/int/ - International

>>28660 She is brownzilian: https://simpcity.cr/threads/natzuri-natzzzuri-mia_whitte.221646/

>>28690 > You must be logged-in to do that.

>>28382 I'm not a pedophile either, but I like very thin teenage girls.

>>28791 Fuck off pedo you're a complete nigger shitposter

>>28816 I'm not black, I'm red, and you're a white Brit. What are you doing in Australia? She's already 16, which is the minimum age of consent in almost the entire world, don't come at me with this pedophilia nonsense.

>>28832 Go back to kohlchan and stay on your sinking ship

>>28835 Have you visited the website she announces in the videos? She sells all these videos in a onlyfans way on her own. So Peruball is not really in the wrong. Also Bernd thinks she is already 18 or more, and only says to be 16 to sell better

>>28908 Dont care. Looks like pedoshit, stop it.

>>28832 I love that song. Also. she's too young looking and flat, I don't find that attractive, but as long as it's legal to each his own. I don't see why some people get to moralizing about that

Oh look, Kraut is getting more brown by the day from KohlrabenschwarzChan and now their pedos try their luck here. Is the next iteration of Ernst already up?

>>28926 I think he was already banned here a few weeks ago and he posted literal children. Maybe the mods are asleep, or he's trying to figure out just how young the girls he posts can be.

In Bernds headcannon, Asuka married Rey.

>>28938 Its likely the case of refugees coming here to test the waters and ensure their mindset can easily shift. As much as I oppose outright bans on certain material, to stomp out this incessant shitposting, it has to be blanket banned or they'll keep staying around until someone drops their guard.

All Man are pedos in closet

>>29504 Girls in most cultures married in their teens though. You have look far for something truly kohltier

>>28627 Because I wasn’t there to save her

>>29508 >Girls in most cultures married in their teens though That's some bs myth imageboard pedos keep repeating, but it isn't true. Certainly not the norm.

>>29560 Yea not true, current statistics are laughable >The seventh duke was betrothed in 1565 to Ana de Silva y Mendoza, daughter of the princes of Éboli, who was 4 years old at the time. In 1572, when the duchess was just over 10 years old, the Pope granted a dispensation for the consummation of the marriage.

>>29737 The power games of aristocracy is obviously not going to be the norm

Honestly always preferred Misato...

>>29741 Nobody knows what the norm was, let's stop lying to ourselves, the reality is that it could, it was done and nobody saw it badly, whether it was more common or not is what we will not know, the data is very biased, marriage has always been a business, from the highest king to the worker of a guild, 150 years ago the rules began to change, but, before that, we know it was like that. People see kids working in XIX normal, but, early marriage think is rare and illegal kek

>>29815 >no one knows anything for sure indeed, but that's a lazy argument. We take what's most likely, and that'll be the information the bernd posted above.

>>29815 >Nobody knows what the norm was, Yes, we know what the norm was, because we have marriage records, such as the ones from English parishes dating from 1500-2000 I posted above. Yes, people wrote that stuff down. Nobody denied that teenage marriages happened, particularly arranged ones with the elite, but this didn't reflect the vast majority of the European population. And that women were universally married off at 12 or 14 is one of the most parroted myths about the middle ages.

At the end of the day. The only thing that matters is what men want.

>>29560 >Average life expectancy in the low-mid 30s in around 1550 >people getting married on average in late 20s Sorry, i call bullshit.

>>30668 The average life expectancy was low because of high infant mortality. Plenty of people lived to an old age.

>>30680 >Plenty of people lived to an old age. [citation needed] Because you usually cut-off people below a certain age for those statistics, as it elsewise heavily skewers the dataset. At least if you don't go for median age of death in the beginning, what the proper approach would be.

>>30681 If half of the people didn't make it to 3, then your median life expectancy would be something like 2 years. That's also not a sensible metric. Cutting off infants is the way to go. Kind of like hard disks or lamps that either break within the first few hours or last many years.

>>30681 The 30's figure you named, which gets named often, does include child mortality. It's in the 60's without it.

>>30687 Again, citation needed. And I want a source that elaborates on how the underlying data is gathered/aggregated, because there is too much bullshit going on. Including child infancy in average life expectancy data is a deliberate skewing of outcomes. >>30684 Not if you got by median adult age, which is the sensible metric.

>>30704 This is the current state of historical research which you could very easily verify yourself, but here you go. https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/05/25/understanding-medieval-life-expectancy/ https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/life-expectancy-measure-misperception/

>>30732 >Scientific research >Posts some Catholic vanity crap and a liberal journal >Not a single quantified study posted >Instead anecdotal evidence, written in a way to make it seem more relevant than it is Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Let me guess. You are some sorts of liberal arts student. >You could It's not my job to look up proofs for some obviousl asspulls you post as facts. Come again when you have data posted in an actual scientific journal that elaborates what they analyze, how they gather their data and how they interpret it.

>>30737 You won't find a study on "retards think something wrong". Just look at the ages of people dying from old age. Many Romans died at 60+. Sadly, there are some intelligent Bavariaballs here, I'm really tempted to use the ublock filter list. Not even that other Swissball, and he might even dislike me, but you're simply a retard.

>>30738 Nah I don't dislike you, we've been over this.

Get a gf of your own age, they are better

>>30738 >Some people get to old age, this means people on average get to old age. You are a fucking retard still unable to find a single proper source for your politically loaded dumbfuckery. To put it in simple words that even you could understand, you are using highly selective data pulls to make assumptions in bad faith. Or on a more simple note: you are using the income of the average Swiss national in Switzerland to talk about the average financial power of people in all of Europe.

>>31231 This is how it's done. But alas, the Spaniard is not some liberal arts retard trying to push an agenda

>>31238 This is getting rather ridiculous. First of all you're responding to the wrong ball as there are two ITT. Second of all, what the hell is politically loaded about this discussion? I'm not the "liberal" Swiss, if that's what you're implying. And you're talking as if I made some grand, new claim that needs to be proven to your uneducated self, but historians have been pointing this fact out for years whenever life expectancy prior to modern medicine is brought up. How about you provide proofs that the myth is real rather than the current consensus, instead? What's next, do I need to provide a scientific study that people in the middle ages did actually wash themselves, or will you dismiss the countless sources that say otherwise as "anecdotal evidence", making yourself look even more the imbecile?

>>31239 Then why are you ignoring this? >>29560 And how is this not selective?

>>31240 *that say so In any case, the issue of life expectancy is completely unrelated to the marriage pattern which was not nearly as universal across all cultures as the spanish nonce claimed, period. Nobody denied that teenage marriages did happen. t. votes right

>>31240 >what the hell is politically loaded about this discussion? I'm not the "liberal" Swiss, if that's what you're implying Didn't you know? New research and correcting common misconceptions is woke now. Dinosaurs with feathers? Woke. Saying that the concept of the dark ages is a retcon from the renaissance? Woke. Pointing out that Napoleon was of average height for his time? Woooooke. t. "That" Swiss

>>31248 What a bizarre thing to assume that your stereotypical liberal arts student has any interest whatsoever in clearing up negative clichés/half-truths about the middle ages. In any case, the guy is clearly heavily biased himself and projecting.

>>31253 The term woke has lost all meaning. It's not about liberal arts students anymore. Anything you don't like can be woke now. Even dinosaurs. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/18257993/david-attenborough-woke-t-rex/ But I agree, someone correcting misconceptions about the Middle Ages on an imageboard is 100% spede-tier and is not political at all.

Being attracted to teenagers is normal, they're in fertile age with nice bodies. Is only weird if you want to fuck a flat 6 year old girl.

>>31683 If a BRAZILIAN said it in an imagboard, then it must be true.

This jew is testing the waters Fuck off to kohlshit

>>28908 Peru is one of the niggers who spams kohlshit