The truth about Starlight Glimmer.

File: face off xd.jpg (12KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x284px

>>30332355
You're supposed to post the simpsons one where homer says poochie needs to be louder, angrier, and have access to a time machine.

File: 1129511__safe_artist-colon-illumnious_artist-colon-thatguy1945_starlight+glimmer_the+crystalling_absurd+res_adobe+illustrator_depressed_floppy+ears_sim.png (1MB, 8192x6047px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 8192x6047px

>>30332355
Aw, it's my story. I'm honored.

It has become my headcanon. It explains how they reformed her overnight to be fragile, penitent, and meek.

>>30332355
>You will never care for a circumcised Starlight Glimmer, hugging her in bed as she wraps her hind legs against your leg and cries, pressing her scars and sutures against your thigh

File: Hey aj look at how fast i can spin.jpg (955KB, 2000x1899px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 2000x1899px

>>30332355
>>30332458
I would honestly hate this if it were true and do everything I could to help her cum again, even if I had to help her train new erogenous zones.

How do you explain the balding?

god damn it this is a thing now

Bump for truth

>>30332355
>She can still come from Anal
They fucked up, Anon gonna destroy that tailhole

>>30334498
Can horses cum from anal? Someone needs to investigate this.

File: depressed.gif (2MB, 432x235px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 432x235px

Fucking hell this hit me right in the feels for some reason.

The idea of the mutilation of someone in a way where they can no longer get any sexual satisfaction disturbs me greatly.

This idea belongs no where near my perfect escapist world of technicolor talking horses.

Starlight wasn't cohered into being good, she merely realized she was a shit person and stopped.

Please no.

>>30336167
this nigga gets it, Celly bless.

>>30336167
this. i just stopped listen to music, got up and looked out of the windows to just process what I've just read.

>>30336167
>>30336260
It's actually a reality in some less civilized parts of the world

>>30336275
I knew that but it's still disturbing.

I hope this meme sticks.

I am now okay with glim glam. She boops as a form of release.

>>30332393
>>30336167
>>30336260
See writefag? I told you this shit was wrong.

>>30336275
>implying the west is any better for it

>>30337463
The civilized part of the west doesn't force genital mutilation on anyone.

>>30337479
Are you retarded. We do that with children all the time. Especialy boys.

>>30337491
I feel like I didn't even earn this (You).

>>30337568
>I was just pretending to be retarded

>>30337491
Most of the Western world isn't the US, Anon

>>30337672
Common in australia as well.

>>30332355
I thought it'd end with anon fucking her in the ass.

File: 138365681649.png (157KB, 1024x624px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x624px

>>30337671
He's implying circumcision isn't genital mutilation.

>>30337568
Circumcision is mutilation by definition.

>Mutilate (verb): to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

The foreskin is an erogenous highly innervated double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane. Without it, there is less ejaculation control (the frenulum helps regulate ejaculation), less lubrication during sex (the foreskin keeps the woman's fluids in the vagina during intercourse), and the glans keratinizes (callouses), substantially decreasing sensitivity. If my foreskin is retracted when I wear pants, the sensation of my glans rubbing against my underwear is too intense, and I have to go to a restroom to pull up my foreskin. As a double-layer fold of highly innervated smooth muscle tissue, nerves, skin, and mucous membrane, the foreskin is pink and sensitive on the underside and is a tickly sort of erogenous.

Mutilating the penis by cutting it off is a disgusting, barbaric practice.

>>30337684
Unlike males, there is nothing that will stimulate a woman if she gets fucked in her ass when she no longer has a clitoris.

>>30337692
No, I was talking about "civilized part of the west". "Civilized". It was a joke.

>>30337708
Oh, I missed that part. How daft of me.

File: 1421353430335.png (197KB, 979x1024px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 979x1024px

By the way, as >>30337692, I should note the following for the sake of circumcised anons:

I seldom go through the hassle because it's so simple to masturbate into a tissue with a foreskin, but when I masturbate and I want to make it extra pleasurable, I put lube in a condom, pull back my foreskin, and put the lubricated condom on. It feels amazing. So you still have that, though apparently some of you are so keratinized that you can rub your glans penis dry, which I can't even imagine. Nevertheless, I am 100% confident you can have just as much pleasure, just with a higher touch threshold and without the erogenous foreskin part. Circumcision makes me feel sick with spite at our society for condoning it, but remember, even if it's not as qualitative, you can feel just as much quantitative pleasure, and that's the truth.

Sorry if this is blog-like. I just know that I would be fucking spiteful if I were circumcised and I would want to hear this.

File: 1494673533483.jpg (6KB, 272x370px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 272x370px

Stop trying to force this idiotic fucking meme

File: 1400465483725.png (1013KB, 1280x1026px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 1280x1026px

>>30337459
I take those responses as an honor. I travail to make you feel, and I succeeded.

>>30338140
>he said as he spammed another 30 mustarboop images

File: Hmmm.png (134KB, 948x538px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 948x538px

>>30332355
Why not settle for cahstity?

>>30338167
>Glimmer trains her boopable snout into an erogenous zone to get around infibulation

>>30337886
Listen man, I appreciate that you are standing up for your belief that circumcision is a horrible practice and that you want to "reach out" to circumcised anons and help them out in some way.

However, as a circumcised anon, I find much of what you say incredibly patronizing. I do not need you to tell me how to jack my dick. I've had a lot of practice. It is presumptuous of you to think it is your place to be giving advice to a whole group of people, or even that it is needed in the first place.

Further, I know you have medical reasons for believing being circumcised is a horrible thing. However, do not think that means you can speak of it as if you know firsthand what it is or would be like. Saying things like "I would be spiteful if I was circumcised" really rubs me (heheh) the wrong way.

As does the way you've responded to anons in another thread:
>It's so horrible how circumcised anons need lube to masturbate. :(
>Dude we can masturbate dry just fine.
>Oh my gosh it's so horrible that you can masturbate dry without discomfort. :(
Now I don't have any stakes in the discussion of circumcision as a practice, but I think you need to understand that for many anons it's just not a big deal to us that we're circumcised, so hearing you say things to the effect of "it must be awful for you to be circumcised, I'm so sorry!" is frankly rather irritating.

You clearly mean well and I respect your desire to change society for the better, but please consider being a bit more tactful about it in the future.

File: oh_see__donut_steel_by_ns4j19y-d3c7b76.jpg (82KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 894x894px

>>30332355
Hey maybe that's what should do to /b/ and this entire generation so you faggots stop being obnoxious self-entitled anti-social idiots pretending to be retarded.

>>30341104
As a circumcised man. Fuck off. anon's lube advice has brought me to new heights of pleasure I never thought imaginable.

>>30341163
To be clear, I didn't mean to say the advice had no merit or wouldn't be helpful to some. It's the insinuation that all circumcised anons need this advice (which to me seems quite basic) or are as a rule grievously afflicted by the fact that their dicks aren't as sensitive that I object to.

I can't speak for everyone either, of course. The sentiment behind his post is obviously good, and I'm happy to hear you benefited from it. Perhaps I came across too ornery. I only wish to inform him of how his words might come off to some, which may be helpful to him in future discussions of the topic.

>>30332355
Is there more to this?

>>30332355

Aww, this started really interesting, but then it devolved into yet another dime-a-dozen AiE fic.

>>30341298
If it makes you feel any better the posts were like 10 hours apart. Just consider the anon stuff an optional add on.

>>30341104
>>30341228
Understood.

>>30332355

>>30341104
Fucking Jew.

>>30341104
Too fucking bad, people need to know this shit or they'll keep doing it to their fucking kids.

>>30337491
>we
>The CIVILIZED part of the west
Work on your reading comprehension, burgerfag.

>the year is the current one
>intactivists are still clinging to the absolute broadest definition of mutilation while conveniently ignoring the fact that if they use this definition, they are also claiming that any surgical procedure that changes anything about one's body is mutilation as well, and that, as such, it makes absolutely no sense to use this definition when talking about a medical procedure such as male circumcision
>intactivists mental gymnastics intensify daily while they try to force a shitty meme
>mfw

File: download (39).jpg (7KB, 268x144px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 268x144px

>>30344885
>mfw my face was sent into orbit laughing, so I had no face in this post

>>30341104
I agree with you. I just don't care about being circumcised and whack it just fine.

>>30344885
Enjoy fucking with your kids dicks faggot.

>>30344944
I immunize my kids, and if my kids needed any other surgery for the benefit of their health, I would have it done, because I actually care about them, and unlike you, I don't foolishly believe that all surgery is automatically mutilation, or bad. Because unlike you, I don't follow the same flawed logic as anti-vaxxers and faith healers.
We remove wisdom teeth in order to ensure the well being of our children (and adults). Why shouldn't we get rid of a part of the human anatomy, when the resulting reduced risk for certain diseases is unquestionably beneficial? Why shouldn't we care about the future of our children?

Your logical fallacies are: appeal to emotion, appeal to nature.

>>30345020
>unquestionably beneficial
To avoid stuff that can be easily cured in a few weeks and happens only very rarely while causing more frequent further problems and fucking with peoples reproduction. I hope your children fucking murder you.

File: 1496749171585.gif (1MB, 288x198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 288x198px

>>30345043
>b-but you guys, we have a cure so we shouldn't try to prevent it
Got it. Let's not try to prevent disease. We should just cure it, even though it's often considerably more expensive, and often unnecessary to cure it with prevention.
We shouldn't just remove wisdom teeth either.
After all, we can fix the problem after it happens.

Why stop there though? Let's just stop trying to prevent malware from infecting a computer. After all, you can just take it to an expert and have them restore your computer. Why prevent anything if you can just cure it?

Also, I'm pretty sure HIV still has no known cure.

>>30345126
Ooh! While we're at it, why bother getting a job to prevent a financial crisis? Just go on welfare. Let the government take care of you instead of working and being independent.

>>30345126
>circumcision
>preventing hiv

>>30345126
We should remove the left testicle of every child to reduce the risk of testicle cancer.

>>30345126
did you know they cut up womens vaginas overseas for the same reasons on top of cultural and religious

>>30340223
Any more of this???
>Muh

>>30347717
YES but look in a archive for herd thread #3

>>30345670
I never explicitly said it prevented HIV. however, it is known that male circumcisions reduce the risk of HIV transmission between heterosexual partners. This is recognized by several reputable medical authorities
>>30346207
This argument makes no sense anon. Manlets aren't at less risk to contract skin cancer just because they have fewer skin cells, and taller people are not more likely to contract skin cancer solely because they are taller.
Going even smaller now, let's look at rats. Rats are often used as test subjects for various cancer related (and other) research, because of their likeliness to humans in certain biological ways, their high breeding numbers, and the fact that they are prone to getting cancer.
But wait, rats have far fewer cells than humans, on account of their size. According to your argument, rats should be less likely to develop cancer because of this fact.
Gee, it's almost like the correlation of size and cancer is nothing more than that- correlation. It's like saying that ice cream sales and violent crimes both go up in the summer, therefore ice cream causes violence. It's an incorrect assumption drawn from two trending occurrences. Only in this case, you don't even have that. Your premise is inherently contradictory to reality, and collapses as a result. Your logical fallacy is: false equivalence
>>30346674
Did you know that female circumcisions have no medical benefits whatsoever, carry negative consequences undeniably attached to them, and are recognized as bodily mutilation nearly anywhere that isn't a backwards third world shithole? Did you know that comparing fgm and male circumcisions (which is what all my arguments have been about) is also a false equivalence?

What is it with you cultists and trying to tie these two things together? They share little more than a common name.

>>30347970
Thanks senpai

>>30348114
le (You)

>>30348114
Just please don't advocate it. Apart from so many other things, the factor that everyone forgets in these discussions is the psychological damage. 60% of circumcised men have feelings of resentment over it, 59% express feelings of mutilation, and 20% have used drugs or alcohol to cope with their circumcision, and 30% have feelings of resentment toward their parents over it. I believe that pediatricians should warn parents that if they cut off their child's foreskin, there is a 30% chance their child will resent them for it.

>>30349048
Source?

>>30349053
>"A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood"
>T. Hammond
>BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 (British Journal of Urology)
Peer-reviewed medical journal article.

You can read it here:
http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm

>>30349067
>Without appropriate research on outcome, presumptions of beneficial or even benign results from childhood circumcision are unjustified. Respondents reported wide-ranging physical consequences from their circumcisions. Among the most significant were prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%), painful skin bridges (12%), other, e.g. beveling deformities of the glans, meatal stenosis, recurrent non-specific urethritis, (20%).

Holy fuck.

File: 1425780511700.png (292KB, 700x417px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 700x417px

>>30349128
I just went to a /b/ dick thread to check this out and it's true. I saw erectile curvature, prominent scarring, dicks of uneven girth in which the skin was too tight, on about 30% of them.

20 - 30% of circumcisions are botched. This is fucking ridiculous.

>>30349395
That's not how statistics work.

>>30350047
Well, the dick thread wasn't a sufficiently large sample size for a high confidence level, but it was something.

The 20-30% comes from >>30349128.
>27% reported insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection
(Look at this miserable dick I found in the dick thread http://imgur.com/a/Uuic1)
27% was established by the journal article's study, and is among where my 20-30% comes from.

I know how statistics work. With a random sample of 546 (what the study used), if 27% of respondents reported excessive skin tightness, we can use the β distribution to conclude that we can be 99.996% confident that at least 20% of circumcised men overall experience excessive skin tightness.

Here's the math:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(integral+of+x%5E(546*.27)*(1-x)%5E(546*.73)+from+.2+to+1)%2F(integral+of+x%5E(546*.27)*(1-x)%5E(546*.73)+from+0+to+1)

>All the butthurt bois with their mutilated dick trying to justify circumcision

>>30350098
It's only one as far as I can tell. I am pleased that /mlp/ overall knows that circumcision is very wrong. Considering that probably most of the board is circumcised because the US is appalling in that way, it is very good. It is the change we need to see.

>>30350299
Thank goodness.

>>30341104
Go back to tumblr if your feelings were hurt dick cripple.

File: 1466975737283.jpg (34KB, 453x370px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 453x370px

>Thread about starlight
>muh forskin spam

http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(15)05535-4/abstract
>Penile sensitivity did not differ across circumcision status for any stimulus type or penile site. The foreskin of intact men was more sensitive to tactile stimulation than the other penile sites, but this finding did not extend to any other stimuli (where foreskin sensitivity was comparable to the other sites tested).

http://www.asiaandro.com/Abstract.asp?doi=10.1038/aja.2013.47
>These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926175#
>Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction.

/mlp/ isn't the place for this dicussion

>>30351090
Shlomo be ye gone!

File: 1424918536528.jpg (484KB, 941x1024px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 941x1024px

>>30351090
>Link (1)

The foreskin is itself erogenous and highly innervated. In fact, five out of five of the most sensitive parts of the penis are on the foreskin (the underside is pink and sensitive). (clinical citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847). You cannot "refute" this clinical study by citing one that uses a different methodology; the methodology of this one is more sensitive than the bad science ones and uses fine-touch pressure thresholds. The only way to refute this study is by doing the same experiment with fine-touch pressure thresholds.

Given this, it is but a footnote that the keratinization, or callousing, of the glans obviously reduces sensitivity, and there is a ridiculously easy way to debunk the bad science that says it doesn't: simply ask uncircumcised anons if it's uncomfortable if their foreskin is retracted when they wear pants. I guarantee the answer is yes.

>Link (2):

The frenulum helps regulate ejaculation, and the foreskin keeps the woman's vaginal fluids in the vagina during intercourse, enhancing lubrication and reducing the chance of chafing.

Furthermore, there is >>30349128, a high incidence of insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection.

>Link (3):

• Urinary tract infections

Very rare, occurring in only 4-6 men per 10000 per year, and easily treatable with a week of antibiotics, a trivial issue. Ridiculously not worth all the above, which are issues that last a lifetime.

• Acquisition of HIV and transmission of STDs

The stupidest argument. Circumcised men still need to wear condoms just like uncircumcised men, bringing both to the same 2%*(chance of transmission of the STD) up to a negligible margin of error.

• Penile cancer

The incidence of penile cancer among uncircumcised men who keep their penis clean (takes just five seconds in the shower) is no higher than that among circumcised men. Source: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/prevention.html

File: 1066447__safe_artist-colon-sollace_rainbow+dash_simple+background_solo_transparent+background_vector.png (369KB, 2050x3000px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 2050x3000px

>>30351474
I've been wanting to write this for a while. That anon conveniently presented every point that advocates mindlessly parrot for me to debunk one by one.

The rest of the Western world knows it's intentionally bad science and propaganda, easily debunked.

There is a reason the Canadian Pediatric Association, German Pediatric Association, Scandinavian children's ombudsmen, and other European pediatric associations all condemn circumcision, and it's downright illegal in Finland and Australia for non-medical reasons (read: there is no medical reason for the circumcision of infants). Only in the US does it retain a stronghold due to the bad science of sour grapes.

>>30350859
Anon, don't say that. He just doesn't want to be resentful about his circumcision, and I hope he isn't. He said
>You clearly mean well and I respect your desire to change society for the better
So he thinks stopping circumcision is for the better. That's what counts.

Ironically, my intent in >>30337886 after >>30337692 was to give consolation to resentful circumcised anons, the opposite of hurt feelings, while also telling them the whole truth. The whole truth is that they're missing a lot, but I entirely and completely believe they can still have just as much quantitative pleasure.

>>30351697
Well, not even a lot. I would say missing a moderate amount, not a lot. They have the most important part.

>>30351474
>you cannot refute this study using a different one
I can if the study you're citing uses a flawed method to measure sexual sensitivity. Yours does.
You see, your study exclusively looked at fine touch, which comes from the Meissner's corpuscles. These nerves are present in the foreskin. HOWEVER, these are not the nerves responsible for pleasurable erotic sensations. If they were, our fingers would be considered erogenous zones, as they too have these nerves, and in greater quantity.

In short, all that study tells us is that there are fewer Meissner's corpuscles after you remove the foreskin. This study does a poor job of testing for a broader range of sensations in favor, and cherry picks the Meissner's corpuscles in order to create the impression that sexual sensitivity is reduced.
Meaning that your study is "bad science", not the studies the other anon posted. Those studies used a broader range of sensitivities designed to actually pick up on erotic sensitivity, rather than the touch found in your fingers and other parts of the body.
>you can just wear a condom to prevent HIV
That's great, and I definitely recommend doing so. Two problems:
1) people with religions that forbid the use of birth control are still likely to benefit from this
2) most people are retarded enough not to use condoms, either because they want the raw pleasure of bareback, or because they're too in a hurry to put it on. Why do you think Tyrone dodges child support so much?
3) even if it doesn't happen often, condoms do fail. Circumcision reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission still. Given that HIV is lifelong and alkost guaranteed to get you killed, I'd say any extra prevention is worth it.
>you can wash your penis to prevent the cancer
That doesn't change the fact that circumcision still reduces the risk of cancer. Even your source admits as much, though it does stress the rarity of it. A disease like cancer should be prevented in every ethical way possible

>>30353081
>two problems
>cites three problems
my amazing proofreading skills at work, people.

>>30353081
1)
It still stands that the foreskin is highly innervated and erogenous, and I can personally testify that even light pressure touch of the inner part of my foreskin is a sort of tickly/tingly erogenous that varies in quality from the frenulum to other parts of the inner foreskin. Stimulating my foreskin is actually my primary method of playing with myself, not to reach climax, but to play with myself.

2) For uncircumcised, the risk p of transmission is p = 0.62%, for circumcised, half this. Have unprotected with two strangers circumcised and that's the same risk as having unprotected sex with 1-(1-.5p)^2 = p-.25p^2 ≈ p (because p^2 vanishes for tiny p), i.e. same as having sex once with an infected stranger once uncircumcised. I am confident that morons who have unprotected sex with strangers tend to repeat the habit because they're the type of person who sleep unprotected with strangers, so the 50% reduction in chance becomes meaningless.

Or, you know, you could let them actually fucking consent to cutting off the erogenous highly innervated double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane with all its sexual perks. It's their body and life. If my parents circumcised me reduce my risk of HIV, I would say, "Why the hell would you assume your newborn son would grow up to be a moron who has unprotected sex with strangers?" What a joke. It has literally no medical reason for me and none for the 99% of people who are not morons. Just genital mutilation.

(3) is similar.

why are we talking about the benefits of male circumcision

we should be talking about the benefits of female circumcision

>>30353081
>>30353610 (continued)

>>you can wash your penis to prevent the cancer
>That doesn't change the fact that circumcision still reduces the risk of cancer.
Oh jesus fucking christ anon, how about if *I* am a fucking disgusting slob, I can CHOOSE to get circumcised to decrease my risk of penis cancer.

There is literally no medical benefit to me getting circumcised because like almost every uncircumcised male, I clean for five seconds each shower, simplest thing in the world.

______

Anon, basically, your whole philosophy is completely fucked up. You don't believe that people's bodies belong to themselves. You believe people's bodies belong to a Nanny State that can do something to my body without my consent that has literally no medical benefit to me and would probably hurt me deeply >>30349128 (read this, then look at >>30349605), and anon, let me tell you something about my body. IT'S MY FUCKING BODY, NOT THEIRS.

And in light of that, >>30351474 categorically shows it has trivial or no medical benefits whatsoever on the 99% of babies who don't grow up to be stupid fucking morons, so 99% of babies' penises are mutilated for absolutely no medical reason.

That is where every single thing you say breaks down. You believe that our bodies belong to a Nanny State that can mutilate us even though in almost every case it wouldn't have made a single fucking difference. 99% of people grow up into non-morons who clean themselves and don't sleep unprotected with strangers and thus would never have chosen to have their sensitive, erogenous foreskin that protects the glans from keratinization fucking cut off.

What a fucking nightmare.
>born into world
>99% genitals are mutilated for literally no medical reason whatsoever

In 99% of cases circumcision has categorically no medical benefit, so 99% of circumcised people had it done for literally no reason. Just a mutilated penis for literally no reason. Including your own.

>>30353081
Continuing on from where I left off, I'd also like to point out that with the HIV and Cancer replies. you're moving the goalposts. You're not discussing whether or not male circumcision is beneficial anymore, you're arguing about necessity. I'm not arguing for universal circumcision, and I don't think the anon that posted those studies was, either. I'm simply pointing out the benefits of circumcision, and debunking some of the alleged detriments.

>>30353906
Yep, I thought so. You changed the goalposts. I'm not arguing for universal circumcision, retard. I'm arguing about benefit vs detriment
1) no, it doesn't. The foreskin doesn't have any innate effect on sexual stimulation. That comes from the nerves around the glans, which is NOT the foreskin. You're still cherry picking, and you're blatantly ignoring every other, better study because muh one specific proof, and because they contradict your precious fine touch argument.
2) argument from nirvana. Just because idiots choose to repeatedly do idiot things doesn't negate the benefits from circumcision. Each time they fuck someone bareback, they're still benefitting from it, even if they're more likely to contract an sti because of they're choices.
3) is similar.
Can't help but notice that you entirely ignored my first point, too.

>>30354626
Now that I've BTFO'd yet another whining intactivist, I'll take my leave, since it's pretty clear that we're not going to change each other's mind on the subject, and it does nothing but trigger you lot to no end.
And here I thought liberals were a touchy bunch.

>>30355843
I can't believe nobody identified this uber-obvious troll earlier in this thread.