If you could be a God...

If you could be a God... May 1, 2018 6:15:32 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on May 1, 2018 6:15:32 GMT

^tpfkar

Better do a brief reply. Maybe I'll be able to redo it in the morning.

RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

It's another of your many utterly irrelevant "mightbe"s that you arse-pulled in your advocacy of adult-kid sex.

It's you guys wanting the kids available for adult banging that have to overturn the kid-bits cart.

Just like your utterly irrelevant “mightbe”s that the emeritus professor at West Virginia University was a crackpot?

That the professionals are shoveling adult-kid-sex-tamping-down lies because of their cowardice, or "moral outrage", or "Puritanism", or "xenophobia"

is a bit more of a wild hopeful "mightbe" Hail Mary than who-knows-what with some book review of things that haven't been incorporated into the expert consensus that's promulgated via professionals, teachers, doctors, textbooks, laws, etc.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

Of course, no, the claim was made in response to your ass-fling of "moral outrage" et al., and is of course the baseline. And regardless, of course, no, you guys wanting the kids available to adults for sex have to make the case that what's promulgated from the professionals is distinct from the "expert consensus", and based variously on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever other asspulls you fling at the wall.

Of course yes, and it makes not one iota of difference what the claim was made in response to. You made the claim, your burden to support it. Only Arlon and Erjen argues against this basic notion.

Of course, no, see what you clipped in red. ⇑

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

Alas for you and younglovechan, no, it is the baseline. You guys have to do the work to get the toddlers' knickers dropped. And do a whole lot better than "moral outrage!" and "Puritans!" and "xenophobes!"

and lions! and tigers! and bears! (npi!), and dead links to studies you said yourself you read none of

before arguing vociferously for the "pro-to-neutral" of the adult-child lovin', with "pro-to-neutral" being some

percentage self-reporting it, at least according to the book review you posted.

IE, you can't prove it and are going to rely on Arlon's "status quo" argument for why you don't have to.

Nah, I rely on the professionals. I'll let you and younglovechan do yours and Erj do his armchair scrambling for whatever bits you think serve your conspiratorial advocacies.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

Ahh, the "ridiculous hurdles" for you to get into the kids drawers. That the professionals in the field think that adults banging the kids is "pro-to-neutral", but they're just cowards, "morally outrage"ed, "xenophobes"

, or whatever next arse-pull you fling? And pervy face icons aren't going to get you in any quicker.

Another vacuous ad hominem, followed by a non sequitur and something I never said.

What else is the scrambling on about the "pro-to-neutral" of adult-child sex, based on the most absurd of arsepulls? The attacks variously of "dishonesty" and the flip sincere but based on "moral outrage", Puritanism", "xenophobia"

, and gotta ignore the info promulgated by the experts (who for some reason spread sinister anti- adult-child sex info!) and research whatever "pro-to-neutral" adult-child sex "info", that you said you hadn't done, then dumped a bunch of dead text from "younglovechan" of "studies" you said you never read, and finally a book review, 30+ year-old article, and an Amazon listing. ::crazytime:: Pure, absurd scrambling advocacy.

Of course you guys have to overcome the promulgated expert consensus, and so much better than your current steaming absurdities that don't make it out of laughland. Good luck!

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

And many many just got it wrong. And I don't need to worry about THIS book review

you published, that you noted repeatedly when you fielded youbglovechan's un-linked text list that you'd read NONE of. And in any case, utterly irrelevant except to those who'll fling any absurdity to get the kids available for sex to adults, until there's a consensus among the experts in the field - which they'll promulgate through other professionals, textbooks, teachers, media, laws, etc., of which we peeps will all be exposed (npi!) to from that distribution. Until then, it's just the wild hopes of the ever-conspiratorial jabbering adult-kid sex advocates.

IE, you have absolutely no evidence that emeritus professor (and I guess the publishing house at Rutledge university) are any of the negative things you implied.

I nor any other lay person, armchair bound and voluminous with the horsesh!t though they may be, have any means to weigh book reviews and Amazon listings and Wikipedia biographies against and to overrule the promulgated expert consensus. I do know that you and younglovechan with your adult-child sex advocacy and Erj with his walmartnibirumasonry sure like to sling that crap to try though.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT cupcakes said:

Nah, you remember to suck it. And what do you think this article from 1983 by a guy that ended up doing software engineering and an Amazon book ad say about adult-kid (as in prepubescent, toddlers, etc.) sex? And what do you think they say about a consent criteria that only requires a child to articulate want to an adult in order for that adult to have "sex" with the child?

Are you really this illiterate?

First, from the Wikipedia bio link:

I know, I should take this article from well over 30 years ago that hasn't made even a dent along your adult-child sex advocacy because you like his wiki bio.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

... see wiki ...

<where did it go!?!>

To say he "ended up doing software engineering" is completely irrelevant to his clear expertise in the field of family therapy and psychiatry. Also, that's not an "article" but a meta-study published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, again, it's a study by an expert of other studies done by other experts. Since you're too lazy to read for yourself, here's some of the pertinent conclusions (and, remember, much of this is him summarizing many other studies):

Well he surely didn't keep pressing his study line of work, whatever you think the article and wiki bio say for your cause.

May 1, 2018 1:31:57 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

... whole lot of nothing that would get you to adult-child sex, even if it were accepted by the expert consensus ...

<you feel free to paste back in>

What say you to that?

If in your fantasyland it were accepted into the promulgated expert consensus, what do you think it would say for greenlighting adult-child sex?

Or how it would affect your claim that a specific consent regime that only requires a child express want to an adult, however coached, bribed, etc., in order for the adult to have sex with the toddler, prepubescent, etc., would not open up countless to adult-child sex?

IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=vast
IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=bulk

And or course, any day (Mozilla) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

(Mozilla) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread

Eva Yojimbo: And what "facts already established by experts" are you referring to? What would you say in response to someone posting a list of pro-to-neutral studies of pedophilia like THESE? Now, I haven't read any of them, and neither have you; but I'm also guessing that you (like myself) have done zero actual research into the subject in general. All you're doing is basing this on your gut reactions and social mores, reactions and mores that history has taught us are remarkably unreliable.