Wow! I can't believe I missed this thread!
First and foremost, Kaiti is a lot more than merely cute. If she never took one single damn pill or saw the sight of a laser, she'd still be innately sweet, hot and desirable beyond belief. Beauty takes many forms, but anyone who doesn't realise this girl is already something special is either blind or already dead. OK, so I'm suddenly all stern and fundamental-sounding, but am I wrong? I've seen pictures of this girl before, but didn't realise there was a thread stuffed with them. This is fantastic. The thought of her long, skinny legs and sweet, suckable toes, topped by a super-cute face, drives me WILD. When I finish this post, I'm gonna have a wank over this bevvy of pictures. Classy? No. The truth? Yes.
Second, jealousy/ignorance/prejudice/bigotry/hatred. These qualities define the ugly, nasty comments that have been directed at her pictures. And how ironic -- on a site that (ostensibly) promotes diversity, and is populated by people of different genders, ethnicities, aesthetic temperaments, sexual tastes and desires, etc. If you don't like a girl or a subject with images devoted to it (e.g. the coprophilia/coprophagia thread, to name a loaded example [pardon the pun]), then logic (not to mention dignity and decorum) suggests that you IGNORE IT and CHOOSE ANOTHER. In my book, you certainly don't post judgmental comments designed to cause ire and put another person, or group of people, down. I'm *really* curious to hear how Kaiti appeals to paedophiles, by the way, not least when she is clearly fully grown, from her body to her cock. Or do you think children blossom like this? Yes? No?
Third, Kaiti can say whatever the hell she likes about religion. To the best of my knowledge, she has not randomly attacked anyone, nor has she incited hatred in anyone else against anyone else. As she said, religion is an ideology/set of beliefs, and so is open to attack. Even better, religion penetrates (and always aims to penetrate) every strata of society, yet is founded on pure, unreasoning faith, which is the antithesis of not only science, but rationality and human progress. If religion had its way (and it's forever trying to have its way), we'd still be living in caves, with virtually no science, no medicine, no tolerance for ambiguity and, somewhat by extension, no tolerance for things like trannssexualism and transgenderism. In science, which aims to probe the natural world, and discover what's true versus what's not (unlike religion, which assumes truths from the outset, and will only rescind them with much absurdity, cruelty, pain, struggle and waste), there emerges a basic principle: the burden of proof *always* rests with the person making extraordinary claims, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the religious adherent to justify their beliefs, not the person who doesn't believe. Given everything she claims has happened to her, and everything she rightly says about the way the world is, I find it remarkably insensitive, if not downright pathetic, that other people could even THINK of lecturing her under the auspices of "do X, Y and Z and THEN you can speak out". WTF?
Fourth, Kaiti. Whether your stay is long or shot, welcome to the board (if welcome is the right word at the moment!). Now I'm off to have that wank.
