|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 22:19:32 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I have seen him make claims about actuality via the criteria he provided. Most 4 year-olds don't know what sex is because it hasn't been explained to them, generally for good reason, not that they couldn't satisfy his criteria if it was explained to them. And the misrepresentation is in the shift to talk of some generalized "consent-based approach" as opposed to his specific stated ideas.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. What were his claims on the actuality? They probably could satisfy his criteria if it was explained to him, but it's still not explained to the majority, and I doubt if the minority for which it is would be interested in consenting at all. How is it a misrepresentation to call his specific stated ideas a "consent-based approach?" It's certainly not an age-based approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 22:21:44 GMT
Because I don't think "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" is a more specific subcategory of "advocating for consent-based approach to sex" like "chair" is for "furniture." If we are going by beliefs, the beliefs "all kids who can consent should be allowed to have sex" and "Four year olds can have sex as they can consent" are definitely hyponyms and hyperonyms of eachother. That would be correct, but it was the whole "consent" part that was left out of the initial "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" claim that I objected to. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 12, 2017 22:27:29 GMT
So is four your minimum age? Do I really have to repeat myself? Yeah go on 'repeat' yourself, what in your opinion is the minimum age a child can consent and therefore it is ok to have sex with them? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 22:29:33 GMT
Do I really have to repeat myself? Yeah go on 'repeat' yourself, what in your opinion is the minimum age a child can consent and therefore it is ok to have sex with them? I wouldn't know. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 22:31:16 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:As I said specifically, via the criteria he provided. It matters not what the majority would do, what matters is what predators would and could do. And it's not the calling of his approach a "consent-based approach", it's the attempt to use the general "consent-based approach" that doesn't detail criteria that would include a bulk of 4 year-olds as able to consent to sex as shield to his specific approach that has very specific criteria that would make a bulk 4 year-olds available for sex. If the "consent-based approach" in general included his criteria then it would not just be likely fatally impractical, but also as inescapably reprehensible as is his specific position.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 12, 2017 22:32:30 GMT
Yeah go on 'repeat' yourself, what in your opinion is the minimum age a child can consent and therefore it is ok to have sex with them? I wouldn't know. You don't have any kind of opinion? You have spent days arguing over the legitimacy of pedophilia and yet you hold no opinion on what age you think it is appropriate for children to be having sex with adults? Are you sure you have thought through your stance, not trying to be rude I just would have thought that someone that held your strenuous views would have an opinion on what he thought was correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 12, 2017 22:41:14 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:As I said specifically, via the criteria he provided. It matters not what the majority would do, what matters is what predators would and could do. And it's not the calling of his approach a "consent-based approach", it's the attempt to use the general "consent-based approach" that doesn't detail criteria that would include a bulk of 4 year-olds as able to consent to sex as shield to his specific approach that has very specific criteria that would make a bulk 4 year-olds available for sex. If the "consent-based approach" in general included his criteria then it would not just be likely fatally impractical, but also as inescapably reprehensible as is his specific position.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. You're confusing me now, because the criteria he provided is about his definition of consent. The actuality would be in saying how many (if any) 4-year-olds would be capable of consenting per his criteria. Well, you're the one that mentioned the "bulk" of 4-year-olds. Certainly the biggest concern I have with the consent-only approach would be in the ability of predators to manipulate it. Firstly, I agree that his (and any that I could imagine) consent-based approach would be fatally impractical. Secondly, can you conceive of any consent-based approach that wouldn't include a bulk of 4-year-olds? Because you seem to be implying that there's something wrong with his specific consent-based criteria as opposed to the generalized consent-based approach. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 22:54:00 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, the actuality is that he advocates criteria that would have a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds be able to meet the criteria to consent to sex. That is the advocacy of a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds to be available for sex. And I think it is pretty straightforward to work out that even if available by the criteria the 4 year-olds would not be subject to sex if the predators, be they family or strangers, were kept away. His specific approach is reprehensible as any that included making 4 year-olds available for sex would be. The general approach would be as well if it made 4 year-olds available for sex. As the specific criteria for consent are not listed in the general approach I can't comment beyond my belief that it is fatally impractical generally.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 4:28:28 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, the actuality is that he advocates criteria that would have a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds be able to meet the criteria to consent to sex. That is the advocacy of a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds to be available for sex. His specific approach is reprehensible as any that included making 4 year-olds available for sex would be. The general approach would be as well if it made 4 year-olds available for sex. As the specific criteria for consent are not listed in the general approach I can't comment beyond my belief that it is fatally impractical generally.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. What you said that started this tangent was: "His (i) (ii) and (ii) could easily apply to a multitude of 4 year-olds. And "4 year-olds" has been a common age he has used in his advocacy." With the latter I assumed you meant that he was saying 4-year-olds could consent in actuality as opposed to just theoretically according to his criterion (theoretically a 1-year-old could consent, but we know in actuality no 1-year-old could meet his criteria). Now it seems like the latter was just your inference that it would be an actuality that 4-year-olds could consent based on his criteria. I'm frankly a bit baffled by your use of the word "bulk" when you already admitted that most 4-year-olds don't even know about sex and thus couldn't consent per his criteria. OK, but I can't see now that you're making any meaningful distinction between the hypothetical "general consent approach" VS Eddie's specific consent approach, so I stand my original statement that it is a consent-approach rather than an age-approach and that framing it in terms of the latter is the misrepresentation, not the former. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable to just say "I find the consent approach morally reprehensible because there's no way to protect young children" without misrepresenting what it is. It was stuff like this that rubbed me wrong about the original threads: not that Eddie and the paedos were right, but that the arguments against them were so poor and more full of appeals to reactionary moral outrage than evidential, rational rebuttals; and the latter shouldn't be difficult when something is genuinely wrong, and the rampant use of the former should be disturbing to anyone who's been through any number of this and last century's fights for civil liberties. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 5:17:52 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:And that was in response to your ' "Right, and he doesn't give a minimum age where he thinks consent is possible. There's a big difference between "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" and "advocating for a consent-based approach to sex."', the most definitely baffling line that advocating criteria that opens a/likely the bulk to be able to meet his criteria for being subjected to adults for sex is somehow meaningfully distinguished from "advocating for sex with four-year-olds". Or that there is any meaningful moderation of the fact that that the criteria he advocates encompasses a/likely the bulk of 4 year-olds, whether or not by way of erroneous assumption of an irrelevant and unnecessary direct statement of "4 year-olds can consent". Or that "just an inference" somehow dents that advocates criteria + criteria opens 4 year olds, or even that "now it seems" somehow applies to something that has been stated for multiple posts now. I'm not surprised at the "bafflement" at this stage, however, not knowing about sex now does not mean that they aren't open to being exposed and taught by those willing to use 4 year-olds for sex. I don't know what to tell you if you're pushing that they'd have to be pre-groomed and pre-loaded to be counted, and discounted because a predator has not yet gained access. The 4 year-olds still have the ability to meet his criteria, which is irretrievably reprehensible on it's face, regardless of the contortion of "able to meet the criteria". The specifics he advocates open a/the bulk of 4 year-olds to being sexually abused. A general "consent approach" doesn't take that step, although one particular implementation may do that if it has a child as outlet for sick adult criteria, and another may not, if the specific implementation has severe criteria for consent. You're welcome to knock yourself out to say it, but I find it to be nonsensical. In general I think a "consent-based" approach is likely fatally impractical and that age as a proxy will always be required. Any specific implementation could be reprehensible, but is not by value of being "consent-based" alone. Conversely, his is, as his criteria do sanction the sexual use and abuse of children. And also as mentioned in the first reply, there's his community service for rape thing.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 5:37:19 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:And that was in response to your ' "Right, and he doesn't give a minimum age where he thinks consent is possible. There's a big difference between "advocating for sex with four-year-olds" and "advocating for a consent-based approach to sex."', the most definitely baffling line that advocating criteria that opens a/likely the bulk to be able to meet his criteria for being subjected to adults for sex is somehow meaningfully distinguished from "advocating for sex with four-year-olds". Or that there is any meaningful moderation of the fact that that the criteria he advocates encompasses a/likely the bulk of 4 year-olds, whether or not by way of erroneous assumption of an irrelevant and unnecessary direct statement of "4 year-olds can consent". Or that "just an inference" somehow dents that advocates criteria + criteria opens 4 year olds, or even that "now it seems" somehow applies to something that has been stated for multiple posts now. Right, so he didn't explicitly give a minimum age that he thought could actually consent; the 4-year-old thing was an implication you reached based on his criteria. It seems we agree on that point. Where we disagree is that you think making it about that implication while excluding the consent-based basis for it isn't a misrepresentation and I very much think it is. That implication may highlight a major problem with the approach, but it is not the approach itself, and framing it as such is dishonest; and it's not like you have to be dishonest about it in order to point the problem out. But they're open to being exposed and taught by those people now and yet I'm guessing the vast majority of 4-year-olds now do not know about sex at all. If any of them knew about it when I was that age, I didn't know; and if any of my many nieces, nephews, or kids my cousin takes care of at daycare knows about it, I also don't know. So I don't know where you're getting this "bulk of 4-year-olds" thing from other than it's a hypothetical possibility based on the criteria, as opposed to an actuality where most 4-year-olds (to start with) even know about sex. Basically, yeah, I'm saying that unless a predator has already gotten to them, or unless they had rather odd parents, that a 4-year-old is extremely unlikely to even know what sex is and thus would be completely unable to consent. That's why I asked you to name a general consent approach that could avoid that step. I frankly can't conceive of one. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 6:21:12 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:Well 1, it's irrelevant that it's "implication" from his direct criteria, and 2, as noted he's been bandying the "4 year olds" in his posts since the last board. Bafflement indeed. Advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Ain't no dodging that one.  The suggestion of dishonesty is either dishonest in and of itself or is profoundly misguided. His directly posted criteria open a/the bulk of 4 year olds to use for sex, and no talking around it will make it any less reprehensible of an idea. Again, irrelevant in order to explain enough to them to meet his directly specified criteria. Using the fact that their guardians have not yet educated them to the point of the very straightforward requirements of his criteria, or that they haven't been groomed yet I can only deem as bizarre. The serious posing that they are discounted by way of the very basic instruction needed, again, I don't really know how to characterize. Sure, I really can't grasp how someone who's had any real time with children or really any idea would seriously pose this as discounting.  A general "consent approach" doesn't take that step because it would require a specific approach or implementation with specific criteria to take that step at all. Not conceiving any particular implementation of a consent approach doesn't in any way rehabilitate his criteria that sanction adult use and abuse of kids. I've never suggested that there may be one that solves any particular issue; in fact I stated outright several times that I thought consent-based approaches were fatally impractical.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 13, 2017 8:53:22 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, the actuality is that he advocates criteria that would have a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds be able to meet the criteria to consent to sex. That is the advocacy of a bulk, likely the bulk of 4 year-olds to be available for sex. His specific approach is reprehensible as any that included making 4 year-olds available for sex would be. The general approach would be as well if it made 4 year-olds available for sex. As the specific criteria for consent are not listed in the general approach I can't comment beyond my belief that it is fatally impractical generally.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. What you said that started this tangent was: "His (i) (ii) and (ii) could easily apply to a multitude of 4 year-olds. And "4 year-olds" has been a common age he has used in his advocacy." With the latter I assumed you meant that he was saying 4-year-olds could consent in actuality as opposed to just theoretically according to his criterion (theoretically a 1-year-old could consent, but we know in actuality no 1-year-old could meet his criteria). Now it seems like the latter was just your inference that it would be an actuality that 4-year-olds could consent based on his criteria. I'm frankly a bit baffled by your use of the word "bulk" when you already admitted that most 4-year-olds don't even know about sex and thus couldn't consent per his criteria. OK, but I can't see now that you're making any meaningful distinction between the hypothetical "general consent approach" VS Eddie's specific consent approach, so I stand my original statement that it is a consent-approach rather than an age-approach and that framing it in terms of the latter is the misrepresentation, not the former. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable to just say "I find the consent approach morally reprehensible because there's no way to protect young children" without misrepresenting what it is. It was stuff like this that rubbed me wrong about the original threads: not that Eddie and the paedos were right, but that the arguments against them were so poor and more full of appeals to reactionary moral outrage than evidential, rational rebuttals; and the latter shouldn't be difficult when something is genuinely wrong, and the rampant use of the former should be disturbing to anyone who's been through any number of this and last century's fights for civil liberties. Is Eddie a pedo? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 13, 2017 12:31:59 GMT
In my view pedophilia is morally acceptable so I have no problem with this. If anything it will decrease pedophilia as they can act out their desires on robots Having sex with pre pubescent children is morally acceptable? That's not what pedophilia means. What you just described is child molestation (which is obviously not morally acceptable). Pedophilia is merely an attraction to (prepubescent) children. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 13, 2017 12:42:02 GMT
If that's not what you meant then what on earth do you mean by "what it means to you?" I want to know how you personally define pedophilia, and some indication of what age range you think is acceptable. I realize you didn't ask me, but in my opinion pedophilia doesn't relate to a chronological age, but rather a biological age (appearance), because it refers to a physical attraction. Pedophilia is an attraction to a prepubescent child, and puberty occurs at different ages in different individuals. Usually, children under the age of 13 would be prepubescent, but not always (it can be as early as 9). And usually a child begins puberty at around 13, but not always (it can be as late as 15). For the record, I don't believe that an adult having sex with a 15 year old is acceptable either since it's illegal in most jurisdiction). However, I have no moral issues with it beyond legality. I'd have a moral issue with an adult having sex with a prepubescent child since they are not sexually developed yet. While most 15 year olds cannot "legally" consent, in reality they can. A 9 year old most likely has no concept of, nor desire to have sex (much less with an adult). So they are clearly very different things. Edit: Or to put it more bluntly, the average 9 year old boy wants to play with legos, hot wheels cars, and action figures, ride his bike, scooter, or skateboard, build forts, play t-ball, and watch cartoons and Disney movies. He probably finds girls icky, boring, and annoying, and it never occurred to him to use his penis for anything other than peeing! This is NOT a person that is interested in, nor capable of consenting to sexual relations, much less with an adult.  The average 15 year old boy on the other hand wakes up with a raging boner, beats off in the shower, spends 20 minutes in the mirror admiring his "muscles" and spiking his hair with gel, stares at the girl with the biggest boobs in class, plays "who would you rather do" with his friends, brags about his sexual prowess, trades selfie pics with his girlfriend, and then jerks off to cell phone porn in his bed. This is a person who is obsessed with sex, and quite capable of consenting with whoever he wants. Still illegal of course, but not in the same category as far as criminality or morality goes.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 13, 2017 18:29:34 GMT
Why is it seemingly always dudes without kids pressing to be able to fuck kids? Always dudes, always childless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 13, 2017 18:33:10 GMT
Why is it seemingly always dudes without kids pressing to be able to fuck kids? Always dudes, always childless. Well... Technically... Thank God.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 18:49:32 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:I think immaturity, naivete / lack of sophistication, and ultimately pliability to manipulation and advantage-taking play into it as much. In the chicken and egg of it, I think that's the egg. Wait, I mean it's whichever came first. Morally I think adults should just leave the kids' giblets alone, regardless of whether they've fully formed.
Sorrow |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 18:52:17 GMT
tpfkar Well 1, it's irrelevant that it's "implication" from his direct criteria, and 2, as noted he's been bandying the "4 year olds" in his posts since the last board. 1. It's not irrelevant when you're framing what the argument actually is. A consequence/implication is not what's being advocated. 2. All I can say to this is that I don't remember him "bandying" 4-year-olds, and given how adamant he was about focusing on consent rather than age, I'm guessing (could be wrong) that if 4-year-olds were "bandied" it was probably someone else that brought them up and he just went with it. Nobody is trying to dodge anything. The issue is what the approach actually is and is advocating. Pointing out a negative implication is a legitimate attack against the approach, but it's not a license to frame the approach as advocating for said implication while ignoring what the approach actually is. Again, you don't have to be dishonest about it in order to attack it with the implication. I'm not denying that enough COULD be explained to them in order to meet his criteria, but you're the one that keeps using "the bulk" of 4-year-olds and I don't understand how in actuality you think "the bulk" of 4-year-olds do now know or would come to know about sex in order to be able to consent. It seems to me like you're just dodging the point: how do you implement ANY "consent-only" approach (that, by definition, doesn't take age into consideration) that would absolutely prevent children from being able to consent? My whole point is that I can't conceive of one. That you're singling out Eddie's as being uniquely bad compared to a "general consent approach" (enough so that you consider classifying it as such a "misrepresentation") suggests that you have some other consent-approach in mind that wouldn't have the same problem. I never said it "rehabilitated his criteria" and we agree that consent-based approaches are fatally impractical; the entire issue that started this discussion was your objection to my even characterizing it as a consent-based approach, suggesting that it was a "misrepresentation" while "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" was the accurate representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 18:53:22 GMT
What you said that started this tangent was: "His (i) (ii) and (ii) could easily apply to a multitude of 4 year-olds. And "4 year-olds" has been a common age he has used in his advocacy." With the latter I assumed you meant that he was saying 4-year-olds could consent in actuality as opposed to just theoretically according to his criterion (theoretically a 1-year-old could consent, but we know in actuality no 1-year-old could meet his criteria). Now it seems like the latter was just your inference that it would be an actuality that 4-year-olds could consent based on his criteria. I'm frankly a bit baffled by your use of the word "bulk" when you already admitted that most 4-year-olds don't even know about sex and thus couldn't consent per his criteria. OK, but I can't see now that you're making any meaningful distinction between the hypothetical "general consent approach" VS Eddie's specific consent approach, so I stand my original statement that it is a consent-approach rather than an age-approach and that framing it in terms of the latter is the misrepresentation, not the former. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable to just say "I find the consent approach morally reprehensible because there's no way to protect young children" without misrepresenting what it is. It was stuff like this that rubbed me wrong about the original threads: not that Eddie and the paedos were right, but that the arguments against them were so poor and more full of appeals to reactionary moral outrage than evidential, rational rebuttals; and the latter shouldn't be difficult when something is genuinely wrong, and the rampant use of the former should be disturbing to anyone who's been through any number of this and last century's fights for civil liberties. Is Eddie a pedo? IIRC, Eddie said he was attracted to females that looked like adult women regardless of age, so I'd take that as a "no." |
|
