I fricking love drinking milk. Why is there a war on milk and why do people get so angry when others drink milk?

I fricking love drinking milk. Why is there a war on milk and why do people get so angry when others drink milk?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lactose intolerance jealousy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Browns are lactose intolerant and get extremely jealous

      >he fell for the lactose intolerance meme

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Browns are lactose intolerant and get extremely jealous

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No I'm not.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This. /misc/gays are more ignorant than your average black teen from chicago

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's actually "anti-racist" progressives with hidden vegan agendas who both started and push the "all brown people are lactose intolerant" myth the most despite the long history of nonwhite cultures around the world who have consumed milk and dairy products in a variety of forms for centuries. They spread this nonsense because they think if they can paint milk as racist and exclusionary they can get people to drink less of it and support plant "milks" and further their agenda toward getting rid of cattle and livestock in general. /misc/ are just a bumbling group of useful idiots who are too focused on and giddy about edgy racism to see how they're being used.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So they're as ignorant as anti-racist-blog-writers fans?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              /misc/ is not one guy, but average user is American, not-really-white, male and dumb.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, /misc/ has always been moronic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly think their average IQ is a little higher than the average IQ of the residents of Detroit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      pure whites are milk tolerant, the rest of the world isn't, for the most part, do the math

      Yes, lets focus more on random "muh non-whites" and ignore the liberals trying to ban milk?

      You guys will sell the country to get a change to feel your race (if you even have one) is better for a moment.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/jpXYGBa.png

        There is absolutely a war on milk. At the federal level, interstate commerce of milk is illegal. U.S. Federal Regulation 21 CFR § 1240.61 states:
        >No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.

        As you can see from pic related map only 11 states allow milk to be sold in grocery stores. A lot of states allow buying milk directly from farms, but a lot of that is very recent progress and many of those still require jumping through absurd hoops like herdshares. In my home state, farmers had their farms raided and thousands of dollars in equipment stolen by state agencies just for the very suspicion of selling milk to people, which only stopped within the last 10 years because of advocates of milk pushing hard to legalize herdshares. Even today, legislators in many states periodically introduce bills intended to curb or entirely stop the sale of milk entirely. To say there's not a war on milk is ignorant and you should get yourself more informed.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just look at what they're putting Amos Miller through

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If it's pasteurized and homogenized, it's not milk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/hEdWPnx.jpg

      just enjoy the fact that you can drink milk and they can't

      Being able to drink milk without repercussions is a uniquely caucasian trait. Most everyone else is lactose intolerant, either genetically or due to being raised on formula.
      In the evident push to erase whites from media, the act of drinking milk is a constant reminder of, not only their presence, but the presence of biological differences between races. Ergo, it's racist and must be met with contempt and censorship.

      >list of life achievements:
      1. I can drink milk
      2. ???

      When has anyone ever seethed about milk

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I am watching you seethe about milk at this very moment

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, I can drink milk too. I'm just asking what other life achievements you have

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Meanwhile
        >list of life achievements:
        1. ???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm black. I literally use heavy cream in my coffee and used to eat my cereal with half and half.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Milk is racist.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's one thing we have in common.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off to /b/

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    just enjoy the fact that you can drink milk and they can't

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hot

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that there isn't a porno based on this is a travesty

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's because it's usually not chocolate milk, folk that don't drink chocolate milk are a sad pathetic lot.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how do you milk chocolate?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a war on milk, since when? i enjoy it daily

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a war on milk, since when?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        are the nipples on the shell or on the nut?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They just nut in water and sell it to vegans

          then why isnt it anywhere near his actual birthday and why does every other culture that does believe in jesus also have a winter celebration about that time

          CHRIST IS KING

          >Drinking milk is like eating spoons of sugar.
          what fricking planet are you from?

          Milk does have a ridiculous amount of sugar considering how much is drunk of it. People have a meltdown over a can of Monster because it has 10g sugar /100ml yet down a carton of milk without hesitation.

          then shouldn't christmas be easter
          stop sucking israelite wiener you schizo homosexual

          jews hate JESUS

          Is soured milk a thing outside of scandinavia? The name alone sounds so disgusting in english that it can't be.
          I drink like a carton of that stuff in a day. It's like thick milk with a bit of tang to it.

          Yeah Germans drink "dickmilch"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            jesus is a israelite you homosexual, all abrhamic religions are judaism

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Shalom.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not reading all that shit, your religion is a sadistic death cult like the other branches of your israelitehomosexualry

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              JEWS HATE JESUS BECAUSE CHRISTIANS REPLACED THEM AS "THE CHOSEN PEOPLE"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing more scaring to an American than the freedom to choose more options.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not scary to Americans, more options to an electorate is scary to politicians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe not for you, but there are quite a few Americans in this thread who are scared of people being able to choose vegetal "milk".

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I can see that, likely west coast california types or upper west side manhattan types.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed, it's a terrible option, but still just an option.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Is vegetal milk from a cactus, it's been some years since I've been to Arizona so am not around cacti too often in NY.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's like the most American thing ever. Having so many options that you're almost paralyzed having to choose between them is basically an American invention.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            t. banned alcohol out of fear people would make the wrong choice, to drink it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              We also just banned abortion in half the states, even though like 90% of the country were against it. It's almost like we have so much freedom in our political system that small interest groups with the money and determination can enact wildly unpopular policies. One of our political parties basically does nothing but convince people to vote against their interests.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                land of the free, i guess

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I've basically stated in my last two posts that having choices is not the same as having freedom. At the same time, having an entire aisle full of oat/soy/rice/almond milk doesn't mean the regular milk is no longer there, or that you for some reason can't buy it anymore. It's not about freedom with these people. They just hate certain things and certain people who don't affect them or their ability to drink milk one bit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They just hate certain things and certain people who don't affect them or their ability to
                Please, take no offense, but sound like the puritanical movements that fill the American history.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It was not 90%

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >even though like 90% of the country were against it
                No, 90% of liberal whiners on twitter are against it. The silent majority is real, way more people are pro-life than feel comfortable admitting it publicly. And in any case, it doesn't matter what "the country" thinks of it when it's each state's decision. It only matters what the population of each STATE thinks of it, which is the whole purpose of overturning the unconstitutional ruling of Roe v. Wade.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the silent majority is pro-life but are just scared to say it
                That's the dumbest shit I've ever read. The vast majority of people think there are absolutely situations when an abortion would be a good thing, but it's a difficult subject for anyone to talk about. Why the frick would anyone be scared to say that they're against "killing babies"? How does that make any sense in your head?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Opposing major ideologies and religions in the US is a death sentence, unless you have your own to back you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You think there's millions of liberal women who secretly hate having bodily autonomy but wont say it because that's not considered cool in their social circle? Are you actually moronic?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I do not think most women have a proper opinion on most subjects, they tend to go with the flow, I am sorry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I can assure you that the vast majority of women have very strong opinions about what is done with or to their bodies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It is very hard to talk with people who repeat the official narrative as if this was talking or discussing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You think there's millions of liberal women who secretly hate having bodily autonomy
                This wording right here shows exactly what I'm talking about in the first part of

                >The vast majority of people think there are absolutely situations when an abortion would be a good thing
                Did you personally interview all people to come to this conclusion, or did some liberal media source tell you that liberal views are totally, definitely, always the most common sense agreed-upon views and only crazy people ever disagree?
                >Why the frick would anyone be scared to say that they're against "killing babies"?
                Because if you try to equate abortion with killing babies you'll be beset by a frothing mob of pro-choicers. Or at least that's what liberal media and the echo chamber that is social media has convinced people of, and that's exactly how the silent majority works: There are tons of people who all share the same view but because they're all equally afraid of the social consequences of voicing that opinion you never hear about it until it's too late. This issue is compounded even further because abortion is a women's issue and women are terrified of going against the groupthink openly even if they privately disagree with it.

                You clearly have a huge liberal bias and simply consider it a matter of course that the vast majority of people are liberal and conservatism is some fringe movement from a tiny minority, but it's not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He is right about a lot of moderates having very light blue ideals. Most Americans are fine with abortion to a certain extent because it's beneficial to them and religion is pretty much dead. Not many want abortion totally outlawed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But very few want abortion outside a very limited set of reasons.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Those "very limited set of reasons" were already enforced under Roe. It's just the Right has pushed out this narrative "abortions as easy as fast food and creating a culture of bawds" and "abortions being legal up to birth". It's just fear-mongering.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's just the Right has pushed out this narrative "abortions as easy as fast food and creating a culture of bawds" and "abortions being legal up to birth".
                The worse part is that they are not really wrong, the tone is a bit too heavy but generally this is what is being pushed by progressives in the US.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely nobody is pushing the idea that abortion clinics are like McDonald's or weed shops, where you can just stop in on your drive home and have a quick abortion when you're 9 months pregnant. It's really stupid that you could possibly believe that. Abortion access should be easy, because in a lot of situations making someone have to jump through hoops is no different than making it illegal in the first place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Both sides in American politics are pushing for radical puritanical crap, and 21 weeks is very late.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and 21 weeks is very late
                21 weeks is the end of the second trimester and would have been a grey area under Roe, and required extraordinary circumstances to be performed. 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester, because people don't wait 3 months before deciding they don't want the pregnancy. There's just no data to back up the idea that making abortion easily accessible would lead to people doing bizarre shit like not using protection because "why not just get an abortion?" or deciding on a whim in their 3rd trimester that they don't want a baby after all. Those just aren't things that happen.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I really dont care what you think is right or wrong, but claiming most people think like you is at best being deluded, at worst lying out of malice.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester
                So why do abortion supporters so vehemently oppose laws that limit abortion to the first trimester and consider it akin to a complete ban of the practice? This kind of thing is the problem with the entire abortion debate in the US, there's too much extremism in the discourse. If you support abortion in certain circumstances or timeframes, one side calls you a baby murderer. If you think abortion shouldn't be allowed up to birth, the other side calls you a bible-thumping misogynist.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's not true, though. We had a law for 50 years and it was fine. It divided pregnancy into trimesters and had certain conditions for each trimester. In the first trimester it was your choice. In the second, especially approaching viability, there would have to be extenuating circumstances. And it was illegal in the the 3rd trimester unless the doctor determined it would be necessary to save the life of the mother (more or less). There's so many laws being put forward around the country I don't know what first trimester one you're talking about. One of the big first ones to go into effect was 6 weeks. That's a month and a half. Women get their period once a month. Missing one period (or just not noticing that you're not bleeding from the gash between your legs) is not a realistic timeframe to realize you're pregnant, decide what you want to do and discuss it with the involved parties, and then get the procedure. Most women don't even know their pregnant at 6 weeks. It's a way of making it practically impossible for most women to get abortions while Republicans can say, "actchually it's not technically banned so I guess it's your fault for being so irresponsible."
                tl;dr - pro-choice people want reasonable restrictions, which is what we had. The Right wants a complete ban, and are using any loophole to make it as difficult as possible until they can get a full ban.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >We had a law for 50 years and it was fine
                It was not fine, it was an unconstitutional ruling that infringed on the rights of individual states.

                Well I found a poll, and it seems like people want it legal in few instances. I wonder how they feel about it being outright banned

                https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx

                >85% of people are against an abortion ban
                Well, it's not 90%, but it's pretty close. You do understand how polls like this are swayed by whatever narrative people are hearing, right? If you're being told Texas is going to make it illegal except in cases of rape or incest (I don't even think Texas wants that), you're probably going to think, "frick that, make it legal in all cases." But if you spend all day watching Fox News, you're going to hear nothing but open boarders and after-birth abortions, and get really upset and say these things need to be shut down without really understanding the issues.

                Okay, now group it BY STATE. How many people were polled? What states do they live in? The opinions of Californians and New Yorkers should not determine what happens in Texas or North Dakota.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He is a cultist, but data on who was interviewed can be found here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244097/legality-abortion-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >1,011 people from an undisclosed mix of states should speak for the whole country and every state
                These polls are always so gay, nothing but disinformation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it was an unconstitutional ruling that infringed on the rights of individual states
                It was a bad argument, but it didn't infringe anyone's rights. It effectively made abortion a constitutional right. The reason it took 50 years to be overturned is because when the culture decides certain things should be the case, there's no real incentive to be against it on the basis of a bad argument. Nobody believes that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >frick the supreme court and rulemakers, I have the one true ideology, and this is how things MUST be.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >rulemakers
                lmao at getting into an argument on behalf of the rights of "rule makers". are you six? lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I will take the US congress over a cultist like you anyday.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And your mom takes congress from a rottweiler every weekend

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >frick the supreme court
                This, but unironically. Also, frick the senate. It's the most anti-democratic institution in the country.
                >bumfrick moronic farmer in wyoming with a 4th grade education's vote counts for ten times as much as an informed, college educated voter who lives in a more populous state
                Yeah, frick that shit. The supreme court isn't even supposed to make the rules; they just interpret the law. They decided to ban abortion. It was politics, plain and simple.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >bumfrick moronic farmer in wyoming with a 4th grade education's vote counts for ten times as much as an informed, college educated voter who lives in a more populous state
                Should count a hundred times more, taking in account the former are not ideological fanatics.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >all of my information comes from church and fox news
                >i'm definitely not an ideological fanatic
                >i just do the normal thing and go along with whatever i hear like everyone else i know
                >people shouldn't think too much about these things
                >everything is fine
                >everything is fine

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I am too ideological to know how others live
                This is why their vote is worth more than yours.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think there should be no-fault abortion up until 3 years. Some people aren't cut out to be parents, and there's no way they all figure it out during pregnancy. There's a lot of people running around that wouldn't be here if we had those kind of laws. That's an improvement I'd like to see.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thank God the US is a democracy and not a me liberal, me know, me choose totalitarian regime.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >making someone have to jump through hoops is no different than making it illegal in the first place
                Like clockwork, just as I said.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Like clockwork what?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Those "very limited set of reasons" were already enforced under Roe.
                "No questions asked up to 21 weeks" is not very limited at all. Pic related is a premature baby born at 21 weeks, which abortion supporters would callously call "just a clump of cells" if someone had a problem with a woman aborting it.
                Mind you, states aren't even outlawing abortion as far as I know, they're just pulling back the cutoff to 7-10 weeks. But again, abortion supporters spin this as an outright outlawing of abortion because they're incapable of having a nuanced discussion on the topic or actually owning up to the reality of what it means to have an abortion.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What do you mean?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That outside people following the progressive ideology, no one wants abortions to be easy, accessible and not properly restricted to some special circumstances.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                IDK about that. If you asked your average Joe, I think they'd say yes to all of those things

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is why the other anon is rightfully saying your view on what most people think has been twisted by your ideology.

                What is described here

                Most people want abortion to only be available in cases of rape, an imminent threat to the mother's long-term health, or in specific circumstances where the baby will come out with a gross deformity/condition that guarantees their life will be hell from start to finish. Progressives literally call abortion "women's healthcare" and want it to be easily accessible by all with no questions asked.

                is far more accurate.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >outside people following the progressive ideology, no one wants
                Talk about projection. The vast, vast majority of women (and men who don't want to pay child support) would absolutely want to have easy access to abortion care is they had an accident. You're delusional if you think the vast majority of people are having sex and thinking, "welp, if I get pregnant it's only a lifelong commitment...oh well, sex feels good, whatever happens happens."

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                youre so close to understanding the problem, its staring you right in the face

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not talking about a problem. I'm talking about how most people think and act, which is what we're talking about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most people would ban progressives from voting or publicly speaking, if given the chance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But all the smart and interesting people tend to be progressives. Why would most people not want to hear smart and interesting people speak?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But all the smart and interesting people tend to be progressives.
                Not really, progressives are no smarter or more interesting than your average fanatic cult member. Every day you should knee and thank your god that the US tolerates your kind, unlike back home.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > The vast, vast majority of women (and men who don't want to pay child support) would absolutely want to have easy access to abortion care
                Then why not have a referendum instead of backroom lobbying?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most people want abortion to only be available in cases of rape, an imminent threat to the mother's long-term health, or in specific circumstances where the baby will come out with a gross deformity/condition that guarantees their life will be hell from start to finish. Progressives literally call abortion "women's healthcare" and want it to be easily accessible by all with no questions asked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have a study or poll that reflects that? I wanna read it

                This is why the other anon is rightfully saying your view on what most people think has been twisted by your ideology.

                What is described here [...] is far more accurate.

                I'm not that other guy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Progressives are more scared of pools, voting and referendum than rats fear shocks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well I found a poll, and it seems like people want it legal in few instances. I wonder how they feel about it being outright banned

                https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >and it seems like people want it legal in few instances. I wonder how they feel about it being outright banned
                Probably just as bad as abortion being trivialized.

                But hey, progressives dont give half a frick about the people, they know what is better and will do whatever it takes to get it done.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >85% of people are against an abortion ban
                Well, it's not 90%, but it's pretty close. You do understand how polls like this are swayed by whatever narrative people are hearing, right? If you're being told Texas is going to make it illegal except in cases of rape or incest (I don't even think Texas wants that), you're probably going to think, "frick that, make it legal in all cases." But if you spend all day watching Fox News, you're going to hear nothing but open boarders and after-birth abortions, and get really upset and say these things need to be shut down without really understanding the issues.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if... if we count people who want to heavily limit it on our side... then we are not a noisy minority.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "Legal under certain circumstances" doesn't mean "heavily limit". It's the exact same shit as the "open boarder" thing. Literally nobody but a few fringe morons want open boarders, just like nobody wants it be legal to have an abortion in the middle of labor because you "changed your mind".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >"Legal under certain circumstances" doesn't mean "heavily limit".
                Tard, the research you posted do ask if they think limits should be high or low, if they said under some circumstancees, and 13 percent said legal in most circumstances, while 36 said legal in very few circumstances.

                So no, most people who said under some circumstances mean very high limitations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not even this fake all survey say this bullshit:

                U.S. adults
                >Legal under any circumstances
                34
                >Legal in most
                13
                >Legal in only a few
                36
                >Illegal in all
                13
                >No opinion
                3

                I didn't link that poll. Most polls are bullshit. Because again, "legal in only a few circumstances" depends on the narrative you've been fed. Here's my list of circumstances,
                >before the fetus is viable
                >rape
                >incest
                >to save the mother's life
                >if the baby is not going to survive and going through delivery would be extremely risky or harmful to the mother's health, as determined by their doctor
                Hey look, that's just "a few" circumstances. I can count them all on one hand.

                The point is, the ONLY people who wanted Roe overturned where religious fundamentalists who want ALL abortion banned. NOBODY was calling for a reform. They want it GONE. And that's 10-15% of the population. I don't give a frick about a state's right to take away the rights of its citizens. That's the fricking point of federal laws.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't give a frick about a state's right
                Then you live in the wrong country, try Canada.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a state's right
                A state's right to what? Who are you quoting?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US, as the name says, is a union of states, not a republic. States have rights by default, citizens get those from the state, indirectly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, you said "a state's right", not "state rights". What state right were you referring to?
                (And the US is a republic; try not paying your federal income tax and see how that goes for you.)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And the US is a republic
                No, it is not. Even if this makes you upset.

                The US being and US is what justify the senate as superior to the other chamber.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US being an US

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US being an US

                You clearly don't understand multiple words you're using.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You dont agree with me... so... you dumb
                You know what an union of states is? Despite being the thing that give name to the country, most Americans do not even know why the US is called the US.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh shit! It's the Brazilian moron. Yeah, you're right. The US is anUS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hey, arent you the guy who calls everyone a Brazilian? I wonder if you are the milk schizo too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >hey, i recognize you from the last 3 threads where you called me a brazillian!
                >but i'm totally not the same guy you keep calling a brazillian!
                >those are definitely all different people!
                >i just happened to be in all of those threads and knew you were talking to someone different every time!
                Lol. You're funny.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think I saw you a couple of days ago, was it in the MRE thread?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. I don't post in MRE threads. It's possible someone else recognized the moronic Brazilian. He always talks about how much he hates Americans in broken ESL, and uses the exact same
                >You dont agree with me... so... you dumb
                greentext format in his posts. He might as well use a trip or an avatar he stands out so much.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If it was not in the MRE thread, it was in American supermarket section, you are the bananabread anon, arent you?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >an union
                Why are there so many browns here?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not even this fake all survey say this bullshit:

                U.S. adults
                >Legal under any circumstances
                34
                >Legal in most
                13
                >Legal in only a few
                36
                >Illegal in all
                13
                >No opinion
                3

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well how do you suppose we hold a survey without using people that have been exposed to propaganda?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *poles

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, despite all the memes about Poland being trad and conservative, the country will swallow anything the EU pushes, try Belarus instead.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You clearly have a huge liberal bias and simply consider it a matter of course that the vast majority of people are liberal and conservatism is some fringe movement from a tiny minority, but it's not.
                I'm not a liberal, and my point is that abortion is not actually a partisan issue for most people. Only a very small number of religious fundamentalists are pushing for the abortion ban. Taking away rights isn't exactly what Republicans think of themselves as standing for, and it sure as frick isn't what anyone on the left believes. So who is this silent majority? Are you imagining a bunch of women who secretly hide a bible under the mattress because they're afraid of being called out by mobs of raving atheists? You

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The vast majority of people think there are absolutely situations when an abortion would be a good thing
                Did you personally interview all people to come to this conclusion, or did some liberal media source tell you that liberal views are totally, definitely, always the most common sense agreed-upon views and only crazy people ever disagree?
                >Why the frick would anyone be scared to say that they're against "killing babies"?
                Because if you try to equate abortion with killing babies you'll be beset by a frothing mob of pro-choicers. Or at least that's what liberal media and the echo chamber that is social media has convinced people of, and that's exactly how the silent majority works: There are tons of people who all share the same view but because they're all equally afraid of the social consequences of voicing that opinion you never hear about it until it's too late. This issue is compounded even further because abortion is a women's issue and women are terrified of going against the groupthink openly even if they privately disagree with it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That's the dumbest shit I've ever read.
                It shouldn't be. If it is, you've literally never participated in politics or gone outside and touched grass in your life.

                You're strangely detached from reality if you don't understand ideological browbeating and the power of the mass media in modern industrialized nations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if you don't understand ideological browbeating and the power of the mass media in modern industrialized nations
                I lived through four years of Trump. I'm well aware of the power of the mass media to get people to vote against their interests. But you're the one detached from reality if you think everyone who voted for Trump wanted Roe overturned.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It only matters what the population of each STATE thinks of it, which is the whole purpose of overturning the unconstitutional ruling of Roe v. Wade.
                This this this.
                kys if you think otherwise

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But this upset liberals...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're not American, so I'll explain it for you. When someone on the Right says "state's rights" they're talking about slavery. Not in the sense that they are necessarily advocating for going back to slavery, but that's where that call for "state's rights" comes from; it's a dog whistle. It's never about giving people more freedom. It's about the federal government saying that all Americans have certain basic rights, and individual states can't discriminate or treat certain groups as second-class citizens. The Right likes to turn this around and say that they're the ones advocating for rights and freedom, and the left hates those things and wants the government to control every aspect of our lives.

                Just assume they're talking about slavery if you're not familiar with the specific issues. They're talking about their to own slaves being infringed. It's always a matter of them wanting to take away the rights of people in their state, which is why they have to use such broad language that obfuscates what they're really saying and makes them look like the victims.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >States rights means slavery, frick state rights
                Got you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I figured that would go right over your head.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you want people to read your posts, try not writing pearls such as:
                >When someone in the Right say "state's rights" they be talking bout slavery.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know how to use an apostrophe. That sounds like you're quoting yourself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I know how to use an apostrophe. That sound like your quoting you
                People from each state choose how they want to live, sounds good to me, and should sound good to anyone who doesnt want to impose his ideology by force.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It sure sounds like you’re pro-choice… What were we arguing about again?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I am in favor of citizens of a state being able to choose how they are ruled, not for some progressive imbeciles to use shady means to push their ''pro-choice'' agendas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i am in favor of citizens of a state being able to choose how they are ruled
                So if a state government wants to enslave half the residents of that state because a few people in the administration were able to pass a law that makes it legal, when half the population of that state really, really doesn’t like the idea of having their rights taken away that’s okay? But if that happens on a federal level that’s bad and evil and authoritarian?

                How do you no see the cognitive dissonance? What is it about states’ rights that make them special? Why not make it a county thing? Or a town thing? Or just a direct transaction between individuals? That’s the libertarian idea, right? Just deregulate everything and let whoever has the most guns do whatever they want?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I cannot understand such thing as too big to for the people to rule, so it is you who must be stupid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you arent nearly as smart as you assume you are

                >ur dumb
                >u just dont get it bro
                Okay, then explain it to me. What specifically makes a state “the right size” to be what determine these things? You know different states have wildly disproportionate populations, right? We already went over this in relation to how undemocratic the senate is.

                I know exactly what you’re saying, anon. I’m trying to explain to you how you’re using arbitrary standards because the current system works in your favor by those standards, and you’re not making a coherent argument for why that should be the standard across the board.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What specifically makes a state “the right size” to be what determine these things?
                Believe or not, its size.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But why? There are almost 10 times as many republicans in California as there are in Wyoming. Why does California get to tell nine Wyomings that they have to follow the rules the libs want? Isn’t that exactly what you’re against?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, maybe California should be divided in two.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why? Because of the population size? What is the standard you’re using? What if I said I think we should combine North and South Dakota into one state? Frick it, throw in Wyoming while we’re at it. That would still only be less than a third of all the republicans in California if you split it in two based on party lines. Congratulations, you just lost two Republican senators and the ones from Dakotomying still have three times the voting power than the citizens of the New Republic of Northern California. Do you not see where this is going? You want things one way when it works in your favor, but not when things are reversed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why?
                Too big and plagued by progressives.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So it’s reached the point where you just resort to,”my team good, your team bad”? That’s disappointing. I was having fun and thought I made some really good arguments. I guess that’s the problem. When you realize you have no chance of winning you flip the table over and run out of the room crying like a toddler.

                Why do you even engage in these kinds of conversations when you’re completely incapable of defending your viewpoints? Did you forget you weren’t in a safe space like /misc/?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                485 characters because someone said too big, quite a sight.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, you said, “too big and plagued by progressives.” Let’s unpack that. You’re comparing the majority population of a state to a plague, while simultaneously claiming that the majority population of a state should be the sole arbiter of that state’s laws.

                Are you aware that the majority of US citizens are women? And the vast majority of women actually want bodily autonomy? I know you’re stuck on the state’s rights thing, even though you can’t explain why, so let’s talk about Texas or Florida. You know both those states are full of liberals. They both have far more than a state like Vermont, which has been reelection a fricking socialist for decades. So are the (let’s be honest) fascistic governors of those states a “plague”. If not, why? Those are pretty fricking big states. Is it really size that matters? (That’s a rhetorical question; I have no doubt in my mind at this point that you’ve never had sex.)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What specifically makes a state “the right size” to be what determine these things?
                nothing you moron, thats explicitly the point of states rights, shit is very dependant on the state your talking about so why should it be left up to an average of all the states

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you arent nearly as smart as you assume you are

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It sure sounds like you’re pro-choice… What were we arguing about again?

                And did you intentionally change “you’re” to “your”? Or do you actually not know how to greentext? That’s a serious question. I don’t doubt the possibility that ur really that dumb.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you don’t know how to greentext, and have just been using copy/paste? Yikes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not supporting states rights is supporting the federal government's enslavement of the entire country
                you really swallowed that propaganda whole and decided it was your original thought huh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It seems he want to use the federal government to impose his... superior beliefs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                even doe we can smoke weed because of state's rights

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's the opposite. States are giving their citizens more freedom, not taking it away. And weed is still federally illegal; it's just that nobody cares because - just like with abortion - it doesn't hurt anyone and is generally culturally accepted by all but a fringe minority.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >when states exercise their rights in defiance of the federal government for something I approve of it has nothing to do with states rights!
                You're moronic.
                >abortion - it doesn't hurt anyone
                moronic AND dishonest.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The problem is that you want this abstract idea of "states rights" based on some idea of libertarian, Gadsden bullshit, while in reality what you want is to take away rights. It's not a matter of "things I like" versus "things you like". It's a matter of "are people being less free or more free?" I'm saying you're being hypocritical (dishonest, really) when you act like you're fighting for the underdog against the big hand of the government, when what you're doing is literally trying to subject people to the big hand of the government.

                And no, abortion doesn't hurt anyone. i mean, it can be traumatic and life-altering, but it's usually done because it's deemed to be the lesser of two evils.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not him but you have exactly zero evidence to base that opinion on
                >abortion doesn't hurt anyone
                I dont think even an ai would say something this moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every surgical medical procedure is going to "hurt" the patient to some degree. The point is that they're (usually) making that decision themself, not inflicting harm on others.
                >hurr durr, not even ai would say that
                AI doesn't understand ethics or the nuances of language. It shouldn't be the arbiter of anything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it ceases to be "your body your choice" when another human being is growing inside you, cant have both

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not a religion gay. I don't believe in the soul. We have to draw a line for when it's a human, and viability seems like a pretty good one. If you say you don't believe in religious shit either then you need to be more clear in what you're actually arguing. A "potential human" is not a human. You could use the same slippery slope argument in the other direction and say jerking off is mass genocide of potential humans. It's dumb and unproductive. Unless you believe in a soul, you can't believe that abortion is murder.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not a religion gay. I don't believe in the soul.
                NTA, but ironically, I became more pro-life when I became less religious. If there's a soul being put into a body by God, then killing that body before it's ready shouldn't really be a problem because God should just be able to repurpose that soul and nothing is really lost. Judaism has a similar argument where they believe a baby has no soul and is not a living being until it breathes in its first breath after being born. But if there is no soul, and you're nothing but a unique body that lives and dies with one chance at everything, abortion is cutting that life short and permanently denying the existence of that human in any form forever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you're against any form of birth control, and think everyone should always be having sex solely to make babies? And I guess men should be knocking up different women every few weeks, because sperm don't last that long and letting them go to waste is ending the life of a potential human? Murder is worse than rape, so why not let men just rape random women to get them pregnant? Think of all that potential being cut off from never having a chance at life.

                That argument is incoherent. The only way you could possibly think that abortion is taking a life is if you have some superstitious belief about the soul entering the egg the moment it's fertilized by the sperm cell or whatever nonsense you tell yourself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                human = sperm + egg
                sperm - egg =/= human

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, I understand you believe that. But most people don't. So if you're trying to convince anyone you need to explain WHY that's true, not just state it as fact. I've never heard a non-religious justification for defining human life that way, so please, indulge me. I love learning new things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sperm will never, ever become a human.
                Eggs will never, ever become a human.
                Sperm mixed with an egg will (probably) become human.
                It's like calling a pile of flour a loaf of bread. You can stick it in the oven as long as you like, but without water and yeast it will never, ever be bread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A lump of dough that you’re proofing isn’t bread either. We have to set the bar somewhere, and I don’t understand why conception would be the right place unless you have some superstition about souls and shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nitpicking metaphors
                My point is that left alone, inside a womb, egg + sperm WILL grow into a baby. I draw the line at where if left to it's own devices, it will develope into a child. Once the creation of a human has started, terminating that process is denying that human's future.

                Before then, it's all "if"'s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nitpicking metaphors
                You didn’t make a metaphor; you made an analogy. A metaphor isn’t an argument. And I wasn’t “nitpicking” it. I was showing how it was a bad argument. This is exactly what I meant by “post hoc”. You already held a position and were looking for an argument that justified it. But why is conception the right metric to determine what is and isn’t a person? In the first trimester we’re talking about a clump of cells. It has no self awareness and doesn’t resemble anything we can empathize with. It’s completely arbitrary, and you’re really just saying it will turn into a person with certain conditions being met, but all the conditions up until that point aren’t essential, “just because.”

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What I want is for individual states to make their own decisions based on the will of the people within that state, WHATEVER THE RESULT. Some states have banned abortion, some states have legalized it further, some states have added limitations, AND THEY SHOULD ALL BE ALLOWED TO DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. If you don't like how your state is run you can participate in activism to CHANGE YOUR STATE or you can move to a state that better aligns with your own beliefs if it's such a fundamentally important issue to you. What I'm not okay with is people from ONE state telling ANOTHER state how they must be run. The federal government exists to maintain national defense and make sure interstate commerce is coordinated smoothly, not to force states to go along with some moral crusade. For the record, I don't think the federal government should be allowed to ban abortion nationwide for the exact same reason.

                >And no, abortion doesn't hurt anyone.
                I think you're forgetting someone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But why is the state the standard you go by? As I've said numerous times, states are all different sizes and have wildly different demographics. They're incredibly arbitrary and only correspond to geographical lines on a map drawn centuries ago, and rarely align with anything resembling a homogenous culture.

                Of course states have rights, but the idea is that all Americans should also have certain basic rights, and if one state wants to limit the rights of its citizens it should be the federal government who comes in and says "no, all Americans have this right so put down the whip and I'll put down the M4."

                >I think you're forgetting someone
                Who?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But why is the state the standard you go by?
                Because cities and counties are too small, but the country as a whole is too big. States are nice regional divisions of manageable size that can be governed in a far more personal way than the entire country at once.
                That's not to say cities and counties are irrelevant, either, it just makes more sense for a big issue like abortion to be handled in a unified way across a whole state to reduce intrastate quibbling like someone hopping a county line to get an abortion or something. But forcing one policy or the other on the whole country is absurd.

                >states are all different sizes and have wildly different demographics
                Which is EXACTLY why one state shouldn't speak for another. That's literally the point, every state is different and what works for one doesn't always work for all. The country is too big and diverse to apply such controversial policies unilaterally.

                >They're incredibly arbitrary and only correspond to geographical lines on a map drawn centuries ago, and rarely align with anything resembling a homogenous culture.
                State culture being eroded by a greedy federal government that pushes for less state identity is part of the problem and all the more reason to be against federal encroachment on states. It's like the global homogenization of globalism but on a smaller scale.

                >put down the whip and I'll put down the M4
                The federal government should step in when states are violating the constitutional rights of their citizens, but that's not what Roe v. Wade was.

                >Who?
                Keep thinking, it should come to you eventually. There's definitely someone being harmed by abortion. Who indeed?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >States are nice regional divisions of manageable size that can be governed in a far more personal way
                I already brought up the example of California, which has nearly 10 times the amount of Republicans than Wyoming, which is the most red state. You can't make an exception and say California is too big, because that's completely arbitrary. Again, as I said above, you can make the same argument for the Dakotas being combined into a single state, which would make the Senate far more democratic.
                >State culture being eroded by a greedy federal government that pushes for less state identity
                That's just bullshit. You think some people (the ones you agree with) represent the state, and all the other citizens aren't "real" citizens. That's not how politics works. You have to deal with the other people who have different values than you, not just say "they don't count, because I said so!"
                >when states are violating the constitutional rights of their citizens, but that's not what Roe v. Wade was
                Roe v Wade literally determined that abortion was a constitutional right. What the frick are you even talking about?
                >There's definitely someone being harmed by abortion. Who indeed?
                Nope. I'm drawing a blank. Is it some protestant fundamentalist thousands of miles away who's feefees get hurt based on their superstition? Enlighten me, anon. Who's getting hurt?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I already brought up the example of California, which has nearly 10 times the amount of Republicans than Wyoming, which is the most red state.
                >You can't make an exception and say California is too big
                >you can make the same argument for the Dakotas being combined into a single state, which would make the Senate far more democratic.
                What does any of this have to do with delegating more self-government rights to each state? States being different sizes and demographics supports my reasoning for wanting each state to make their own decisions. I don't care what California decides to do because I don't live there. If they want abortion they should have it, if they don't then they shouldn't. But in either case it shouldn't be up to the federal government to force it on them. I don't know what tangent you're trying to push the discussion toward with all those unrelated remarks.

                >You think some people (the ones you agree with) represent the state, and all the other citizens aren't "real" citizens.
                >You have to deal with the other people who have different values than you, not just say "they don't count, because I said so!"
                I didn't say or imply any of this. Not sure what you're actually arguing against.

                >Roe v Wade literally determined that abortion was a constitutional right.
                Then they should have amended the constitution, because it's not in there. Roe v. Wade was one side of an ideological debate forcing their opinions on the entire country.

                >Enlighten me, anon. Who's getting hurt?
                The subject of the abortion.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You want to know a secret? If you aren't the mother or the father, your opinion really doesn't matter at all. You have no say in the matter, and neither should the state. You literally have no skin in the argument, regardless of your very questionable intentions. If you can't look at history and realize that you can't legislate morality, you need to do some serious thinking about your actual intelligence, and your place in the cosmos.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly. That’s the point. Anon is trying to argue for personal liberty but is doing so in a way that would allow the government to take away your personal liberty. It’s completely incoherent.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So parents should just be able to kill their kids? After all, you can't legislate morality and if you're not the kids' parents you shouldn't get a say in whether they're killed or not. Why should the state get involved in parenting?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody is talking about killing kids, moron. The only thing being discussed is a person’s right to decide whether or not to have kids in the first place. Wanting to take away that right seems barbaric, and I don’t understand why you would think otherwise.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's an extreme example to prove the point that you do think morality can and should be legislated, because you wouldn't be okay with living in a country where it's legally acceptable for a parent to kill their own kids even though it doesn't affect you and you're not a parent of those kids. So your whole argument is based on something you don't even actually believe.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At what point did I ever say anything to imply that I don’t think morality should be legislated? Let alone that that’s what my argument is based on? Of course I don’t think murder should be legalized. That’s fricking moronic, and isn’t an example at all of what we’re talking about unless you’re a religious nut and think terminating a pregnancy is murder. But guess what? Religious freedom only extends as far as your right to practice your religion, and absolutely does not, definitionally, give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on others. That’s what this is about. The three Trump justices were all chosen by the heritage foundation specifically for their conservative Christian beliefs. ACB was literally in a fricking Waco-tier cult as child. Look it up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >At what point did I ever say anything to imply that I don’t think morality should be legislated?
                In the post I was replying to, which said:

                You want to know a secret? If you aren't the mother or the father, your opinion really doesn't matter at all. You have no say in the matter, and neither should the state. You literally have no skin in the argument, regardless of your very questionable intentions. If you can't look at history and realize that you can't legislate morality, you need to do some serious thinking about your actual intelligence, and your place in the cosmos.

                >If you can't look at history and realize that you can't legislate morality, you need to do some serious thinking about your actual intelligence, and your place in the cosmos.

                >Of course I don’t think murder should be legalized. That’s fricking moronic
                So you do think that morality can (and should) be legislated, counter to your previous claim that morality can't be legislated and your implication that it's stupid to think otherwise.

                >unless you’re a religious nut and think terminating a pregnancy is murder
                You don't have to be a "religious nut" to think terminating a pregnancy is killing a distinct human life and that doing so may be immoral, as evidenced here:

                >I'm not a religion gay. I don't believe in the soul.
                NTA, but ironically, I became more pro-life when I became less religious. If there's a soul being put into a body by God, then killing that body before it's ready shouldn't really be a problem because God should just be able to repurpose that soul and nothing is really lost. Judaism has a similar argument where they believe a baby has no soul and is not a living being until it breathes in its first breath after being born. But if there is no soul, and you're nothing but a unique body that lives and dies with one chance at everything, abortion is cutting that life short and permanently denying the existence of that human in any form forever.

                >The three Trump justices were all chosen by the heritage foundation specifically for their conservative Christian beliefs.
                It doesn't matter to me, I disagree with the supreme court's decision because of how it infringes upon the rights of states to write their laws in accordance with the will of their populations so long as the constitution is not violated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The post you linked wasn’t me, and wasn’t the one you were even replying to. And I replied to the second post you linked explaining why it was incoherent. If that was you, I’d still like to hear a non-religious justification for the idea that abortion is murder. There are plenty of post-hoc arguments out there, but I don’t think any of them hold up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Once a sperm and egg cell have joined and the DNA has combined you have a human that's growing as a unique and separate entity with its own past and potential future. Ending its life is killing a human, it's really as simple as that. All the arguments about "personhood" or conscious awareness or whatever else are just rationalizations. I hear all kinds of things like, "Yeah, it's a human, but it's not a 'person'," as if that really means anything when it just doesn't, people just tell themselves these things to feel less guilty about ending a human life.

                Once you accept the premise that there's no soul and the material body is all you have, there's really no difference between an embryo and an adult beyond how much it's developed. But babies also develop into kids who develop into teens who develop into adults. You could arbitrarily decide that any of those levels of existence isn't sufficiently deserving of "personhood" and justify killing them.

                Like my example of a parent killing their own kid: Let's say the kid is 3 years old. He's only alive because of the protection and care of his parents. If they stop feeding, clothing, and sheltering him, he simply wouldn't survive. So why can't his parents decide he's too much of a burden and kill him? He's not an independent person yet, he can't survive on his own, he's a parasite feeding off his parents' resources and giving nothing in return. Who are you to force those parents to take care of him?

                It sounds like a ridiculous example, but it's not. An embryo is as much a unique human entity as a 3 year old. The justification for declaring one a person and not the other is completely arbitrary, either way it's a human life.

                But why aren't sperm an egg cells human? Because they're incomplete, they don't have a full set of human DNA and they are incapable of growing into a human under any circumstances other than being joined together to create a human embryo.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't legislate morality
                you are incredibly dim
                legality =/= morality, but there's usually a fricking huge amount of overlap

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >malk

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >more alternatives for (product)
        >there's le WAR on muh heckin PRODUCTERINO
        huff more lead fumes you inbred homosexual i'll be over here with a nice tall glass of cold milk

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >alternatives for (product)
          >said "alternatives" attack product with deceptive claims
          Yeah wow
          >invade country
          >attack inhabitants
          >UHH SWEATY WE ARE NOT THE AGGRESSOR WE ARE MERELY PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE INHABITANTS

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A farmer down the road from me sells me raw milk, shit is so cash

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did you at least bang the farmer's daughter while getting some milk?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sadly no, she's away at college but we used to hang out

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      raw milk is really tasty, so much better than pasteurized. but when i drink a liter i day i visit the toilet more often, kinda worth it though

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a good way to get poisoning

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Been drinking it for over 9 years...no problems yet other than delicious cold creamy delight

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a good way to get poisoning

      oy vey

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no more of a war on milk than there is one on diaperism or mlp. Just because you feel socially ostracized for acting like a child doesn't mean you're "at war". It just means you need to grow up.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's a "war on milk" like there's a "war on christmas", it's just schizo shit invented by unemployable rust belt whites who need something to feel good about since the factory closed 30 years ago and they've been sitting around with their thumbs up their asses popping oxycodone pills and waiting for the south to rise again

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There's a "war on milk" like there's a "war on christmas"
      But there is actually a war on christmas, that's why they tell you "happy holidays"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >literally replacing CHRIST with an X
      >not a war on CHRISTmas

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        x is a cross
        cross/christmas

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          CHRISTmas celebrates the BIRTH of Christ, not his crucifixion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            then why isnt it anywhere near his actual birthday and why does every other culture that does believe in jesus also have a winter celebration about that time

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >does
              doesn't *

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Because the sun dies for three days around the winter equinox and is reborn, signifying the start of the new year. The sun which hangs on the cross of the zodiac, which is the procession of stars, revolving around the fixed north pole star, Polaris. All there are 12 houses in the zodiac (apostles, star signs) which have planetary rulers. These houses are divisions of the ecliptic plane. But I've said too much already.
              Christ is King.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                then shouldn't christmas be easter
                stop sucking israelite wiener you schizo homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I remember this story from when I was a kid, Watership Down I think. The moon and the sun chasing each other, it might have derived from some book from India. There are others with the same theme.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nope. It's a nod to the symbol israelites came up with after the crucifixion (they refused to write +) but still needed to do addition.
          The practice entered the public consciousness after the slaves they had brought to South America needed to sign for receipt of sugar cane being shipped off of plantations. The DeWoolfs then brought the practice to North America where it became more commonplace due to the slave monopoly they controlled along with escapees fleeing North.
          Inb4 le pol, just bored

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >replacing
        More like sometimes abbreviating.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can't say things like that about white people on here, especially not on this board. They will issue you a global ban for violating rule number three.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You've been talking to yourself this entire thread. Are you ok?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I could overhead press you, homosexual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is absolutely a war on milk. At the federal level, interstate commerce of milk is illegal. U.S. Federal Regulation 21 CFR § 1240.61 states:
      >No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.

      As you can see from pic related map only 11 states allow milk to be sold in grocery stores. A lot of states allow buying milk directly from farms, but a lot of that is very recent progress and many of those still require jumping through absurd hoops like herdshares. In my home state, farmers had their farms raided and thousands of dollars in equipment stolen by state agencies just for the very suspicion of selling milk to people, which only stopped within the last 10 years because of advocates of milk pushing hard to legalize herdshares. Even today, legislators in many states periodically introduce bills intended to curb or entirely stop the sale of milk entirely. To say there's not a war on milk is ignorant and you should get yourself more informed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        do you really want raw milk from new jersey in the first place?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        im in a green state, should I give it a try? I've been told I am lactose intolerant but I think it was a misdiagnosis. I haven't had milk in over a decade though but things that include milk/dairy don't bother me. i have honestly forgotten the taste.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Give it a try, at the worst you'll shit yourself for a day or two.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            when you put it like that it could be worse, frick it ill see if i can find some

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You should definitely give it a try. A lot of people even report becoming lactose tolerant from drinking a few ounces of raw milk daily for a few weeks. Most likely because raw milk still contains lactose-eating bacteria and lactase-producing bacteria that colonize your gut and help you process the lactose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fermented milk has a lot of these, if it cannot cure intolerance, nothing can.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >war on milk
        holy shit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Pasteurized milk isn't milk. Actual (raw) milk is largely illegal in the US except through specific loopholes. There is absolutely a constant push from legislators to ban milk and it's only as legal as it is today thanks to the hard work of dedicated activists advocating for people's right to access milk.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Pasteurized milk isn't milk
            schizo post

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              He’s right though

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Pasteurized milk isn't milk.
            it is an impressive feat the amount of totally left-field shit you people come up with. How do you even come up with this stuff? Someone needs to make an /x/ iceberg for milk

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There should be a point where so much stuff is added to milk that it stops being milk

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                pasteurization doesn't add anything schizo-kun

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Processing food does not change it, at all

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There is no war on milk, YOU STUPID EVIL WHITE PERSON AAAAAHH I HATE WHITE PEOPLE SO MUCH
      >posts communist image
      Gee, I wonder what this guy's ethnicity is?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He didn't say evil. He said stupid. And not stupid for being white. For thinking like one of the stupid whites.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It isn't happening but it's a good thing if it is
      >character says merry christmas
      >subtitles say happy holidays
      Reminder that the past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you have an example of this, I'm curious.

        Also, haven't Americans tried to ban Christmas during colonial times?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Don't have a clip handy but the troonyslator for the global version of the princess connect gacha did that and much more. Every mention of Christmas from the translation was scrubbed even though the characters themselves and the decorations say Merry Christmas. There was a big uproar about it in the community but global is the red headed stepchild so sadly we were ignored.
          It's not the only instance though and just driving around many american towns during december and you'll see a majority of businesses and institutions having happy holidays signs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not the only instance though and just driving around many american towns during December and you'll see a majority of businesses and institutions having happy holidays signs.
            Couldn't this be a natural consequence of protestantism dying in the US? Younger generations barely step on churches.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No because japanese don't go to church and they love christmas and have no problem saying it. Only a complete brainwashed communist soytheist like the original poster would be offended by hearing it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't get why you call these people communists, if anything all real life socialist regimes had holidays and celebrations on Christmas, even non-Christian ones.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                My mistake, DPRK doesn't celebrates it, all others do.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Just close your eyes Goyim

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they hated him for telling the truth

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        While the sentiment is on the right track, that’s actually an incredibly uncritical take from anything resembling a Marxist perspective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I garentee you that cat is neutered just like it's owner.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why do conservatives love walking past homeless people and seeing dead stray cats on the side of the road? What went so wrong in your childhood?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          two reasons:

          1. just world hypothesis. anything that reminds them that someone else has it worse makes them feel good about themselves. if homelessness exists and I'm not homeless it means I'm a good person.

          2. the existence of a desperately poor underclass gives them a good supply of targets for their heroic the punisher clint eastwood charles bronson guns. every rightoid lives for the opportunity to kill someone and get away with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >every rightoid lives for the opportunity to kill someone and get away with it.
            anybody who thinks you aren't a troll is mentally moronic

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          two reasons:

          1. just world hypothesis. anything that reminds them that someone else has it worse makes them feel good about themselves. if homelessness exists and I'm not homeless it means I'm a good person.

          2. the existence of a desperately poor underclass gives them a good supply of targets for their heroic the punisher clint eastwood charles bronson guns. every rightoid lives for the opportunity to kill someone and get away with it.

          I'm like this because I grew up poor, the only people that transition are rich kids that don't know what they have, physically and metally they have never had true hardships and aren't actually working people. Also I have a adopted cat :D.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >:D
            killed the bait 3/10

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Bait?? homie homless people are homless for a reason, most of them aren't even homeless they just have someone in a corner begging for money and then have someone pick em up later. all of em can afford milk,

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i swear to god if any of you other homosexuals reply to this low tier bait ill parboil your balls

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry anon, it's been a really slow day at work. Why else would I be on ck, shit board

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being able to drink milk without repercussions is a uniquely caucasian trait. Most everyone else is lactose intolerant, either genetically or due to being raised on formula.
    In the evident push to erase whites from media, the act of drinking milk is a constant reminder of, not only their presence, but the presence of biological differences between races. Ergo, it's racist and must be met with contempt and censorship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      had multiple black people ask me for milk and cereal while working at a hospital in NY this winter
      They would straight up tell me how much milk they wanted

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >gets called a child
    >confirms he's a child with further childish behavior

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Milk is an ingredient. You make things like cheese and cakes with it. Drinking milk is like eating spoons of sugar.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why is it okay to use milk to make a cake but drinking milk is like eating pure sugar? Cake has a lot of sugar.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Drinking milk is like eating spoons of sugar.
      what fricking planet are you from?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You tell him. Milk has been based and redpilled ever since some tabloid did some outrage bait tier article about some irrelevant organization making a twitter post that nobody remembers except you.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is there a war on milk
    There isn't.
    >inb4 screencap of some moronic niche tweet with like 6 likes and 6000 replies

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're late, they already posted it.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't like drinking milk but I've got no problem with people who do. Anyone who gets that concerned with what someone is drinking needs to shut the frick up. Aside from bullshit like soda.
    Sincerely, watergang

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is there a war on milk
    because "they" have tricked women and hipsters into pushing overpriced memeshit like oat milk and almond milk onto everyone

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is soured milk a thing outside of scandinavia? The name alone sounds so disgusting in english that it can't be.
    I drink like a carton of that stuff in a day. It's like thick milk with a bit of tang to it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, milk doesn't sour anywhere else.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Browns be like "ayo dis drink too spicy"

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pure whites are milk tolerant, the rest of the world isn't, for the most part, do the math

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vegans. The answer is vegans. They think you're raping the cow.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love milk but I'm pissed that my mom let me drink gallons of it when I was a kid. I probably drank 90% whole milk and 10% water until my teens. Had no idea I was probably drinking 2k calories a day just in milk. No wonder I was a fatass at 11 years old.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sour grapes, milk is delicious

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's also not very profitable for major companies, as farmers raising cows take a good chuck of the profits.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The level in this commercial was inaccurate and it still bothers me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      okay grandpa just go back to sleep

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      were you bothered because you couldn't drink a gallon of milk in super mario 64 too?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a war on milk
    the latest overblown thing for chuds to get mad about and play the victim over

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't find milk to be "refreshing", so drinking it in a glass by itself feels weird.

    That said I have nothing against milk or using it in recipes.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why does milk have a war on my intestines?
    i have to give up milk and cheese so i dont get gassy shit attacks all week

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not good for you!

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Milk?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Believe or not, yes, milk

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are we still talking about that?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, milk-schizo was banished back to his basement, now people are arguing if war on milk is real and it derailed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think we're talking about abortion now. How did we even get here?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >war on milk
              >liberals think all society think like them
              >abortion support data show this is real
              >abortion support data show this is fake
              Basically this.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >war on milk
    Is this a Big Dairy marketing scheme?
    I don't drink regular milk due to my mild lactose intolerance and personal tastes. I do enjoy yogurt though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Some ideological folks want to ban milk due to ideology, but they are pretty weak.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No one is gunning to ban milk. Even the hard green vegans and corpos shilling alt-milks have accepted their defeat.
        The weaker ideologues are the lactophiles that make chugging plain milk their entire personality.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >No one is gunning to ban milk.
          There are a few vegans and radical progressive. But it is like the lets ban alcohol puritans, they will never do anything.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Even the hard green vegans and corpos shilling alt-milks have accepted their defeat.
          And the nitrate shills?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why
    Loaded question.
    Prove your assertion.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like the taste of fresh milk, but I'm absolutely disgusted by the smell of it right after you open. No matter how fresh it is, shit smells rancid.
    Does raw milk smell like that, or is it a byproduct of pasteurizing and bottling it up?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Me too. I go through so much of it. I'm literally about to go out to buy more. I drink like 2 litres a day

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weird fricking thread. that commercial brainwashed me into chugging milk as a kid though.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"war on milk"
    Not in my country. You morons keep inventing these instances of homosexualry to while away your tedium, don't you?

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Pasteurized

    Give me some UHT milk instead. I love the slightly sweeter taste and distinct aroma.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They should get the 90s/00s sexy celeb campaign going again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      imagine just UH UH UHing to young taylor swift like really just making her MMMMMMMMMMMMMM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEEE after going BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM into her over and over again until she NNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNMMNN's all over your meatstick
      ugh

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    milk is just liquid sugar bro lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It has more fat and protein than sugar. Lactose doesn't affect your blood sugar as much either.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they put enough sugar in there to make it mostly sugar, its not natural, havent you read the paperwork?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >paperwork
          I read the nutrition label.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but secret FDA documents have been resleased that show it's legal to add HFCS to milk, which means you're literally drinking simple syrup with other ingredients

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I am pretty sure FDA documentation is all public, Americans simply do not read it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Lots of milk has HFCS when it's made into something like chocolate milk. It's not in plain milk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I dont know, milk tasted very sweet when I visited the US.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good quality milk can taste sweet. Lower quality milk develops off flavors and makes it harder to taste the sweetness. Not saying the milk in your country is low quality but we have both in the USA so maybe you just had some really good milk. There is no sweetener in plain milk. I saw the thread where someone was saying it's allowed to add HFCS to plain milk and not list it but that's not what it was saying.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The problem was that it tasted like corn syrup, but I assume this has more to do with how the cows were fed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you were drinking plain milk then maybe you just heard how Americans add corn syrup to everything and thought about that while drinking it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Or maybe its an aftertaste left by other stuff I ate.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Possibly. A lot of stuff does have corn syrup in the US, plain milk just isn't one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I saw the thread where someone was saying it's allowed to add HFCS to plain milk and not list it
                that person is incorrect

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So incorrect the progressive need to shill otherwise.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                meds

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You dairy fans are missing the opportunity to use CRISPR to engineer a race of milkmaid women who look better than cows and fart less. At the end of the day relying on another species for your milk is unnatural.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and fart less.
      I'm out

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is there a war on milk
    money.
    >and why do people get so angry when others drink milk?
    someone with money told them to.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Rumor has it that milk isn't really good for you or the cows. Something about fats and sugars or mass breeding cows.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only children drink milk and you are a manchild if you still drink it.
    I can spot a milk drinker from a mile away, just look at their estrogen man breasts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      brown

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is why people always shit on and derail milk threads. They're always just stealth /misc/ threads. And wasn't the milk meme from like half a decade ago at this point? Grow the frick up.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >wasn't the milk meme from like half a decade ago
          its from about 6000 years ago and isnt really a meme so much as it is genetic fact

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Greesy 14 year old /misc/ incels were meeting up at Chipotles with gallon jugs of milk to affirm their "whiteness" 6000 years ago? I don't know if Chipotle has been in business that long, but I'm pretty damn sure the concept of "whiteness" didn't exist back then.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              yes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Grow the frick up.
          lol you're the one seething because milk lives in your head

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This, as a man I only eat meat, not loser child milk "food" or woman vegetable garbage. I line my walls with meat, so everyone can see how manlyman I am.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Enter thread thinking it's going to be a funny milk debate
    >It immediately devolves into /misc/ shit race debates.
    UUGGGGGHHHHHH

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    anyone have that pic of the nazi lady sitting in an armchair while her servant refills a milk footbath for her, with bottles of immaculate milk surrounding the chair? they were dressed period appropriately.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      oh, and her servant wore a white balaclava.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Milk is wonderful. And tastes great.
    I drink milk as often as I can.
    But I have to say a saw many "mini docus" on several local channels about what is left after pasteurization and Co and that it's healthy effect is, after that, litterialy 0.
    And I remember a wave of anti milk projects in which many kids got (6 years ago maybe) got "chalk teeth". Mother's (Instagram and co following b***hes) refused to give their mothermilk and normal milk from cows - kids got chalk teeth which were like... Old dry cookies in consistency. Every parent (hopefully) know what I mean.
    However..milk /= milk

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *