Who here /blacktears/ its so slutty and sexy, fug

>>25559223
id like to lick her butthole (with my tongue)

i'm a boy but on the rare occasions that i wear makeup i wear it like this

>>25559252
omg r u gayyy!??!!??!!? XDD

File: calla.jpg (89KB, 632x632px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 632x632px

>>25559248
here ya go bubby.

>>25559252
pix now!!!!!!!!!!!

>>25559258
same one? wew more pls.

i'd like to smell it (with my nose)

>>25559248
>lick
>(with my tongue)

Is this bait? How else do you lick something, you fucking retard?

>>25559325
i just didn't want there to be any confusion (i dont want to be misunderstood, because some people see asslicking as not good with your tongue)

>>25559308
All I got senpai. sorry.

>>25559359
Still don't know if this is bait. The literal definition of lick is to pass your tongue over something. It's like me saying something along the lines of, "I'm going to walk home (on my feet)".

>>25559378
> The literal definition of lick is to pass your tongue over something
hmm, i just don't think there's any evidence to support that. your definition is not all-true

>"I'm going to walk home (on my feet)"
you could walk on stilts or otters (after being killed)

>>25559400
This guy is a shitposting god, lmfao

>>25559400
Google, "define lick". There's your proof. Same with walking, "move at a regular and fairly slow pace by lifting and setting down each foot in turn, never having both feet off the ground at once". Notice the word foot, which are on your legs.

>>25559427
can you prove that walking takes two legs? For me, it's not true.

I once saw a guy walk on all fours fx. i also once saw a guy walk without his legs (he used his butts)

>>25559447
Fair enough. However, the lick part is still correct. No avoiding that one. Concede, please. Anyway, it does take two legs. Humans only have two legs, and the definition has the word 'each' written in it, implying that there are multiple of them. 1 would be hopping, and 3+ is impossible. Unless that guy has feet on his butt, then it looks like you're wrong.

>>25559483
I am not conceding to outright lies.

>Anyway, it does take two legs.
so a horse that is born with four arms instead of legs can't "WALK"?

you aren't making sense.

File: 10981808_689790074488904_4494515704105158980_n.jpg (61KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 750x750px

is quiet?

>>25559591
wow i'd like to touch her boobs (with my hands)

>>25559525
Outright lies? I speak nothing less than the truth. It is you who speaks lies. I nicely asked you to concede, but you have declared war. Licking requires a tongue, therefore you did not need to mention that in the brackets, nor did you need to say that it would confuse anyone, as it could not. These are simple excuse for simple lies. You must concede. Anyway, the definition says that you must have feet to walk, as you lift and place those to form walking. Horses so obviously have hooves, which are definitely not feet. Horses don't walk. They trot. Check and mate. It is you who are not making sense.

>>25559610
Touching does not require hands. Your bait is bad and you should feel bad.

>did i meme good?

>>25559633
BUT IF IT HAD ARMS INSTEAD OF LEGS BECAUSE OF BIRTH DEFECT, IDIOT

give up

>>25559671
HORSES DON'T HAVE ARMS, A BIRTH DEFECT COULDN'T CHANGE THAT. IT'S LIKE SAYING WE HAD WINGS AS A BIRTH DEFECT. FURTHERMORE, YOU DON'T USE ARMS TO WALK. RESIGN, YOU SILLY GOOSE.

>>25559697
>a horse with a birth defect cannot walk

liberals, everyone

>>25559761
Funny, I am a liberal. What are you, green party? Anyway, since you're so fond of asking for proof, where's yours of a horse walking with arms due to birth defects?

>>25559778
I'm redpilled. You're clearly brainwashed by jewish media.

But getting back to topic:

Do you even philosophy? Possible world scenarios?

even if a horse is born with a birthdefect it can still walk, fact. i once saw a dog with born only with one eye, it walked fine.

just give over, you aren't making any sense any longer

>>25559797
I'm bluepilled. What media do jews even have? What topic are you even getting back to? Anyway, that defect doesn't apply in that scenario, but you know that. If the dog was born with only one eye, then it would not have seen as well as it would have with two. Either way, that comparison doesn't work either. Horses don't walk, they trot. Gallop, if they're "running". Walking is the action of moving your legs and feet, the latter of which horses do not have, whether by birth, defect, or otherwise. You still refuse to acknowledge your loss in our tongue 1v1. Not to mention you are avoiding providing me of proof with horses walking with arm birth defects.

just give under, you aren't making any sense any shorter

>>25559871
>disowning horses from the experience of walking

You really are a typical liberal, trying to police what other can or cannot do. If it offends you that horses walk, don't impose your newspeak, but accept your moronity.

You are trying to take away the horse's freedom to walk, and you will not succeed.

> Walking is the action of moving your legs and feet

Funny, I do the same when I'm swimming. So swimming is walking now?

>>25559915
I'm not disowning them from anything. They can't even process the loss, if there is any at all. Humans can't trot, you don't see people complaining over that. And, no, swimming is propelling yourself through water, or any other liquid if that's what your next point is going to be. What is the point you are trying to make here? Horses have freedom to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they can, or are capable of it. You're just horseist scum that can't admit that they're wrong.

#horselivesmatter

>>25559986
>Horses can't even process the loss

Nice dehumanizing you're doing there, Nazi piece of shit.

I'm engaged by this thread.

>>25560057
First a jew, now a nazi? Looks like I have the best of both worlds! Anyway, dehumanizing? Really? Don't you mean dehorseizing? Who's the nazi now?

>>25560084
there's nothing wrong with being a Nazi. FACT: Hitler was pro horse-fucking and a vegetarian.

>>25560094
I never said there was anything wrong with being a nazi. FACT: Hitler was pro nazi and a herbivore.

>>25560094
>>25560123
Given up, have we? It was about time. I wasn't even fully erect.