|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:00:11 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said: You're beeping crazy.  Try to read the first reply to you and stand your streaming hoses from there. And read this some more.  I love your desperate crashes to ad hominem when you realize you've cornered yourself with your bullsh!t. Rabbit rabbit rabbit! Easter's going to suck for you forevermore. But I'm glad you can go back to the first reply and agree with me now.  You started off denying that he mentioned the 4 year old stuff, then had to eat it when his criteria was pointed out to everybody, and then you denied the advocacy, I disputed your assertion, and you went into one of your patent manic wild tizzies. And I still have so much more I can reply to!
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:19:13 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: You're beeping crazy. Try to read the first reply to you and stand your streaming hoses from there. Yeah, the first reply to me was saorodh HERE. We discussed the criteria for a bit before he finally understood what I meant and admitted his misunderstanding HERE. When you replied, I even reiterated my position about classifying Eddie's approach as a consent-only approach HERE (my "again" is pretty much giving it away that "this is the point I was making"), so by the time you trotted out the old "misrepresentation" accusation (and later the "diversion" accusation) it was really ludicrous given how many times I had stated what I was arguing, restated what I was arguing, and after saorodh had gotten it and moved on. If you had never brought up the "misrepresentation" and "diversion" crap I would've been happy to discuss whatever actual criteria-diversion you wanted to. After that, though, I couldn't help but point out your blatant hypocrisy (not that you care, or probably even get it). LOL, I'm the one actually linking posts to prove what the fuck I'm saying, while you're blowing hot air and repeating the same easily provably false statements, yet I'M the one cornered with bullshit. OK then. I swear I don't even know why I (or anyone) bothers responding to you given your reading comprehension is this abysmal. 1. I "started off" by saying that Eddie's belief was that sex should be a consent-only matter and age shouldn't matter. The only reference I made to 4-year-olds was "I don't remember him giving an age of 4 years old for anything" as in "4-year-olds were not mentioned as part of his consent-criteria." Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/654683/thread2. I never had to "eat" anything. The very first post after the above was saorodh's. In the very next post I admitted that 4-year-olds would be "subject to abuse" (your term) if they could consent. Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/654701/thread3. Yes, because I know what the fuck advocacy means and explained it. Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/667203/thread4. Since you're the one making this claim, and since only you know what counts as as "manic wild tizzies." I'll let you prove that one. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:26:40 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Nope, unfortunately for you the world we live in frustrates the beepers that wish to slide the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by adults, out of malignant pedoville and into some kind of norm/respectability. No amount of continuous horrible is just wunnerful gassing is going to do the trick for you. And of course, it is a fact that if the rules in question went into effect then 4 year-olds would be made subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, regardless of your ludicrously feeble semantic heaves and reamed diversion attempts. Feast your eyes.You keep injuring me beep-dude.  Such a sublime individual you are.  No, you equated outrage for horrific with outrage for the normal good, regardless of how bad you want to prostitute homosexulity for your cause. And, of course, making 4 year-olds fodder to adults for sex is just that reason, regardless of what "value" you ascribe to it. Nope, deezen's a pedophile (or he has severely subnormal social/empathy levels and hypernormal narcissism levels - a type around here) because he advocates subjecting 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by predator adults. Regardless of your pathetic attempts to ascribe it to emotion. That won't stick, except to you (please don't hit me again!).
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:42:55 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Nope, unfortunately for you the world we live in frustrates the beepers that wish to slide the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by adults, out of malignant pedoville and into some kind of norm/respectability. And we're back to the game of "rabbit makes ridiculous insinuations based on nothing more than the fact others disagree with him on points that have nothing to do with the insinuations he's making." Well done. No, I equated the form the outrage takes with both. Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/669620/thread ("The "emotional/puritanical" seems to crop up in a lot of sex-related subjects and the form it takes with pedophilia is basically identical to the form it takes (or took) with homosexuality.") So I explained exactly and explicitly how I was comparing them. But because you didn't understand what I meant, you just confused it with equating them outright. In fact, you even quoted me saying it in your next post with scare quotes around "the form it takes," accused me of weasel-wording, and then asked "So what is that supposed to suggest?" Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/669630/threadTo which I responded clarifying what I meant even further. Proof for the above: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/671103/thread ("No weasel wording--that's another term you don't understand. If you understood a lick of logic and rationality you would know precisely what I mean by form, but even with NOT knowing about them it was made pretty clear by my post precisely what I meant. It "suggests" what I said explicitly: that that method of argumentation doesn't distinguish between right and wrong positions, as emotion-based outrage-appeals do not in any circumstance. When you cite a difference, such as your "between consenting adults it was misplaced," then that's an example of a rational rebuttal, and not an emotional outrage appeal. If you were capable of more of the former I wouldn't mind. It's your preference for the latter that drives me crazy, because you end up harming your own side without realizing it, and you're too stupid to realize it.") Which is fine, but you don't stop there. You have to go further by ignoring the values in the position and try to make it seem like it's only advocating for the consequences. Tactics of the irrational, intellectually dishonest, morally outraged. Not that it matters at this point, but your "because" does not make someone a pedophile. Again, your blatant misuse of words. Eddie would be a pedophile if he was sexually attracted to children. Period. That's what pedophile means. Learn to use words. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:43:46 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:  Between you and me, brother.
ZE EYES!That hash pipe can be a comforting thing! I dig it!  Between you and me, brother. Sorry again you had to eat it. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:48:09 GMT
So what point are you trying to make with these links? You seem to think they're making me "eat" something, but what you claimed I was "eating" I had already admitted before you posted. So go ahead and explain what relevance you think these two posts have to whatever point you're making. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:49:13 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You be so whack! Freedom for some is consequence for others. Ditto, my "misplaced outrage" like-that-for-homosexuality brother.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:54:53 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You be so whack! Freedom for some is consequence for others. No, freedom for everyone means consequences for some. That's how the freedom/consequence dynamic works. The issue is that in only bringing up the consequences you are intentionally, dishonestly, ignoring the values in the freedom. Being honest would be in recognizing both, and arguing that the consequence is worse than the freedom is good, and not trying to dishonestly frame advocating for a freedom as advocating for a consequence while ignoring the freedom. You can't seem to manage that, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:59:20 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:So you accept the contents of those two posts? Hot damn, all this crap for nothing! Or, more likely, you're just shooting sh!t some more.Chomp chomp chomp chomp
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 0:02:17 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:So you accept the contents of those two posts? Hot damn, all this crap for nothing! Or, more likely, you're just shooting sh!t some moreThat depends on what "content" you mean. I responded to both of them stating what I agreed/disagreed with and we moved on from there. So what in them do you want to address again that you think I failed to the first time around? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 0:07:30 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:No, freedom for a lech beeper to tear open a 4 year-old's orifices is a helluva consequence for the tyke. The dishonesty is you trying to bury the fact that no "freedom" can warrant the consequences for the minors in this pedo's dream, regardless of how proud you are of your ability to chatter people down with your continuous black-is-white utter nonsense. And you're right, I certainly can't manage to stomach your horsesh!t going unspaded, hence why I'll answer it every time.  Too bad so sad.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 17, 2017 9:28:10 GMT
"Observable" would just mean "potentially observable" in this case. I'm not sure what the "boundaries" would be--perhaps space itself--but most ideas about the multiverse have them existing in Hilbert Space to begin with (something I don't entirely understand), which is different than our regular conceptions of space; so I'm not sure if any traditional thinking of boundaries would make sense. You Dont believe we coulD travel to other universes? So if there are eDges of the universe, what would they be like? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 17, 2017 12:17:32 GMT
Jesus Christ, isn't it about time you guys started a new thread? It's 24 pages in and it's been 2 guys having a conversation about other universes on a thread that was about "child sex robots".
|
|
|
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 17, 2017 12:41:04 GMT
Jesus Christ, isn't it about time you guys started a new thread? It's 24 pages in and it's been 2 guys having a conversation about other universes on a thread that was about "child sex robots". thErE havE been about two rEplies Each, rElax. thE threaD is DErailED anyway. note - D anD e on my kÈyboard arÈ mEsseD up. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 17, 2017 13:45:50 GMT
Jesus Christ, isn't it about time you guys started a new thread? It's 24 pages in and it's been 2 guys having a conversation about other universes on a thread that was about "child sex robots". thErE havE been about two rEplies Each, rElax. thE threaD is DErailED anyway. note - D anD e on my kÈyboard arÈ mEsseD up. Thank you for explaining 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 15:20:53 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo saidPart 2 of n of your beautiful consolidation. Thanks again for your hard work. Sorry, it's because you literally freely drone on nonstop with pure idiocy. I do understand with you guys' mastering of social cues why you click this way. You think pure rejection of your tripe is asking for "explanation", and if you just repeatedly pour enough words on it, your pure stupid will become accepted as a scintillating insight after all. However you contend that people read, and regardless of how mind-melded you are with Bryce, the only real answer now and after the next 50 or so times you want to post on it in your freakish mania is, "read the whole sentence". I certainly don't value the juvenile pronouncements of the basic life skills-inept idiot who seriously poses that advocating a system that makes grade-schoolers available to adults for abuse somehow doesn't advocate making grade-schoolers available to adults for abuse. Or who had to ponder on whether stigma is the big source of harm from kid abuse. You need to bring up the link to this experience of yours and let's see how serious it was, or if I was actually just joking ( totally understand you have real troubles here) or just mocking you (starting in this thread, anyway). And this comical tendency to extremes of yours fits your posting personality splendidly. But no, making self-congratulatory theater out of some trivial nothing by rocketing it up into something positively stratospherically stupid and then going around blowing your snot-horn, is not "intellectual honesty". And there's no blame to shift with a sentence that just needs to be read without the patent disingenuity. But you live to rattle on and on about projected smokescreens and comprehension idiocies, ludicrous babbles about completely parsable and comprehensible sentences, trivial typos, all the while being completely unreserved with the most juvenile proclamations, epithets, and years-old meme groaners. All in the frantic scramble to cover for your own piteous bullsh!tscreens & miserableness, and all powered by your pique mania fits.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 18:44:37 GMT
"Observable" would just mean "potentially observable" in this case. I'm not sure what the "boundaries" would be--perhaps space itself--but most ideas about the multiverse have them existing in Hilbert Space to begin with (something I don't entirely understand), which is different than our regular conceptions of space; so I'm not sure if any traditional thinking of boundaries would make sense. You Dont believe we coulD travel to other universes? So if there are eDges of the universe, what would they be like? I have no reason to think we could, but given how much science has advanced in just the last 150 years I also wouldn't say the idea is completely impossible. Regarding the edge of the universe, I simply have no idea. We know space is expanding, and it's hard to imagine an "edge" of space and what the hell it could be expanding into. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 18:45:55 GMT
Jesus Christ, isn't it about time you guys started a new thread? It's 24 pages in and it's been 2 guys having a conversation about other universes on a thread that was about "child sex robots". Err, Bryce, there's only been a handful of replies on this multiverse tangent. The vast majority of the discussion has been between rabbit and I over the child sex robots and related pedophilia issues (and a lot of semantic/grammar confusion). |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 19:09:00 GMT
tpfkar You think pure rejection of your tripe is asking for "explanation", and if you just repeatedly pour enough words on it, your pure stupid will become accepted as a scintillating insight after all. Dude, YOU'RE the one that first asked what other "theys" Bryce had in mind, so you were undeniably asking for an explanation, so I explained it, in plain English, with lessons that gradeschoolers are taught. So I don't know what you're talking about with "rejecting my tripe," because everything I said about pronouns, how people read, why Bryce was confused, why your mistake facilitated the confusion, etc. is all FACTUALLY CORRECT. It's not an opinion, it's not an argument, it's all fact. You trying to get past this is like Arlon and Erjen struggling with basic scientific and mathematical problems; probably worse because at least most of their struggles are on high school level material. You can't even figure out how to use pronouns correctly, and when your mistake is thoroughly explained to you either you don't get it, which makes you Blade-level dumb, or you do get and are smokescreening to avoid taking responsibility for the mistake, which makes you intellectually dishonest. Take your pick. As for the first, you don't "value it" because just like with basic grammar you don't understand basic semantics. As for the second, that's your abysmal reading comprehension cropping up again. What I said was (essentially) that I didn't know how much social stigma contributed to the (psychological) harm done, and neither do you. We know that social stigmas contribute to much of what women feel after being raped (especially things like "shame"), so it should be blatantly obvious that the same thing could affect children who also pick up on social/shame attitudes about sex. Obviously this wouldn't have anything to do with physical harm, and I never suggested otherwise. ^ Proof positive of smokescreen deployed to avoid admitting mistake. It's helpful when I make a claim and you immediately prove it for me. Thanks for the assist. 1. No shit, Sherlock, and I never denied it. You've been tilting at a strawman this entire thread with that one, but at least you finally seemed to correctly use "freedom" and "consequence." Now why don't you try to figure out freedoms for OTHER people of OTHER ages in OTHER situations that would happen under that criteria. Go ahead, give it a shot. I'm sure you can manage once you get kid-fucking off your furry brain. 2. There was no "dishonesty," and it's your abject lie that I tried to "bury" this when it's been made repeatedly obvious that I agree with it and it's why I reject Eddie's consent-only approach. But in your pea-sized brain you think me trying to accurately present the approach, both its freedoms/values and its consequences, is somehow me "burying the consequences" because your brain is too small to contain any other aspect of it. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 19:09:58 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:The bulk of it evagal pursuing obfuscatory firehouses of irrelevancy. But watch out as that second sentence may confuse the hell out of Bryce. Lunch time.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
