You've heard of No-Fap November, but are you ready to take the ultimate challenge for your country...

You've heard of No-Fap November, but are you ready to take the ultimate challenge for your country? Introducing the #Pure4Trump challenge. To participate, simply abstain from pornography and masturbation until you've arrived at a polling place and filled out a ballot for DONALD J TRUMP. Not only will you fighting the eternal globalist at the polls, you'll be working to take down the Jewish pornography industry and its genocidal plot against the white birth rate.

Benefits of staying #Pure4Trump:
>Restoration of natural hormone levels
>HIGH ENERGY
>Increased attractiveness to the opposite sex
>Increased productivity at your job, school or business
>Decalcification of the pineal gland
>Higher quality memes
>More time to campaign against Hillary

>Q: I usually masturbate to cartoons. Can I participate?
Yes! Just delete your hentai folder and any other (((influences))) that tempt your hands to wander. Your waifu deserves better than to be raped by faceless Japanese men.

>Q: I'm from Argentina. Does #Pure4Trump help me?
Yes. Even if you can't vote for Trump yourself, you can lend your meme energy to his victory this November. Remember, the globalist Jew's plan leads to the destruction of all nations and races.

>Q: Will #Pure4Trump help me get gf?
Absolutely! If you start now, your testosterone levels will be so high by Election Day that you'll be struggling to keep qt3.14159s from jumping you at the polling place.

This November, let's all come together to make America great again!

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_obscenity_case_law
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes! MAGA

Is sex with a woman okay?

>No Sup Forumssters have a woman to have sex with...

If I dont fap I turn in to a mass killer

ok but I still have to fap for ebolachan but i wont fap without a cause

>Restoration of natural hormone levels

Is there any science behind this meme? What if you're fucking your gf twice a day, are your hormone levels not natural? Same effect as jerking it right, at the end of the day it's just emptying your balls.

well im not doing this one
i cant vote for trump.
(criminal reasons)

...

The only science on this topic says that men who don't ejaculate regularly have an elevated chance of getting prostate cancer later in life.

Bruh, kys

I missed it, what was it?

depravity

>muh depravity
>muh degeneracy

I'm going to submit request for absentee ballot in NC tomorrow, if I turn it in early how does that work?

as real as roads

CP nigger spic gook towelhead shit.

just archived, thats definitely not cp.

Shouldn't even have been banned.

t. pedophile

>i dont like thing
>ban and censor it

kys normie scum

Degenerate pornography isn't protected by free speech for a reason. It isn't speech. It's porn. It doesn't enlighten the mind. It corrupts it.

Holy fuck screw off Christfag

>if I don't like it it isn't covered

Feel free to go look up the reason the old kike scotus fucks gave for banning cp, if you actually think that's legit please move to some statist shithole and leave this country

>if I don't like thing it isn't covered

kek

nice LARP you have there
Sup Forums doesn't have real Christians

>Decalcification of the pineal gland

fucking kill yourself

Why don't you tell me about the dissenting opinions in that case? Oh right, there weren't any.

Describe "regularly". Ive been getting wet dreams about every week and it's amazing. Feels like actual sex in the dream and you wake up right after so you remember it all, way better then fapping.
>muh hassle and cleanup
Toss your undies in the tub when you go to take a shower and let all the soap rinse down on it, twist it dry when you get out.

learn to think for yourself you dumb slave.

Oh wait I'm telling this to a christian, how dumb of me.

>implying anyone will stand up and be "that guy" who defends cp

The normie outrage and social taboo prevents any dissent, if you don't think the elite know exactly what they're doing you're deluded. It is just another way to snag Liberty.

Obscene porn isn't covered per Miller and child porn with no exceptions per Ferber.

do you even hear yourself idiot?

did you not listen to anything I or the other poster said? You dumb slaves will literally swallow anything if a bunch of old fucks in the supreme court tell you to, fucking pathetic.

Even though a fucking child can read the first amendment.

Why is your id poo

I think the sexual abuse of children is one of the most wicked and depraved things man can do. Where's the argument to tolerate it?

>follows a god that tells people to mutilate childrens genitals and slaughters millions of innocent people because muh sin

dumb christcuck

youre also making the false statement that all of that is "abuse"

The only thing wrong with the Supreme Court's judgment in those cases was the absurd notion that "artistic" porn should be protected.

I really hope youre trolling you nigger

youre fucking pathetic

Right, because if you teach your kid to suck your cock and she does it, it's not abuse. Pedo logic.

Let's stay objective here fellow burger. Religion aside do you think it is okay to produce child pornography?

If not, what is it you are defending?

Is so... what is the cut off age and in your world how would it all work? I'm honestly curious.

I hope CTR is paying you well.

>ignore the other far more horrific abuse I listed

There are studies that say that child sexual contact doesn't result in the trauma society expects, and studies that say the real damage comes from societies opinion and response to the act rather than the act itself.

I don't know how I feel on it, as far as solo girls go it's definitely okay nothing wrong with that (obviously).

I don't want to set arbitrary ages like the government does, nothing works like that.

>cant vote trump
Why even live?

definitely trolling, or just a legit retard. Defending freedom isn't ctr you stupid fucking christfag.

>not refraining from alcohol, cigarettes and drugs until the election winning celebration
pleb

Hey pal I agree with you. The Bill of Rights does not grant absolute rights; they're always considered in balance and against a standard of rationality. "Free speech" doesn't protect harmful speech like knowingly making false statements (to clients, LEOs, or many types of others), and it shouldn't protect obscene speech either (indeed, it does not; the issue is that nothing gets declared obscene anymore).

Could you define to me what solo would mean under what you believe would be acceptable?

Is there a definitive age cut off that you believe no matter what would not be okay?

I appreciate the response.

This is great

I'm going to be so happy when Trump brings back rule of law and your cuck/scat/pedo/misc depravities porn websites get taken down.

2 cents have been deposited in your account.

As in a girl recording herself masturbating or something, which happens all the time.

>Is there a definitive age cut off that you believe no matter what would not be okay?

Not that I can think of, again, arbitrary age limits are the problem with the system that we have now, I don't think arbitrarily stating that "hurr all things with this age is wrong" is logical, or even makes sense.

I think these people who are so outraged at the notion that people below their arbitrary government set ages enjoy sex forgot even being children.

I and every one of my friends starting masturbating and being sexually curious well before the age of 12, for me it was like 8.

>hes a trumpnigger /r/the_donald refugee too

fuck off newfag, tired of your shit. I can't believe I even wasted time responding to your stupid ass.

I'll do it.

Won't be that hard since I have a girlfriend.

The problem is simple to resolve. Images depicting explicit sexual acts are obscene and should be banned. You are right that there is no magic age that makes it OK.

> "As in a girl recording herself masturbating or something"

So let's say a 10 year old records herself masturbating and her video gets into the hands of a corporation. Do you think it should be legal for the corporation or to buy the rights to her video and then distribute said video?

I'm not building a strawman btw I'm honestly curious your take on all this.

Should it only be for ones own personal consumption or should girls as young as 8 years old or boys be able to be filmed by adults for profit?

Appreciate the response.

>the answer is to instead infringe on more speech and censor things further

>As in a girl recording herself masturbating or something, which happens all the time.

Girl should be taken away from the negligent parents (more likely parent) and raised right. Anyone making shiny shekels publishing her mistake online goes straight to prison.

Yes, see #88521544. The solution is to properly categorize obscene speech and use police powers to prevent its distribution. Free speech is not absolute.

ATTENTION: CTR IS FREAKING THE FUCK OUT BECAUSE OF THE RECENT KKKILLARY KKKLINTON KKKAMPAIGN KKKATASTROPHE.

SHILLS ARE DESPERATELY SPAMMING POL WITH ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO DISTRACT FROM THE KKKILLARY KKKLINTON BODY KKKOUNT.

C T R
FUCKING
SUICIDAL

how would her video get "into the hands of a corporation", wouldn't she have to voluntarily sell the rights to her video? How would they just magically claim ownership?

>Should it only be for ones own personal consumption or should girls as young as 8 years old or boys be able to be filmed by adults for profit?

I was merely talking about legality throughout the thread, if you want to talk about industry and profit like porn thats a whole nother ballgame, firstly my argument wasn't towards the age of consent just towards the viewership of cp. You could have people not getting arrested for cp and no censorship of the internet but still have the act of production be legal. The same way that murder is illegal but watching some gore video isn't illegal.

>oy vey give those children to the state and let them be brainwashed correctly

so tired of your posting you dumb statist kike, please stop talking.

right, it only covers speech you agree with right?

>not KKKORPSE
what are you even doing

Was just wondering the same thing. If i cant fap, can i still bang a sloot every once in a while?

It doesn't have to be legal. There is a legal framework for handling speech that serves no value and appeals only to the prurient interest. It is disingenuous to claim it's all or nothing.

"See #88521544"
Hey outsider shill, fuck off and die. Crack your head open with a spoon and shovel your own brain into your fucking gullet

No, it covers most speech (and political or religious speech in particular).

It doesn't cover the speech involved in intentional deceit, conspiracy, etc., and it doesn't cover obscenity.

>it serves no value

if the fags in the government can dictate for no reason that something does or doesnt serve value then what is even the purpose of free speech?

That isn't even free speech, like I said anyone can read and understand the first amendment, it isn't fucking rocket science. Yet cunts like you will bend over to the SCOTUS no matter what bullshit they come up with and beg for more.

You should marry a nice cute girl of the same race and if you're both white, have lots of unprotected baby-making sex. We're an endangered species these days.

Sounds complicated!

weird, I can't find that in the first amendment anywhere.

Maybe its right above muskets in the second?

Well, they're called "judges" because they have to make judgments -- there's really no way around that other than anarchy, which is untenable.

Obscenity is a high standard for speech to meet. It must serve only the prurient interest. Explicit sexual imagery qualifies. Judges have refused to appropriately label it because they like satisfying their own prurient interests and don't want to make it harder for themselves to do so.

The way around it is having the constitution strictly followed as intended, and not having the judges make these vague baseless decisions and having the ignorant sheep like you follow it and beg for more boot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_obscenity_case_law

Correct. The Constitution never intended to protect obscene speech, nor did it intend to protect other forms of speech for which protection is not extended, such as treason, espionage, fraud, conspiracy, inciting a riot, and so forth.

>Toss your undies in the tub when you go to take a shower and let all the soap rinse down on it, twist it dry when you get out.

Fucking filthy degenerate

can you not read? what exactly do you think linking me more laws made explicitly to undermine the constitution and our liberty is going to do?

>I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

amusing "logical" snippet I took here christcuck

Then why can't you point to me in the first amendment where it says "everything but what a judge vaguely defines as obscene is covered"?

You fucking can't, now go lube up your butthole statist slave.

They're not laws, they're decisions from judges that interpret the meaning of the Constitution. None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute, that's blindingly obvious, and the Constitution explicitly acknowledges that by creating a judiciary tasked with interpreting laws against itself.

Hmm, I already linked to the body of text that explicitly defines that, for the people dense enough not to understand that the Constitution's grant of rights cannot automatically be construed as absolute (it makes no sense internally under this assumption).

Obscene speech is not protected. No judge has ever ruled that it is, because it's obviously not. The issue is that the standard of obscenity has been set impossibly high and there is no communal will to enforce these provisions.

>None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute,

Look up unalienable you cuck

>To protect fundamental, individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s reach.

>The “unalienable rights” explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights include, but are not limited to, the rights of free speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, self-determination with regard to one’s own property, the right to be secure in one’s own property, the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth.

You've been licking the fucking boot so long you have no clue anymore.

>Decalcification of the pineal gland

The argument you _want_ to be having is that pornography could never be considered obscene because demand automatically implies useful value (also incorrect, but not drooling-on-yourself-stupid), not that obscenity is protected speech.

[Fapping Intensifies]

>hurr I cant define what obscenity is but I know it when I see it

yeah man that sounds objective and logical

see you pathetic fucker:

The Constitution would be incomprehensible if it defined every potential caveat. As the right to freedom of religion doesn't excuse bombing conducted under religious motivation, the right to freedom of speech doesn't excuse obscenity. This is indisputable and universally recognized.

Fuck you all, I'm legit doing this. Tired of beating it all the time.

>He said an hour since he last fapped

>demand doesn't imply value

what the fuck am i reading

>comparing freedom to harming another person with bombs

you have zero clue what you're talking about and are literally just repeating the same baseless vague shit you've been repeating all thread.

Look up "unalienable definition".

It's not objective. There's a legal standard called the "reasonable person test" because you can't circumvent the need for interpretation in legal application. Again, we call our magistrates "judges" because they have to make judgments.

Even when they make judgements that literally go against the entire point of the bill of rights? Again, look up the definition of unalienable.

Harming someone with obscene speech, while perhaps less bad than harming someone with bombs, is not implicitly legal -- it's implicitly illegal. Again, for the millionth time, *every* judge has always ruled that obscenity is not legal, it's not protected speech.

That the Constitution recognizes inalienable rights doesn't mean that every conceivable construction of the terms used in the Bill of Rights is automatically allowable. "Speech" does not include obscenity, nor does it include libel, slander, fraud, conspiracy, or other segments of sounds and/or letters.

How do you propose we make it illegal to share state secrets, or to mislead investors, or to recruit terrorists, if *literally no speech* can be punished?

I'm about to fap again and I thought I wouldn't again tonight after that loli fap

>increased productivity at your job, school or buisiness
literally doesn't work for me at all. When I do calculus and I rub one out before i'm much more focused.

>harming someone with speech

Can I harm you by yelling obscenities at my PC? I am going to try.

>That the Constitution recognizes inalienable rights doesn't mean that every conceivable construction of the terms used in the Bill of Rights is automatically allowable.

Did you even read the definition? You're arguing like such a typical kike, you just keep going over the same shit over and over again with slightly different wording, we've went over this multiple times.

I get more focused on mental tasks after fap too, shortly after.

Thank God Im not American and cant vote for Trump

How do you propose we make it illegal to share state secrets, or to mislead investors, or to recruit terrorists, if *literally no speech* can be punished?

A strict reading of "inalienable" would mean that anything that can remotely be defined as "speech" is legal. We know this is not the case. The founders knew this was not reasonable and would not be the case. That's why they created the Supreme Court in the first place.

I do the exact opposite, every time I make cummies I direct my energy towards trump's campaign

sauce

>Advance ballot

Done and done!

I inject 250mg of China's finest mysterious bathtub hormones. Will this benefit me?

For state secrets you can just have a punishment in a government employment contract maybe?

For "misleading investors" punishing a company might not infringe on an individuals right to free speech. I don't know, I don't care.

None of this disproves my point and what unalienable rights are, the problems that might come with that isn't an argument against it, it is what it is. It's the fucking bill of rights. Deal with it and work around it.

>The founders knew this was not reasonable and would not be the case. That's why they created the Supreme Court in the first place.


They didn't make the SCOTUS to infringe on our base unalienable rights, otherwise they wouldn't have made them unalienable.

No idea

>inb4 no sex
That would mean less white babies though.