What's your favorite Scruffy quote?

What's your favorite Scruffy quote?

Other urls found in this thread:

last.fm/tag/homophobic pedophiles/artists
scaruffi.com/phi/syn202.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17418075
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15985890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6839266
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592946
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3912575/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

jesus what a cunt

LUSTY

>"Shoes, refrigerators, watches and underwear are the real protagonists of history. Everything else is just a footnote to their odyssey."

"Vladimir Trump"

>" if gay marriage should be legalized, then why not polygamy, incest and sex with underage girls?"

my favourite

but hes right, tho. why shouldn't it?

I said it's my favourite for a reason, and that's because I also agree with it.

>Obese people have the same rights as normal people... and they are really obese (airlines will charge you if you have an extra kg of luggage but will not charge someone whose butt takes two seats)

>Scaruffi is a homophobe

Kek, fuck this guy

A hebephiliac homophobe.

He's not a homophobe though. He has gay friends he says.

>This album would be a 10/10 if cut to five song EP.

Openly homophobic, openly racist, openly wants to fuck little girls and openly doesn't understand history or music. No wonder Sup Forums likes him.

THE

Jesus Christ, I never read his non-music related stuff. This guy literally does not know how to construct an argument that isn't full of holes, contradictions, and logical fallacies/red herrings.

I can't believe he devotes his life to this. Scruffy is legitimately an autist.

what's so strange about those quotes? why don't you try to confute them?

I love how triggered the faggots in this thread are. Sup Forums really is a normie shithole now. Thank God I rarely ever go on it anymore

he's closeted right? he's doing the classic 'suggesting homosexuality is a choice' thing

Homosexuals should be hanged
People belong in their own countries
>openly doesn't understand history or music
Factually wrong

last.fm/tag/homophobic pedophiles/artists

>the critic is the real artist
>humans aren't social animals, loners are the real winners
>people who use computers are more literate than people who use smartphones

most of his essays are just validations of his own life; rationalisations that what HE does is somehow biologically advantageous. the intellectualism is a mask.

this

All of these quotes are very accurate.

>>people who use computers are more literate than people who use smartphones

He's right about this though. Phonefags ruin everything.

Where's your rebuttal? "Autist"? Well, I guess you win that argument.

Wow i kinda like this guy now

Scaruffi isn't a loner, though, he has a vibrant social life. He has friends of all ages, sizes, shapes and colors.

thanks for stopping by

>defining their sound was Little Girls

>>humans aren't social animals, loners are the real winners

he never said that, idiot

After all the shit preceding it this guy believes he wouldn't vote for Trump or support if he were an American?

Sounds like that user is just misinterpreting this essay here: scaruffi.com/phi/syn202.html

He's not saying loners are winners just for being loners. He says, in response to the idea that humans are naturally social, that many famous respected people were loners and through their isolation, helped humanity progress.

>Humans are not social animals but curious multi-tasking animals.
>Humans are curious animals, animals who want to know and do as much as possible.

Honestly I see nothing wrong with this essay.

he called BTBAM a "black metal" band.

Factually correct.

Right, and Sup Forums has a bunch of black friends too I'm sure

Humans were literally able to survive and evolve by grouping together, forming packs and then communities and then civilizations. We ARE irrefutably social animals as our social nature was instrumental in our survival. The fact that civilized society exists at all is undeniable proof that humans are social animals.

Except one of the four doesn't negatively affect others. Can you guess which one?

you didn't read the essay.

Polygamy? Because it sure as hell isn't sodomy.

give me one good solid reason why the existence of homosexual people and their sexual tendencies adversely effects you and/or society at large

Yeah, you got it! Except:
>Quran (4:129): And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better. And human inner-selves are swayed by greed. But if you do good and keep away from evil, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.
>Quran (66:5): It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allah), believers, obedient to Allah, turning to Allah in repentance, worshipping Allah sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allah's sake), previously married and virgins.
A disobedient wife can be replaced innumerable ammount of times and the fair treatment of multiple wives is implied to be impossible. Wonderful, right? Not to mention the other equally wonderful verses about the treatment of women in islam.

Where should I start? 30% of all child molestation is homosexual, despite them being only 1% of the population. Faggot marriage desecrates marriage as a religious institution (this is where you cry "ITS NOT RELIGIOUS" even though it is for literally billions of people). Faggot marriage also provides tax benefits that regular married couples get. Except those benefits are there explicitly because of procreation, which faggots cannot do. Then you go into adoption and you see faggots raise children that are more likely to be mentally ill, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be juvenile delinquents, more likely to be criminals and so on. Then maybe you address the fact that gay men are SIXTY times more likely to have HIV than straight men. And then of course you have lesbian couples having the highest rate of domestic abuse out of any other coupling.

Should I go on, faggot?

Are you under the impression I'm a muslim? I'd gladly genocide them all given half the chance.

>30% of all child molestation is homosexual, despite them being only 1% of the population.

porbably fake news but source?

>A disobedient wife can be replaced innumerable ammount of times and the fair treatment of multiple wives is implied to be impossible

Marriage is voluntarily, so if a woman doesn't agree with this she just shouldn't marry anyone who already has a wife. Also, define "fair treatment of multiple wives".

Pick any country in the world. Check their crime statistics. I'll see if I grab some numbers for you now. They're accepted (undeniable, really) numbers even among the gay "community" but they've taken to just saying "No those guys aren't gay. They're just raping boys for other reasons that aren't homosexual in nature".

Like the whole priest kiddy diddling thing. 80% of it is homosexual. At which point you ask if the priesthood is the issue.

>Are you under the impression I'm a muslim?
Now I'm not. But polygamy is practiced in islamic countries to an extent. And if you didn't grasp I was sarcastic, let's hear your wonderful justification of incest and pedophilia, even though pedophilia is classified as a psychriatric disorder.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17418075
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15985890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6839266
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592946

>Also, define "fair treatment of multiple wives".
Up to muslims, because the Quran doesn't expand on that. It implies it's impossible.

Okay. I don't care about Islam. Why do you keep telling me about Islam? Faggotry was a psychiatric disorder too.

Also, I'm not defending incest or paedophilia or even polygamy. My original post was a sarcastic mocking way of simply acknowledging that homosexuality isn't harmless to others. Hence the question mark after the word "polygamy" and the "because it sure as hell isn't sodomy" thing. Come on now homo, you can do better than this.

Start by providing sources for your claims, as I did here:
Are you a Christian by the way?

>My original post was a sarcastic mocking way of simply acknowledging that homosexuality isn't harmless to others
Again:

Homosexuals don't reproduce, which means that social acceptance of homosexuality leads to a decrease in birth rates, and a decrease in birth rates has a negative effect on the economy unless your country has a ridiculously high fertility rate like a lot of African countries do. A lot of demographic problems currently faced by Europe were caused by the fact that homosexuals got too many "rights".

>A lot of demographic problems currently faced by Europe were caused by the fact that homosexuals got too many "rights".
like what?

I think this one might have the numbers. Frankly I'm too lazy right now in this heat to double check it.

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

You'll notice it immediately tries to justify the behaviour before it even addresses the numbers with the whole "homosexual paedos aren't homosexuals because they dont also fuck adult men" thing.

Settle down gaylord, fuck sake. Give people a second to reply between your autistic screeches.

Just for fun, here's one about how non-straight women have a litany of issues that straight women don't.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3912575/

>A growing body of research documents multiple health disparities adversely affecting lesbian and bisexual women. Compared to heterosexual women, lesbians have been found to have higher body mass index (BMI)1–6 and greater alcohol use,3–5, 7–10 smoking,1, 3–5, 8, 11, 12 and depressive symptoms.3, 4, 13, 14

You'll again notice that they try to justify it by simply saying "yes theyre all fucked up, but it's not their fault" or whatever, despite admitting they don't know the actual root cause.

Hint: It's homosexuality

Not him, but an obvious example is the disappearance of the closet faggot with a wife and children.

So if gay people are really this bad, what's the solution?

>Hint: It's homosexuality
ok so not the fact that they cant exist without some snowflake like you getting offended

user without a single source on Sup Forums of all places said it, therefore it's true. I refuse to belive people like this exist.

what so gays are 1% of the population but somehow the closeted gay dad demographic is some fucking huge deal
yeah, nah

It doesn't, but it does say that is very difficult to treat all wives equally and that men shouldn't have multiple wives unless they can do it.

How do you turn back the clock on "gay rights"? You pretty much don't. It's hard to stop yourself when you're going down a slippery slope. The best hope is a world war. Something that forces people to forget about their petty imagined problems and deal with actual problems instead.

Correct. For example, Catholics in Northern Ireland didn't have civil rights until 1999. In their own native country. There is a national holiday in Northern Ireland where Protestants get together and march into Catholic neighbours and celebrate that time they slaughtered tens of thousands of Catholics and successfully conquered the Catholics' homeland. Catholics however, achieve the highest exam results in all of the UK, have the better mental health than the Protestants, have lower rates of drug abuse and so on, despite living, for all intents and purposes, under the rule of conquerors who continue to this day to deny their the right to their own language in their own nation.

Stop blaming others for your own failings, faggot.

I never said it was a huge deal. It is objectively a factor though, in absolute terms.

There are 2 sources literally 4 posts above yours. You can't plug your ears on this one, homo.

>A lot of demographic problems currently faced by Europe
>gay dads

you BTFO yourself, GJ

I explicitly told you I wasn't the one who referenced the demographic problems to begin with. Objectively though, more open homosexuals = less closeted homosexuals = less homos procreating.

Objectively it is a factor. Sit down, faggot.

oh so you're a catholic, no wonder you're so closeted

sure honey, come back when you have a source worth a shit

Not sure you understood my post. Try reading it again. I'll even help you. It is an example of a society in which one class victimises another for their lifestyle, except it is much worse than anything homos have ever faced. And those people, those victims, are doing better than their ruling class on almost all terms. So why can't homos?

Hint: Because of homosexuality.

I accept your concession of defeat.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder first of all. And is every homosexual person also a pedophile? That's what you're implying, despite the article you've linked claiming otherwise. Calling everyone a faggot and an autist doesn't prove your point.

*ahem*..

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

>encouragement to become gay
TEH HORROR! OH TEH HORROR

No, but most are. Again, just saying "those guys doing that homosexual act aren't homosexuals because I said so" doesn't make it true. They are, by definition, homosexuals. And they are, by definition, paedophiles. You can try to worm your way out of this one, as faggots always do, but the numbers are clear. Homosexuals are a danger to children more than anyone else on Earth.

Homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable in European countries -> More Europeans are becoming homosexuals -> Less Europeans are reproducing -> Less Europeans can pay for the pensions that the elderly recieve -> Europeans have to import millions of immigrants from the Third World to pay these pensions or else the economy of Europe will collapse like the Japanese one did -> This immigrants from the Third World are starting to slowly replace the native population of Europe

sexuality isn't a class distinction

On people that glorify older music

"my theory is that these people are afraid of death. everytime someone comes out with a new sound that builds upon older styles people are reminded of their mortality. they fear that they aren't as important as they once thought. they are not the center of the universe. the advancement of technology and art scares them because they know that they will never be alive to enjoy what technological development has to offer

they feel robbed of this so they pansy around yelling obscenities to anyone who dares make the claim that music of the current generation is way more intellectually stimulating than previous generations. they use typical adhominem attacks and weak arguments like compare lady gaga to bob dylan completely mowing over the fact that 60s and 70s radio pop music is just as bad. in reality bob dylan was really just the bon iver of the 60s.

they are afraid of mortality so they try to deify the time that they were alive to make it immortal. they're so selfish that they get off on the fact that their "time" was better than any other "time" in the remaining 1-2 decades that they have left on planet earth.

here's the bitter truth: music, literature, film etc.. and the arts in general are just in their infancy. it is a 2 week old fetus. it will be "born" when immersive virtual reality becomes the norm. yes bands like the velvet underground and writers like james joyce helped create some of the tissue fibre of the baby but they are merely just an atom compared to the rest of the baby. the artists of the future will prove to be the stoic gods that the dads of today consider musicians of their time to be.

you have to accept the fact that your best people are but a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things and at most will have had a say in how an atom of a tissue fibre of art will look like to onlookers in a million millennia"

Neither is religion. Try again.

never said it was

Criminalization of homosexuality, obviously. It was decriminalized in a lot of European countries only in the 90s, and it is still a crime in a lot of develped countries, some of which are more developed than the West.

Then your post was utterly irrelevent and pointless.

so was yours, gays are 1%

Correct. Yet they're more than 50% of all new HIV diagnoses. They're around 30% of all child molesters. 45% of trannies try to kill themselves. Gays are up to 14 times more likely to kill themselves, depending on the country you're in (14 times is in Canada). Have much higher rates of drug abuse, mental health issues. So on and so forth.

what's that got to do with your comparison to catholics?

oh wait no i get it

fucking idiot

The comparison wans't to Catholics. The comparsion was to Catholics in Northern Ireland. The context is important. Catholics in Northern Ireland are natives who had their language, culture, religion and pretty much all of their other rights stripped from them. It took them 79 years (from the creation of Northern Ireland) to have equal rights with the people who invaded them. They are currently better in every metric than their invaders despite all of this. So why are gays still absolute bottom of the barrel in almost every metric you can think of?

Hint: homosexuality

oh for a minute i thought you were saying the catholic church was full of child molesters

So you're illiterate?

For the record, as stared before, 80% of all child molestation within the Catholic Church is homosexual.

That's not an argument you want to present when you're trying to prove gays aren't evil.

didn't stop them succeeding in every metric though eh

Slippery slope fallacy.

This is a gibberish post. You are illiterate.

i know right what a waste of your time i do apologise

It's not a fallacy. It's reality. Look around you. Men pretending they're women, grown men pretending they're children, grown men showering with little girls and if you object to any of it, you're a social pariah or worse, in some places you'll actually be in legal trouble for it.

Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then. I still have to understand why he became so famous. I am not sure that he also became influential because i think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy and/or his method (assuming he had one).

Most are? Source? Sure, straight and gay mentally ill people exist. I have nothing against prosecuting pedophiles and neither does any sensible and rational, no matter if they're gay or straight. You also seem to have been implying that if some percentage of gay population is mentally ill (pedophiles) that the solution would be extermination of all gay people no matter what.

100% of the gay population is mentally ill (they're gay). It's just that they also have a much higher rate of sexual offences towards children which makes their removal all the more important.

what would you do if your children turned out gay?

Disown them.

would you give them up for adoption?

Yes.

why?

why not just remove the ones who do commit the sexual offenses towards children?

I feel I've made my position on homosexuality explicitly clear in this thread.

Because the rest are still mentally ill too.

They're mentally ill, sure. Why does that warrant removal if the only direct side effect of their mental illness is that they're attracted to a different group?