alright lets not do this everytime, plus this crossover might inspire those psycho "fluffy" artists >waah my little peepee is being cauterized
those sickos need to be investigated
>alright lets not do this everytime, plus this crossover might inspire those psycho "fluffy" artists That's the joke, the studios are trying to force this shit, keep up anon
>lets not do this everytime
Oh it's going to happen every time now, and it will always be with two films whose audiences have 0% overlap, so that it can never hurt the BO of either, only be beneficial if anything
Same way you get consent to pet them, house them, and cut off their reproductive organs
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Why is consensual sex with a dog bad?
How do you even get consent from a dog?
I hate dogfrickers, but you gotta admit he has you beat with that logic. You c**ts do far worse to animals than rape them, and you do it with a massive shit-eating grin on your Kentucky fried chicken smeared faces.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>implying I support factory farming in any capacity
11 months ago
Anonymous
I've never harmed an animal in my life, so that's so twisted logic you got there. >hurr durr other people slaughter animals so it's your fault
I'm tired of this brain-dead argument.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, your ever movement is murdering countless critters. You really think you’ve never crushed a bug before? Eaten a pepperoni pizza? You piss dead blood cells. Your entire existence is based on the suffering of other things.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You think blood cells are organisms?
11 months ago
Anonymous
You think you’re a person?
11 months ago
Anonymous
It’s okay to be embarrassed anon, as long as you learned something
11 months ago
Anonymous
All I learned is that people still think >[thing] isn’t [arbitrary standard], so it’s okay to destroy them!
Is still an argument that can’t be turned right back around on them. But you didn’t even process that it was happening to you, did you? Because you’re not a person.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Cells aren’t organisms anon, and I’m not the imaginary person you’re arguing with.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You’re not a person, it’s okay for me to ignore/murder you.
11 months ago
Anonymous
But you aren’t doing either of those things lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
>[thing] isn’t [arbitrary standard], so it’s okay to destroy them
Unironically yes. Life is about drawing lines and making decisions. All standards are arbitrary.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Thank you! Finally, some sense. Also, see
You’re not a person, it’s okay for me to ignore/murder you.
>entire argument relies on a strawman
you want to frick dogs because they’re an IQ match for you
>ad hominem
It’s not a strawman when their shit argument is muh consent. SUDDENLY these frickers have standards, it’s like they can’t formulate a proper argument. That’s the only thing I’m embarrassed for.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No, I meant you’re moronic for whining about arbitrary standards because that’s just life. Quit being a homosexual about it just because you wanna frick dogs.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You’re confused, I’m arguing against the fricking of dogs. If anything, your argument is PRO dogfrickers. Stop handing them ammunition, dogfricker.
But you aren’t doing either of those things lmao
What? Weird. Could have sworn I heard a non-person trying to communicate.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You’re literally defending dog fricking lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
no you are genuinely just stupid. i’ll explain: >SUDDENLY these frickers have standards
this doesn’t hold up as an argument because it relies on inventing a personality and standard for your opponent. so at best it’s contextual and based on who you argue with, but at worst (and in reality) it’s an argument that can only operate on inventing hypocrisy where you don’t know there is any. that’s what a strawman is and it’s why these arguments don’t work, they rely on imaginary happenstance rather than actual syllogistic logic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
How am I inventing a standard for the people who say it’s against their standards to frick an animal without consent? Are you actually braindead?
You’re literally defending dog fricking lmao
>nay, thee
11 months ago
Anonymous
People shouldn’t have to explain to you why you shouldn’t frick dogs, normal people just don’t do it
11 months ago
Anonymous
So your only argument is “I don’t liiike it, it’s unnatural oowoo”? You’re not even going to bring up the profiling, health concerns, or the inherent fear behind all sexual deviancy (that you or your offspring will be co-opted into being a genetic dead end)? Pitiful. Inarticulate. Literal Karen-level nonintellect.
>heh, you say fricking dogs is wrong, but I bet you eat pizza you hypocrite
What kind of schizo logic is this lmao
The type that thinks killing and consuming is wrong, you degenerate piece of shit.
He's falsely equating the violence done to animals in farming to molesting one. I absolutely despise modern farming techniques, and I want to find a better more humane solution, but using it to justify porking a dog is moronic
[...]
It's definitely astroturfed, I made this thread ironically
And you’re just moronic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Why would I bring up those things? Why do you so desperately need to be told why you shouldnt have sex with dogs? Just ignore your urges bro, I’m begging you
11 months ago
Anonymous
Because having an actual argument makes us seem like intelligent thinking being instead of a reactionary ape.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Why? Sex doesn't harm dogs. You have no argument why it's bad.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>entire argument relies on a strawman
you want to frick dogs because they’re an IQ match for you
11 months ago
Anonymous
>heh, you say fricking dogs is wrong, but I bet you eat pizza you hypocrite
What kind of schizo logic is this lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
He's falsely equating the violence done to animals in farming to molesting one. I absolutely despise modern farming techniques, and I want to find a better more humane solution, but using it to justify porking a dog is moronic
>all the major news sites
Yup, it's marketing. And they hilariously missed the pedo double header angle.
It's definitely astroturfed, I made this thread ironically
11 months ago
Anonymous
>despise modern farming techniques
So we should go back to older farming techniques where animals are slaughtered by being stabbed in the neck or heart and have more disease and worse quality of life? I'm sure you actually mean "intensive farming" but implying that modern techniques make farm animal's lives worse is ridiculous as pretty much every innovation in farming in the last 200 years has been to make the animals healthier and produce better yields. Any time there is abuse in slaughter houses it's people NOT using modern techniques and instead being lazy and breaking the law.
By knowing your animal! It's easy to tell when a dog likes or doesn't like something. If it doesn't want to have sex, it'll show it, and try to get away.
11 months ago
Anonymous
cant you make this same disgusting argument for children?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Of course, and it's just as true in that case. Children aren't harmed by consensual sex not involving coercion or force.
>#SawPatrolBros
it's so disgusting how this is the lesson studios learned, that instead of bringing new things that can attract casual audiences, they instead chose to pair nonrelated installments as an event. I hope the strike never stops and Hollywood burns down for good.
Does anyone else they had just added supernatural elements at some point? All these disciples and shit is even more unbelievable. At least we got the Hoffchad out of it.
Real cinephiles are watching Saw in the morning to experience real existential filmmaking, and then Paw Patrol in the evening to relax and appreciate the wonder that persists regardless
This is the epitome of corporate marketing, one guy has a creative idea that accidentally takes off, it goes in the corporate manuals, every and fricking anyone does it til it no longer works and then still tries to force it anyway
It was probably a marketing guy's invention, it was honestly very creative, brilliant even, and it taking off memewise was mostly organic (but also being heavily shilled on top)
Now they're going to try to force it constantly
11 months ago
Anonymous
Are "they" the OP that created this Saw Patrol thread?
11 months ago
Anonymous
50/50 chance it's marketing or a shitposter solely because of this angle
I think that's the perfect antimarketing kill for this, the perfect date movie combo for pedophiles
The shills will disappear like it's a e-girl Ahsoka thread that got sexualized
it was a lightning in a bottle effect. I can believe it started organically due to how drastically different both movies are so it was fun comparing them, like both having the same budget, both leads saying it was the best script they've read and a lot of buzz surrounding both movies like the lack of cgi for the bomb and the whole pink paint scarce, and also because the very early predictions pointed at how it was a bad idea having them both hitting the box office at the same time so it was a meme that took off based on competition and then companionship.
now I can already imagine studios having meetings about how to replicate that, completely missing the point of why it worked in the first place.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I can believe it started organically due to how drastically different both movies are so it was fun comparing them
The funny thing is that WB did it on accident, they chose too release barbie the same day out of spite
oh i'm ready
alright lets not do this everytime, plus this crossover might inspire those psycho "fluffy" artists
>waah my little peepee is being cauterized
those sickos need to be investigated
>alright lets not do this everytime, plus this crossover might inspire those psycho "fluffy" artists
That's the joke, the studios are trying to force this shit, keep up anon
>lets not do this everytime
Oh it's going to happen every time now, and it will always be with two films whose audiences have 0% overlap, so that it can never hurt the BO of either, only be beneficial if anything
can you even talk about paw patrol on this site without dogfrickers tainting the thread?
>bestiality is le bad because... because it just is okay???
Correct!
But why? Why is consensual sex with a dog bad? There's never an explanation, just anger.
>Why is consensual sex with a dog bad?
How do you even get consent from a dog?
Same way you get consent to pet them, house them, and cut off their reproductive organs
I hate dogfrickers, but you gotta admit he has you beat with that logic. You c**ts do far worse to animals than rape them, and you do it with a massive shit-eating grin on your Kentucky fried chicken smeared faces.
>implying I support factory farming in any capacity
I've never harmed an animal in my life, so that's so twisted logic you got there.
>hurr durr other people slaughter animals so it's your fault
I'm tired of this brain-dead argument.
Anon, your ever movement is murdering countless critters. You really think you’ve never crushed a bug before? Eaten a pepperoni pizza? You piss dead blood cells. Your entire existence is based on the suffering of other things.
You think blood cells are organisms?
You think you’re a person?
It’s okay to be embarrassed anon, as long as you learned something
All I learned is that people still think
>[thing] isn’t [arbitrary standard], so it’s okay to destroy them!
Is still an argument that can’t be turned right back around on them. But you didn’t even process that it was happening to you, did you? Because you’re not a person.
Cells aren’t organisms anon, and I’m not the imaginary person you’re arguing with.
You’re not a person, it’s okay for me to ignore/murder you.
But you aren’t doing either of those things lmao
>[thing] isn’t [arbitrary standard], so it’s okay to destroy them
Unironically yes. Life is about drawing lines and making decisions. All standards are arbitrary.
Thank you! Finally, some sense. Also, see
>ad hominem
It’s not a strawman when their shit argument is muh consent. SUDDENLY these frickers have standards, it’s like they can’t formulate a proper argument. That’s the only thing I’m embarrassed for.
No, I meant you’re moronic for whining about arbitrary standards because that’s just life. Quit being a homosexual about it just because you wanna frick dogs.
You’re confused, I’m arguing against the fricking of dogs. If anything, your argument is PRO dogfrickers. Stop handing them ammunition, dogfricker.
What? Weird. Could have sworn I heard a non-person trying to communicate.
You’re literally defending dog fricking lmao
no you are genuinely just stupid. i’ll explain:
>SUDDENLY these frickers have standards
this doesn’t hold up as an argument because it relies on inventing a personality and standard for your opponent. so at best it’s contextual and based on who you argue with, but at worst (and in reality) it’s an argument that can only operate on inventing hypocrisy where you don’t know there is any. that’s what a strawman is and it’s why these arguments don’t work, they rely on imaginary happenstance rather than actual syllogistic logic.
How am I inventing a standard for the people who say it’s against their standards to frick an animal without consent? Are you actually braindead?
>nay, thee
People shouldn’t have to explain to you why you shouldn’t frick dogs, normal people just don’t do it
So your only argument is “I don’t liiike it, it’s unnatural oowoo”? You’re not even going to bring up the profiling, health concerns, or the inherent fear behind all sexual deviancy (that you or your offspring will be co-opted into being a genetic dead end)? Pitiful. Inarticulate. Literal Karen-level nonintellect.
The type that thinks killing and consuming is wrong, you degenerate piece of shit.
And you’re just moronic.
Why would I bring up those things? Why do you so desperately need to be told why you shouldnt have sex with dogs? Just ignore your urges bro, I’m begging you
Because having an actual argument makes us seem like intelligent thinking being instead of a reactionary ape.
Why? Sex doesn't harm dogs. You have no argument why it's bad.
>entire argument relies on a strawman
you want to frick dogs because they’re an IQ match for you
>heh, you say fricking dogs is wrong, but I bet you eat pizza you hypocrite
What kind of schizo logic is this lmao
He's falsely equating the violence done to animals in farming to molesting one. I absolutely despise modern farming techniques, and I want to find a better more humane solution, but using it to justify porking a dog is moronic
It's definitely astroturfed, I made this thread ironically
>despise modern farming techniques
So we should go back to older farming techniques where animals are slaughtered by being stabbed in the neck or heart and have more disease and worse quality of life? I'm sure you actually mean "intensive farming" but implying that modern techniques make farm animal's lives worse is ridiculous as pretty much every innovation in farming in the last 200 years has been to make the animals healthier and produce better yields. Any time there is abuse in slaughter houses it's people NOT using modern techniques and instead being lazy and breaking the law.
By knowing your animal! It's easy to tell when a dog likes or doesn't like something. If it doesn't want to have sex, it'll show it, and try to get away.
cant you make this same disgusting argument for children?
Of course, and it's just as true in that case. Children aren't harmed by consensual sex not involving coercion or force.
>How do you even get consent from a dog?
Peanut butter
>consensual sex
>with a dog
Not possible, sorry dogfricker
You made me giggle so here have this (you) that you’re looking for.
Yes, it's a societal axiom, and any culture that lacks it is inferior for it.
does an adult want to talk about paw patrol if they’re not a dog fricker?
No job too big, no pup too small!
NEITHER!!!
hmm...a saw...sequel prequel?
I watched 1-7. never got around to spiral. but how many damn metal traps does the man need to make?
I think squid games has done better with the death game idea in recent years. so im gonna rely on that.
>#SawPatrolBros
it's so disgusting how this is the lesson studios learned, that instead of bringing new things that can attract casual audiences, they instead chose to pair nonrelated installments as an event. I hope the strike never stops and Hollywood burns down for good.
Does anyone else they had just added supernatural elements at some point? All these disciples and shit is even more unbelievable. At least we got the Hoffchad out of it.
Hoffman was basically a supervillain with the way he just kills all the police officers
lol watching them back its funny how hoffman goes from a normal cop to a complete terminator. shits based though
Real cinephiles are watching Saw in the morning to experience real existential filmmaking, and then Paw Patrol in the evening to relax and appreciate the wonder that persists regardless
So the dogs get superpowers in the new movie? I guess that settles whether or not superhero movies are fascist.
adults being into paw patrol is legit the most embarrassing human occurrence in history
More embarrassing than Global Rule 15? Really?
PAW Patrol, of course. It's peak cinema after all
Most competent cop.
>detailed fur
looks wierd
>desperate moment goes wrong
not the tone paw patrol usually sets
The Pawnies demanded realistic fur so it's hotter
lol no thanks, i'm not falling for corporate marking to see two shit movies again
*marketing
This is the epitome of corporate marketing, one guy has a creative idea that accidentally takes off, it goes in the corporate manuals, every and fricking anyone does it til it no longer works and then still tries to force it anyway
I would love to see an updated version of the sony leaks, now including the barbieheimer stuff, pure shameless creative bankruptcy
Barbenheimer was organic. Sorry you hate fun.
It was probably a marketing guy's invention, it was honestly very creative, brilliant even, and it taking off memewise was mostly organic (but also being heavily shilled on top)
Now they're going to try to force it constantly
Are "they" the OP that created this Saw Patrol thread?
50/50 chance it's marketing or a shitposter solely because of this angle
That seems a little too convenient
>Barbenheimer was organic. Sorry you hate fun.
So this person was paid money to make this post? That is what you are implying?
I'm pretty sure the implication there is he's a transsexual who will never be a woman. At least that's what the face says.
it was a lightning in a bottle effect. I can believe it started organically due to how drastically different both movies are so it was fun comparing them, like both having the same budget, both leads saying it was the best script they've read and a lot of buzz surrounding both movies like the lack of cgi for the bomb and the whole pink paint scarce, and also because the very early predictions pointed at how it was a bad idea having them both hitting the box office at the same time so it was a meme that took off based on competition and then companionship.
now I can already imagine studios having meetings about how to replicate that, completely missing the point of why it worked in the first place.
>I can believe it started organically due to how drastically different both movies are so it was fun comparing them
The funny thing is that WB did it on accident, they chose too release barbie the same day out of spite
>#SawPatrol
I refuse to believe this is a thing being pushed by anyone (be it people or corporations).
Google it
>all the major news sites
Yup, it's marketing. And they hilariously missed the pedo double header angle.
If you as a grown man see this movie without children of your own, you might be a pedophile.
You say that like being a pedophile is a bad thing.
This is the average paw patrol gay. This is your mindset. Bleed.
What if they do have a child of their own and they're also a pedophile and it's a date and they see Saw afterwards
I think that's the perfect antimarketing kill for this, the perfect date movie combo for pedophiles
The shills will disappear like it's a e-girl Ahsoka thread that got sexualized
Actually funnier than Barbenheimer
Could the Paw Patrol catch jigsaw? Could they prosecute him?
Literally the entire moral of Paw Patrol is extrajudicial violence is good, so Jigsaw's "The charges officer" defense would never work.
This. Chase doesn't give a FRICK about due process. He'd put Jigsaw in a suplex with zero fricks given.