inherit and how its expressed.
And generally, it's a positive outcome, and generally those with positive outcomes have more children, so desirable traits expand in number, and undesirable traits diminish.
Stop using outliers as an argument. It's very liberal and very deceptive. We're talking about macro scale evolution here.
Furthermore, ugly people being with ugly people is even rarer. Even ugly people want desirable people. Ugly men are just fricked, they would need to work incredibly hard to engage in any hypergamy, but an ugly woman can get herself an average man. So while the average (but rare) ugly woman can have children, she will likely have children with an average man, which yet again leads to more desirable traits in the gene pool and less ugly traits overall.
>These are outliers.
That's incorrect. A strong chinned man literally has a near 50% chance of making his daughter have a much larger chin than ideal. What is attractive for men and women is different but unfortunately, genetics doesn't somehow distinguish and ensure that a child only gets what we want them to. There are many attractive features exclusive to men that are ugly when inherited by women and the same is true in the reverse and it's impossible to control, so you are completely incorrect.
It would be more accurate to argue that children that inherit mild, average, androgynously attractive features are more likely to pass on their genetics than beautiful parents with more extreme feminine or masculine features since they can't guarantee they go to a child of the correct sex.
>That's incorrect.
No, it's true.
>A strong chinned man literally has a near 50% chance of making his daughter have a much larger chin than ideal.
Not true. Certainly not 50%. That jaw is a product of growth hormones. A girl doesn't have the same growth hormones as a boy which is why you'll never see a woman with a chiseled jaw. The so-called 'manjaw' is very rare, but even so, it's nowhere near as pronounced or as strong as if the girl was born a boy. I for one find the 'manjaw' attractive on a woman, it's likely my subconscious desire to have greater jaw traits in my gene pool. Not that my jaw is lacking, but it doesn't hurt to have more of it in the pool.
>What is attractive for men and women is different
No shit, Sherlock.
>genetics doesn't somehow distinguish and ensure that a child only gets what we want them to.
At no point did I say it did. I'm boiling this down to math. There are more desirable traits spreading than undesirable traits and this has been ongoing for at least five millenia. Less desirable traits are less likely to pass their genes with children, and more desirable traits are more likely to pass on due to more children. It's why the average person is average. It's why we don't look like freakish midget ape men. This is an evolutionary trend likely due to impact of civilization, or simply accelerated by civilization.
It really is rather annoying when you blank slate liberals come along and spout your nonsense. Did we or did we not evolve from literal fricking ugly ape creatures? Why are we so more beautiful today than before? We selected desirable traits, and than trend continues today, and that trend is a result of breeding.
Beautiful people will highly likely spread their beautiful genes. Average people will likely spread their average genes. Ugly people will be less likely to spread their traits. Beauty is genetic, intelligence is genetic.
Get the frick over it, blank slater.
Let's really blow this out of the water shall we? Lets really bury this nonsense, because some might argue that some ugly people might attain high status due to other traits. Lets take an extreme example. Lets say an incredibly ugly man is good at violence, has brains and charisma. Lets say he dominates his local barbarians, and overtime seizes power amongst the horde and becomes a King or a Lord. Tell me, who does this ugly barbarian man of power take to be his pride? Does he choose an ugly woman or does he take the fairest woman he can get? And when his sons grow to be princes, carrying both the ugly genes and the beautiful genes. Who do they marry? Do they opt for an ugly wife, or a beautiful wife? They take the beautiful wife. And so on. Now, it might be that the sons are arranged to marry the daughters of other men of power, but who did those men of power marry? Did they opt for an ugly queen or a beautiful one?
So overtime, the undesirable genes diminish and the desirable genes expand, even in the most extreme and rare of cases.
Literally not one thing in this post is relevant to what I argued against in your post. I wasn't arguing beautiful and ugly people have some absolutely even chance of passing on their genes you fricking moron. I was arguing against your idiotic assertion that beautiful people stay beautiful and continue to have beautiful children while everyone just stays genetically stagnant in their lane. By your moron logic, our jaws should have gotten bigger over time since you seem obsessed with the idea that big jaw=genetic goldmine rather than smaller like they actually did.
These traits are not objective, static, or directly transitable. You are vastly overestimating how often currently beautiful people continue to have generations of beautiful offspring.
>I was arguing against your idiotic assertion that beautiful people stay beautiful
They generally do.
>and continue to have beautiful children
They generally do.
>while everyone just stays genetically stagnant in their lane
They opt for desirable traits.
>By your moron logic, our jaws should have gotten bigger over
We have clearly become more desirable overtime. We have become taller overtime. We have become stronger overtime. We have become smarter overtime. Civilization, at least up until the industrial age, has created a generally positive feedback loop. It's why we have gone from being disgusting ape creatures to elegant sublime beautiful powerful and buxom people. We went from being hunted by fearful creatures to wearing their skin. We went from smearing beetle blood and shit on walls, to renaissance art. We went from shivering in the cold winters to putting men on the moon. Genetics and evolution are the bedrock of that progress. The wonderful power of agriculture allowing us to focus on breeding evermore desirable traits, and specializing certain traits.
Why are we no longer disgusting ape creatures holding onto our fellow ape creatures for warmth while being hunted by wolves? Explain that to us.
You're a blank slate liberal spouting your unwillingness to accept the cold hard fact of biology as a cornerstone of life and reality as we know it. In essence, you're a fricking coward.
>They generally do
You're an idiot that knows nothing about biology. If beautiful traits stayed statically beautiful and trended that way the very vast majority of the time, there would be no such thing as ugly people after millions of years of evolution you fricking dipshit. Every ugly person alive today is the result of some ancestor finding their ancestors beautiful enough to breed with. If they stayed statically unattractive, they would have no chance that their genetics survived millions of years. You are genuinely talking straight out of your ass and are probably a high school dropout.
Also love how you conveniently ignored that bigger jaw thing and instead rambled about other traits since you knew you couldn't address it since it destroys your entire argument.
Both of you need to go back to school. You're woefully moronic.
>You're an idiot that knows nothing about biology.
Says the blank slater denying it's most basic attributes.
>If beautiful traits stayed statically beautiful and trended that way the very vast majority of the time, there would be no such thing as ugly people after millions of years of evolution you fricking dipshit.
Correct. None of us look like half man half ape creatures anymore. The ugliest European today would be one of - if not the most - beautiful person on the continent 50,000 years ago. The dumbest Europe today would be the smartest creature in the world a million years ago. Welcome to evolution 101, blank slate liberal.
>Every ugly person alive today is the result of some ancestor finding their ancestors beautiful enough to breed with.
And every ugly person today is beautiful in comparison compared to their ape man ancestors 50,000 years ago.
>You are genuinely talking straight out of your ass
You are the one denying the clear and distinct connection between beauty and genes. I have no doubt you also deny the distinct and obvious connection between intelligence and genes.
>Also love how you conveniently ignored that bigger jaw thing
It wasn't ignored. A better argument was made instead.
Why are we no longer disgusting ape creatures? How can you claim that desirable traits aren't very clearly passed on if none of us are disgusting ape man creatures anymore?
>pretending he has to go, then continues replying other posts but not engaging with the one question that btfo's him
lmao
This is also woefully incorrect and an extreme misinterpretation of how things work. Two beautiful people having children does not guarantee beautiful children and two ugly people can, in fact, produce a supermodel. It depends on the features they inherit and how its expressed. You can have two supermodel parents that have a daughter that winds up inheriting her handsome dad's lantern jaw and strong brow and it's all over.
You are painfully stupid. I am going to explain this exactly one more time, and if you don't get it, you are never going to get it and I'm not going to spend all night trying to shove basic education through your fat thick skull.
>so you think the average female face in britain is close to some other average face?
The face of someone of AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS in Britain would be remarkably different from the actual composite average placement of facial features of the entire population. BECAUSE those facial features will average towards symmetry and ideal placement. A person of average ATTRACTIVENESS is full of imperfections of various degrees that make them considerably less attractive than the composite of average features.
>i completely understand your non argument.
You very clearly don't. I've never been more certain someone didn't understand.
>and im simply going a step further and saying that speaks to an average
It speaks to the average location of placement of various facial features. That is all it is an average of. It is NOT speaking to average attractiveness, which is what is being discussed.
A person of AVERAGE FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS would have a certain percentage of expected imperfection in their facial location. I don't know what that exact percent is, but I can assure you that the AVERAGE PLACEMENT OF FACIAL FEATURES is on the extreme end of the "attractive" range that ranges near 0 imperfections while the average facial attractiveness of a person is likely to have a significantly larger degree of facial imperfection.
That is the best I can explain it dumbed down for a toddler. Either you get it at this point or you never will.
AVERAGE FEATURE PLACEMENT HAS A DIRECT CORRELATION WITH AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS YOU FRICKING DOLT
IF THE AVERAGE WOMANS FACE HAS FEATURE PLACEMENT CLOSER TO THAT PICTURE, THAN CLOSER TO BELLA RAMSAY, THEN LOGICALLY THE AVERAGE FEMALE IS MORE ATTRACTIVE BELLA RAMSAY HOLY SHIT HOW THE FRICK CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS
Then logically the average female face is more attractive than* bella ramsay's
>AVERAGE FEATURE PLACEMENT HAS A DIRECT CORRELATION WITH AVERAGE ATTRACTIVENESS YOU FRICKING DOLT
Incorrect. It has a correlation with increasing attractiveness. The more averagely placed your facial features are, the more highly attractive you are to the general population.
>IF THE AVERAGE WOMANS FACE HAS FEATURE PLACEMENT CLOSER TO THAT PICTURE, THAN CLOSER TO BELLA RAMSAY, THEN LOGICALLY THE AVERAGE FEMALE IS MORE ATTRACTIVE BELLA RAMSAY
That's not necessarily true and it gets much more theoretical when you get further away from the average. Her features are a certain level of imperfection and if you compare her to other people's faces, she may or may not be below the actual average degree of facial imperfection. I don't know because I haven't studied her face against the general population. You don't know either but you're way too fricking dumb to even grasp how this works to begin with. When compared to people of similar facial imperfections, it can have wildly different levels of attractiveness.
>she may or may not be below the actual average degree of facial imperfection
ahahaha and how would you figure this? perhaps by getting an average of the faces in a given population and comparing hers to that average? moron?
By measuring the level of facial imperfection present in the general population and comparing it to hers and probably increasingly weighting any features that are found to be extremely ugly when studying facial features and weighting the score. Not by your moronic "compare it to the average position of facial features in a general population and assume that is the average attractiveness and facial arrangement for a random person" which is completely and utterly moronic.
>By measuring the level of facial imperfection present in the general population and comparing it to hers
how does an average of faces in a given population not show you the average amount of facial imperfection?
lasty, you've yet to answer if the average woman off the street in britain looks more like that compilation, or like bella. it must be one or the other. and im telling you, mathematically, you have proof staring you in the face that the average woman picked off the street will look closer to that picture than bella
nothing about feature placement, nothing about attractiveness. simply in terms of similarity, will the average woman look more like that picture, or more like bella?
>how does an average of faces in a given population not show you the average amount of facial imperfection?
This question is stupid enough and illustrates your stupidity enough that I feel I don't really have to respond to you anymore. No matter how hard I try, you're too stupid to understand this and you don't want to understand anyways.
By your moron logic, if I have one face where the eyes are 50% bigger than normal and I have one face where the eyes are 50% smaller than normal and I average them, it means that the average level of imperfection in the general population is 0%. That's how fricking stupid you are.
Go back to school you fricking idiot. I have nothing left to say to you.
last chance
will the average woman off the street in britain looks more like that compilation, or more like bella. it must be one or the other. and im telling you, mathematically, you have proof staring you in the face that the average woman picked off the street will look closer to that picture than bella
nothing about feature placement, nothing about attractiveness. simply in terms of similarity, will the average woman look more like that picture, or more like bella?
inability to answer this is akin to accepting defeat
"imperfection" is a loaded and subjective term. not him but he has a point when he asks, is the average woman off the street closer to that picture, or bella?
it is much more likely that average face is the result of a wide set of data and not because half of everyone photographed for that average had 200% wide eyes and the other half had -200% narrow eyes. thats super disingenuous lol
No shit. I already pointed that out like an hour ago. I was just illustrating it so even a toddler could understand how stupid that moron was.
oh so you CAN respond, so once again, will a woman picked off the street at random be more likely to have a face more like that average compilation, or like bella ramsay's? there is ONE correct answer this question
>The more averagely placed your facial features are, the more highly attractive you are to the general population.
AND HER FEATURES ARE NOT PLACED AVERAGELY
IN FACT, SHE IS QUITE FAR FROM THE AVERAGE PLACEMENT OF FACIAL FEATURES
But she is likely not that far from the average level of facial imperfection and placement when compared to the entire population. Not one person said her features resembled the average placement, dipshit.
I said I could explain this to you 5 times and you still wouldn't get it and I can see I was completely correct. You are genuinely a low IQ moron.
is this moron seriously trying to argue that feature placement does not directly influence how attractive someone is?
he is just saying if you pick a british woman out of a crowd she will be closer to that average face than some fricked up ugly face, and mathematically that picture is proof of that. how is this so hard to understand lol
It's hopeless, man. He's a either a Brit who loves his hideously faced woman, or a wacko. Either way, he likes ugly and isn't changing his mind.
The average britbong looks like a tractor backed up over their face and then tried to scoop out their teeth. Keep fighting the good fight, anon.
my point is, pick a british woman out of a crowd and odds are, mathematically, she will look much more like that average face than bella ramsay. that is LITERALLY what that picture proves
Correct.
She's not "incredibly strange and ugly", you're just comparing her to people on television. If you saw her on the street she wouldn't be memorable and it's not how you'd describe her. *Incredibly strange*.
if i saw bella on the street i would absolute say "wow that is an odd looking girl. really small face for her head. poor girl" and move on
Highly unlikely since the odds you're ever outside are pretty much 0
Yeah sure. You're incapable of even theoretically detaching your thoughts from ideas you already established. TV is not real life. Many of the supposedly beautiful normal women posted on this thread would also get called out as ugly by this board if they were on the show instead. It's a different standard.
Yeah, same.
why does the guy look slightly mexican?
>because nobody wants to see that lol
You don't speak for everyone. Most modern people don't care. Not everybody is seeing films to pop boners and they don't care whether an actress is attractive or not.
It's okay to say YOU want to see that, but you don't speak for everyone. Not every story has to have supermodel actors, and it's a trend that is increasingly being phased out because most people aren't as bothered by the appearance of regular people like you are.
most modern people actually care a lot lmao. most people may not need a super model hero, but a hero who is distractingly ugly will make people raise their eyebrows
>most modern people actually care a lot
>just now learning people have lower standards for a race that has giant noses and lips
lol
Yes they should. The 70's was the best era of film
lesser known does not necessarily mean random off the street. They picked the attractive people off the street
find me a 70s movie with a female protagonist/deurtagonist who is ugly. ill be waiting forever lol
3 Women. I'm gonna come up with more just wanted to put this one out there
lmao young shelley duvall is not ugly at all. unique looking sure, but not even close to a downright ugly frick like the last of us girl
I mean this from the bottom of my heart as a big fan of her acting career. If you think Shelley Duvall isn't ugly, you have a kind heart, and that means you think nobody is ugly as long as they try a little bit
she was a fricking super model compared to the last of us girl lmao
Looks like a troony
>If you think Shelley Duvall isn't ugly
sorry, i dont talk to gay morons, just at them.
prime Shelly was GOAT
Bug eyed horse toothed stickmonster is your GOAT? You may not be gay but you sure don't like attractive women
you dont understand how attraction works at all.
Yeah says the nibba that says that fricking Olive Oyl is GOAT hot
I would consider these actresses traditionally attractive. Not ugly but they have very average looks. They have had good careers:
-Tilda Swinton (She's exotic looking enough that she can be a character actor though)
-Elizabeth Moss
-Toni Collete
-Maggie Gyllenhaal
-Rhea Perlman
-Lena Dunham
-Charlotte Gainsbourg
There's also plenty of actors but I can see the argument for that not really mattering
literally nobody wants to look at maggie gyllenhall
Watch Frank
Yeah they should. I like watching ugly people act.
I only want the cast to be attractive in things I jerk off to
Do you live in some type of reserve?
Remainder she wore a chest binder so people wouldn’t sexualize her womanly frame and features
Isnt she like 9?
Social justice warriors be like: all people are beautiful. Stop discriminating
That’s what it is. They think women are also strong
Nothing wrong with ugly people playing kids
literal NPCs
>ALL PEOPLE ARE UGLY SHUT UP SHUT UUUUUP!!!!!
>what are you talking about chud she is the pinnacle of beauty!
which is it?
we don't say ugly we say 'challenging beauty standards' you fricking chud
her appearance was the least of this show's problems
This show really lived up to the games... in that it's extremely overrated and mediocre and not worth your time.
10/10 in the anglosphere
Why are people who really care and are angry about her being ugly instead of attractive calling the people who don't care about that pedos? It should be the other way around. The angry people wanted a hot child to watch, because they lusted after her in the games I imagine, lol. Never played them, never will. Mediocre show at best like everything based on videogames.
I think she looks cute with her hair down
her teeth are like mouth of sauron though
Almost passable
oh god... is that her best? i doubt there is god, look at that fricking thing, i want to vomit.
post face
>post picture of an ugly kid
>thread hits reply cap in minutes
Why is this board like this
>"Bella" Ramsey
>is actually subpar looking and undercooked
Who writes this shit?
I'm just waiting for the sequel where she has to try to convincingly play a serial killer violently killing dozens of guys and women to get revenge then taking on buff Abby in hand to hand. Should make for some funny webms.
Watch a few bong movies first to acclimatize yourself to their hideousness.
Why are British women so mannish looking? I can't think of a single one that isn't reliant on her breasts and ass to salvage her appearance.
>this one actress hired deliberately for her unique and ugly mannish appearance is representative of an entire ethnic group
>now watch me cherry pick images of women of this ethnic group and claim this too represents them
No I just honestly can't think of any, Charles. I mean Hayley Atwell and Gemma Arterton came to mind but then I realized the only thing on my mind was their perfect racks and thick asses.
That's fine, you're just a fricking idiot if you're basing an ethnic ethnic groups appearance and beauty on tv stars. That's not my problem.
Works for the rest of the groups, no need to get so butthurt that your women look ugly, Nigel.
I'm not a bong but I have been to the UK. The average women there aren't that much different from the average women in the US. There is a very similar genetic stock.
same way they stomach looking at you i'd imagine.
I am not coomer degenerate who needs every single thing on tv to be fappable, so it's pretty easy
They post on Twitter about how good of a person they are for not hating how ugly she is
you WILL watch this thing's head grow and face shrink even more
thats a man
EXTREMELY israeli posting in here, asserting nobody wants to see beauty lmao. such a betrayal of literally all art and fiction since the beginning of time ahaha how can anyone actually argue this
erm nobody actually wants to see pretty people
>Oh no, the 14 year old vidya girl I fap to isn't attractive enough
How many times are you pedos gonna keep posting this shit?
Why do you keep samegayging (yes I can see the IP)? This brainrotted take will never catch on
she was 19, kinda weird to dehumanize adult women like this lol
The character is 14. They are complaining because a 14 year old is too ugly. You can't talk your way out of this one, pedo.
please be understanding, anon. The poor man needs to coom, you wouldn't deny him that, right?
I know you're trolling but its crazy that some people actually think like this. like the foreign girl being naked in not another teen movie is pedophillia because the character is a high school student, yet the actress was like, 24 lol
I think shes cute in an unconventional sort of way like Tilda Swinton
She reminds me of the daughter in Hereditary, except the daughter there was intentionally chosen because there was a point to her being creepy and demonic looking. I don't know what the frick they were thinking here lol.
isn't she supposed to have down syndrome?
Literally looks like Gibby from iCarly.
gibby is unironically betyer looking than her, which is a fricking crazy thing to say
I don't watch shit
let me guess, she is israeli.
Dumbass
Just because you're israeli doesn't mean you can't be Christian. Saul (known as Paul) was a israelite who murdered thousands of Christians before converting and writing all of the epistles.
Shes seems like a sweetie, glad shes making incels in this thread seethe.
>this is INCREDIBLY STRANGE AND UGLY according to mindbroken Cinemaphile posters.
yes, she has beady literally black eyes, a really small face, and a huge forehead. yes she is incredibly strange looking lol
post face
She is clearly not israeli.
>me entering Warwick's house
sir, a wealthy and connected media executive is pushing his daughter into acting roles!
Well then she already has a job, we dont even need to audition, just tell her to show up. And tell those pretty hopefulls waiting outside that the role has been filled.
wealthy connections + pretty = Cara Delvignee or whatever the frick her name was
wealthy connections + meh downy = this b***h.
either way thats the only frickers you are going to see in modern media so dont forget you are defending the patriarchy if you're ok with this shit, now cry about my reddit spacing losers!
Cara Delevingne is ugly as frick though, she's just super rich and connected and decided to become a celebrity. Basically Paris Hilton only somehow even uglier and even more of a stick
>Cara Delevingne is ugly as frick though
try to imagine that your opinion is not a wider reality
The frick is the point of that? That makes it noumena and this unknowable. Reifying Cara Delevigne's hotness into a thing-in-itself is akin to saying that the island made out of gold that you imagine while reading this, in your mind, is real to me. Your ontology is all fallacious and fricked; and Cara Delevigne is objectively ugly as frick
you are clearly trapped in a delusion and probably a flat earther.
please KYS ASAP
Ad hominem, ignored my argument completely. I fully accept your concession, thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out, etc
Good actress but ugly as hell. It really was distracting the entire show unfortunately and the "zombies" few so few and far between the payoff was minimal.
b***h look like Junior Stopka
>it would be perfectly normal to have this man play the gallant character in a story
>you're gay if you want handsome men in heroic roles
They don't. Thats why viewer numbers aren't high.
Except they are
Why do you guys love to bully people?
im more bullying the casting directors. its not necessarily an ugly persons fault they were paraded in front of everyone
Am I the only one who thinks she looks like Zuckerberg's fetus twin?
You should all be thankful this shit was posted her and not on Cinemaphile. All of the "BUT DATZ NOT WHAT REEL WIMMINZ LOOK LIKE" shit would be about twice as bad, and there's about a 50/50 chance that some homosexual is going to start spamming direct links to irrelevant subreddits, tumblr blogs, and video essays made by breadtube grifters crying about muh sexualized wimminz in gaems and when he inevitably gets told to frick off, he'll start posting images of men in women's underwear while going "HOW U LIEK IT???".
Cinemaphile is nearly as bad as Cinemaphile these days. The raiders and shills here are nothing in comparison.
If you can like a character only if she is pretty you don't like Cinemaphile, you are just a dopamine addict coomer
she looks nothing like ellie.
SHE'S ONLY 19
>this dumbass is now at the point where he's samegayging and pretending to be other people and begging me to respond to his transparent idiotic "gotcha" bullshit just so he feels less embarrassed about being a complete idiot
Top kek. Not sure I've ever destroyed someone this hard. Was fun, but time for dinner.
calling something a gotcha and refusing to answer is a great way of saying you got got lmao
Why are there so many troonys on this board nowadays? You know Cinemaphile stands for television?(and film) right?
She is ugly as frick and can't really act, luckily it's very easy to skip her scenes, just like that 2 gay episodes.
I think "She's pretty ugly" for about 15 seconds, then I get over it like a normal person.
>NOOO I'm not sexually attracted to a minor!!?
This kind of shit is something about being a woman men would never understand
>Before youre even legal people are expecting you to look like a supermodel
>Before youre legal men are creepy to you and extremely condescending
>Before youve even left your mothers fricking womb its "god what an ugly little demon"
>In the nuts the other sperms bully you for being ugly
Why do men want to be women again?
she a cutie
GOOD MARNING SAR.
I SEND BOB BRI'ISH ROSE
RAPE TOMORROW VAGEN OK?
>Um, what are you pedo?
>nuh uh, you are pedo
>u projecting???
>I know you are but what am I???
sirs, this is an anonymous imageboard, there's no good boy points or chicken tendies to be had here. please return to your home site.