OT: Child sex robots

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:I'm not "framing" anything.  That is what his argument is.  I'm not interested in meandering distractions into general consent-based approaches to minimize what he has advocated in black and white.

Similarly, I'm not concerned with what you "guess" or with convenient "probably"s.

Complete nonsense.  His direct advocacy is being directly, furiously avoided.  His approach specifically subjects 4 year-olds to sex use by adults.  Somehow trying to mitigate advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults by irrelevantly repeating it's implication is just plain la-la.  Maybe next gasp that its also ramification. (OMG!)   You don't have to be dishonest in your repeated attempts to minimize using inane means, regardless if it's not something that concerns you.  

Because knowing and understanding implications and ramifications and deep meaning =/= his criteria.  There's nothing that in his criteria that a mentally normal 4 year-old, perhaps even intelligent apes or leg-humping dogs couldn't master.  

I don't know and don't care about any other general or specific "consent-only" approach, regardless of how much you rattle on about it.  My only point is the criteria he laid out nets a/the bulk of 4 year-olds, along with the requisite navigation through the sh!tstreams you lay out to try to avoid and minimize that inescapable reprehensible reality.

I can only wonder what you've been smoking.  Stick with his criteria that makes 4 year-olds available for consumption by sick adults and leave off the general consent somekescreening.

---

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.

1. The argument is not "I'm advocating that people have sex with 4-year-olds," the argument is "I'm advocating that anyone can have sex if they can meet my criteria for consent." The former is an implication of the argument, it is not the argument. If you don't agree on this basic point using very basic and well-understood terminology then I don't see the point of continuing this; and YOU'RE the one that first mentioned that representing his approach as consent-based was a misrepresenation, and if you can't distinguish it from any other consent-based approach then you had no basis for claiming that. 


2. Then why should I be concerned with your claims of what he said was? 


You might as well say his approach specifically subjects newborns to sex use by adults and it means the same thing. 

In theory, yes. I was making the distinction with that theory VS actuality, as in there are actually now (or would be) a bulk of 4-year-olds that know about sex. 

Then you shouldn't have brought it up and tried to claim Eddie's didn't qualify as one. 

There's no smokescreening in calling it what it actually is by definition. The smokescreening is the attempt to frame an argument as an implication of the argument while ignoring what the actual argument is. 

Is it? 

Granted I was generalizing, and largely going off of memory from personal experience. I remember being 9 years old, and I certainly wasn't rubbing anything out at that age, even if I did have a curiosity about where babies came from and the biological differences between boys and girls. I also remember being 15, and my sexual development and interests were quite different at that age than when I was 9. But remember I was only generalizing. I'm sure that some children as young as 9 are masturbating, I don't believe the majority are, or that this represents the average age for that. Most studies I've seen say 12-13 is about average (which coincides with the average onset of puberty). I don't think the ages mentioned on your link (5-6 years old) is the average age at which kids are truly masturbating. They may be playing with themselves because it feels good, but there isn't any sexual fantasy going on or sexual climax at that age.

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 argument is whether advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds is advocating making 4 year-olds available to adults for sex.   You said Eddie's not, and further that it is some kind of "dishonesty" or "misrepresentation"; I'm saying that's poppycock, just as much as "implication" as meaningful point or kids not yet having been walked through the simple basics of his criteria as discounting them from this pedophile fantasyland is poppycock.

Because I've not guessed nor "probably"d.

Well, he has gone on about "sexual relations" with infants, so you never know what might be seeping around up there.  But no, newborns would be excluded from his criteria.  But another enjoyable what-the-hell? moment, nonetheless.

In actuality.   4 year-olds having to know ahead of time what could be simply imparted to them by a predator is just another wtf escape hatch.

Again, you are smoking very strange weed.

Oodabbadabbay.

---

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.

    captainbryce said:My point was that the attraction to easier and less judgmental prey yielded attraction to body type, as opposed to it just being random or a coincidence that un- or incompletely formed children would be preferred.  Wasn't a comment on any spread of actual maturity in youths. 

---

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.

The criteria subjects ANY age to sex because it doesn't take age into account, and that's the entire fucking point! To take an argument that explicitly leaves age out and makes it about consent, and then frame it in a way that makes it about age while ignoring the consent, is about as blatant a misrepresentation as you can get. If you don't understand that then we might as well be done here. 

That you didn't use qualifiers is not evidence that you're right and I'm wrong. 

It means the same thing because the criteria doesn't specify age, and, again, that's the entire point. 

But, again, this not an actuality, this is only a hypothetical on your part.

No, I'm just responding directly to your claims. You claimed calling Eddie's approach a consent-based approach was a "misrepresentation," and now you can't even conceive of another consent-based approach by which to distinguish it from Eddie's to argue why Eddie's doesn't qualify. 

Is that just your opinion, or is there some science that supports that?

Also, most 15 year olds typically have a different "body type" than most 9 year olds. You agree with that right?

Exactly, and the criteria has nothing to do with any specific age, so to make it about a specific age is a misrepresentation. There's no "gibbering" (another word you don't seem to understand) and no attempts at making it "less grotesque;" just an attempt to honestly address what it actually advocates and the problems that would arise through its implication, and being honest about the difference. 

They're only included and excluded based on actuality, not theoretically, and you've made no actual arguments as to how the criteria actually (as opposed to theoretically) includes 4-year-olds, much less any "bulk" of them; and even proving actuality (which you haven't and can't) wouldn't mean it's advocating for what you keep claiming. 

So where are all these 4-year-olds that know about sex? 

Dodge noted.