in which case you get off on paint

hey, at least I got you to stay consistent even if you had to go to stupid extents to keep it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

so, by your logic, if a site has racist content and a user keep on using that site. You can also infer he is racist?

(the left does this all the time, so I'm curious on your take on it)

he might just enjoy watching racist content, might be a fan of "racially charged material"

but you do assume that he is a fan 😏

if he actively participates in the racist acts though, (actively posts "kill da joos") then he's acting racist

hahahahhahaa

no wonder people will never understand 4chan or the Internet in general

"racist" is a bad choice because racist is poorly defined

normies are doomed to end up in those kinds of pitfalls

you are assuming intent, intent that you have no way to prove you are right on (and that I would say, you are wrong most of the times for assuming it)

no I'm not, I'm explicitly not assuming intent

someone playing Hitler in a movie is also acting racist

>in which case you get off on paint
A paint arouser 😂

fap to a drying paint wall once, forever known as attracted to walls

yeah, if your pee-pee get hard watching paint dry, the painter can notice, there's no need to make any assumptions there

https://youtu.be/P2XzcF2m8sU

ever watched porn then to find out the girl was 17 and that you are now a pedo?

no?

sure 😏

and even if I did, that'd make me a hebephile, or if I did it while I myself was close to that age, "normal"

I can go lower on the example if you need me to

there's a pretty wide gap between child and late teen

sure

you are basically admiting to it anyway

yeah. it's how we define these things.

you apply labels too easily and are blind to any nuance

you also apply intent to any action without any thought put into it

you keep saying that, but memeing lies doesn't make it true

when lies did I meme?

^

I'll be waiting

that I apply intent to any action without any thought put into it

getting an erection isn't an assumption of intent, it's a physical consequence of stimuli

as for me applying labels too easily, that's your opinion and that's fine

let's go by parts. First, our first examples were just about watching, not fapping, erection, or stiffy

I think the wider labels are the better, we don't really need 10000000 genders, two or at most three should suffice

you can never judge someone merely because they _watched_ something

>our first examples were just about watching, not fapping, erection, or stiffy
Your example was, and I quote
>if I fap to paint dry on a wall, that doesn't mean I'm aroused by walls