Nobody gives a shit, pedofuck.

>>1 Was this ever real? This is one of the more believable scenarios, and the guy's response is the source of the humour more than anything else. Could this have been lifted verbatim from a forum post or simply exaggerated a little?

>>3

Bullshit because that's something you tell a 12 year old to do in private. Unless she was retarded, she would know better.

>>4
If the kid was having some sort of asthmatic attack, then they wouldn't be able to apply the vapour goo themselves? Obviously the form in which it's copypasta'd now is a bastardisation of whatever the sauce was, I'm just wondering if it has it's origins in an actual post somewhere.

> This means that her habit of frequently parading around in various and sundry undergarments will only appeal to pedophiles

Right up Wishes alley. Good review. Sounds like another movie to add to the "magic negro" list.

> Right up Wishes alley.

Don't we like them a few years older than that, though?

> Sounds like another movie to add to the "magic negro" list.

And how. By day, this one's some kind of snake-venom doctor, always milking/skinning/cooking poisonous snakes, ready to spring into action should a snake ever bite a white person. By night, he's in a very talented Blues band that does nothing but play music in an attic all night, every night, in case a Caucasian should come along needing an outlet for his/her profound angst.

This Negro is the only adult to find out about the little girl's rape, and by the way he angrily shakes his pitchfork you think he's going to do something useful... but instead, he takes the little girl up to the attic (again) and helps her find the inspiration to sing again. Aww, how sweet.

>Don't we like them a few years older than that, though?

Speaking for myself, I find little girls miserably annoying.

Someone needs to edit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

A limited theatre release bodes well for an uncut dvd "special edition" release, excellent! I especially like the way the advert in >>1 is trying to plug the film as somehow feminist, it means it is utterly gratuitous and without redeming features. The plot sounds crap - thanks for the warning - but I doubt I'll be watching it for the sentiment.

I wuuuve these comics.

>Well this is something I should try on a partner after having her explicitly tell me she's into that kinda thing.
>And then I should have my buddy ask her again if she's into that kinda thing and have her respond in the affirmative.
>Then I'll decide inexplicably she's not into that kinda thing and stay 4000 miles away from her.

>>4
Too soon!

>>1

>>38
Do you really watch enough television for it to be worth it? All I watch is the news occasionally. Everything else I just download.

Oh, and The Hairy Bikers when I remember.

>>38

>TV license

There is something fundamentally wrong with that phrase.

Waste of money.

I don't watch that much TV, but it's really not worth the hassle of not having a TV license, and then finding one thing a year I want to watch and not being able to. And I have the money.

Also, visitors tend to watch it more than me.

>>40
agreed.

>>73

Ok, so we have unlimited food and somehow the Earth extends infinitely into outer space? I'm not saying it's out of control, I'm saying it could be if we keep populating.

>>73 20% leeching off the remaining 80%

I think you have those numbers reversed.

>>72

Try thinking some time, it really helps when using logic. All this crap you speak about humans inventing ownership of land, aka, defending their territory, does that not remind you of what animals do? War wasn't invented either. Animals do it all the time over resources.

Also you say science is driven by profit, aka, "what can this give me if I do it or discover it". We all do things for a reward. You included. Even your twisted philosophies of how you think life is and how others should see it. So why did you keep on learning. Why do you read about other sources of discovery, other philosophy? Because you get something from it. We all do things because we get something from it. Big surprise. I think everyone here knows it but you. Life is profit driven. Whether that profit be financial, educational, etc. Individual life is all about what the individual can get. We're all selfish in some aspects but there's just some who can't see that or refuse to admit it.

>>74
That's only true due to the dominant economic model. In terms of "what's here" as it were, that is to say "resources available", the planet is capable of sustaining a human population hundreds of times larger than this without human techonolgy. Now throw in technology and the number of sustainable lives is truly gargantuan. This won't happen of course, we don't value human life enough, we prefer our economic model, and why not when it produces such advantages to us who are in control?

>>75
No, have a look at the numbers. Use a calculator if you need to.

>>76
Try thinking some time, it really helps when using logic. All this crap you speak about humans inventing ownership of land, aka, defending their territory, does that not remind you of what animals do? War wasn't invented either. Animals do it all the time over resources.

No, animals do not kill over territory as a matter of regular course, as you'd know if you'd bothered to look this up, but don't let over 500 years worth of published study of animal behaviour get in the way of a baseless opinion.

Nor do they own their territory: animals do not seek to dominate access to a shared resource, even a resource vital to their own survival.

Animals compete over mating rites, and this is specifically intra-special. Where food is scarse you find that animals become nomadic, and only when movement is restricted do you encountered highly localised acts of violence, yet even then none of which are designed to actually kill over the act of intimidation. Certain species actively kill and consume their young under such unusual and extreme conditions, but this is not analogous to human warfare.

Honestly, there is so much literature on the behaviour of animals that contradict the non-argument you are promoting here as to be embarassing.

> Individual life is all about what the individual can get. We're all selfish in some aspects but there's just some who can't see that or refuse to admit it.

Now, what you've done here is to assume that people are the same as you.

I think this thread rather demonstrates that this isn't so.

And if a clumsy thread on Wish can demonstrate something is false, then the basic premise is beyond redemption.

>>7

>But really, why would you want to see it?

A tweenaged Dakota Fanning gets graphically raped in a barn, what is not to want to see? DVD release January 2009.

>>8
I hear the theatrical/DVD release is going to be toned down from the original Sundance version.

>>9
That's a ruse to get more money on the "special edition", presumably with wipe-clean surfaces, lotion dispenser, and moral pacifier.

>>1
A quick glance that appeared to be Lindsey Lohan.

Glad you posted these. I didn't have most of them but I realized she's not that good looking. But she's got a hell of a body though.

>>64
I like her cruel, perverted intelligence, like she could be talked into anything that seemed to promote her adopted values even if it degraded and abused her.

>like she could be talked into anything that seemed to promote her retarded values even if it degraded and abused her.

fixed

These new pictures show a huge leap in confidence and fappability compared with the original scrambled egg ones. She's put a lot more of her strident personality into them, and it really helps.

Bizarrely, this whole thing is as if someone I know personally is doing it despite never having met her, talked to her and indeed only really being on the tail end of all the cuffuffal surrounding her spat with the other other place. I hope she succeeds, and then gets cast as slutty villains in Japanese films or even Bollywood. That would be fun.

She got a lot better, but she still looks like someone who should not be doing this.

>>12
That's part of the charm. If she resists smoking the profits from this soft-core stuff and invests in proper acting lessons she could make a decent career as an off-beat b-movie style actress. She has a sense of self-depricating humour that would suit that sort of role.