PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 13, 2017 21:44:59 GMT
tpfkar PanLeo said:Anyone that can envision 4 year-olds or any prepubescents in general as sex objects certainly is. Maybe a week of community service will straighten him out though.
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. Are you a homosexual because you defend homosexuality? You can defend a sexual attraction without being of that sexual attraction. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 21:46:50 GMT
IIRC, Eddie said he was attracted to females that looked like adult women regardless of age, so I'd take that as a "no." Who were the "pesos" then? I assume you mean pedoes, but they were (I'm assuming) everyone else in those threads that were advocating for sex with children. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 21:48:29 GMT
tpfkar PanLeo said:Anyone that can envision 4 year-olds or any prepubescents in general as sex objects certainly is. Maybe a week of community service will straighten him out though.
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. Are you a homosexual because you defend homosexuality? You can defend a sexual attraction without being of that sexual attraction. I'd go further to even say that envisioning anything as a sexual object is not tantamount to being attracted to it; unless you think those sad dudes that get their penises stuck in vacuum cleaners and hot tub vents are actually attracted to vacuum cleaners and hot tubs. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 13, 2017 21:49:07 GMT
Who were the "pesos" then? I assume you mean pedoes, but they were (I'm assuming) everyone else in those threads that were advocating for sex with children. What on earth makes you think that? I am suprised you would use the pejorative "pedo" to describe HeartSpin considering you were on good terms with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 21:51:46 GMT
I assume you mean pedoes, but they were (I'm assuming) everyone else in those threads that were advocating for sex with children. What on earth makes you think that? I am suprised you would use the pejorative "pedo" to describe HeartSpin considering you were on good terms with him. Because most people that advocate for sex with children are pedophiles. I only knew Eddie was different because I was aware of his general philosophical approach to a number of issues and the consent-based approach to sex was in align with his consent-based approach on other matters. FWIW, I'm on "good terms" with just about everyone, excepting a few run-ins with Rabbit and Ada (and maybe Blade and Arlon). I don't make enemies easily. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 13, 2017 21:52:00 GMT
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 13, 2017 21:53:36 GMT
What on earth makes you think that? I am suprised you would use the pejorative "pedo" to describe HeartSpin considering you were on good terms with him. Because most people that advocate for sex with children are pedophiles. I only knew Eddie was different because I was aware of his general philosophical approach to a number of issues and the consent-based approach to sex was in align with his consent-based approach on other matters. Is that a conclusion you reached rationally or your prejudice talking? Regardless almost everybody is a pedophile (if not all), even you. Do you really think biology cares if it's a 17 year old or a 30 year old with big tits? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 21:54:08 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:  Gotta love "exactly" followed by exactly hoo-ha. It honestly advocated subjecting those that match his criteria to sex with predator adults. And a/the bulk of 4 year-olds (his frequent age mention) fit the criteria. No amount of gibber around the reality and pretense that "implication" means anything significant (or that kids have to be pre-groomed, or that somehow your consent-based approach excursions mitigate in any way that his criteria make 4-year-olds available to predator adults, or just whacked-out irrelevancies) can dress grotesque child-sex advocacy into something else. Jibber-jabber down, my man. So where is your integrity when it has been pointed out explicitly multiple times them needing to have instruction/grooming ahead of time was neither suggested nor relevant. And making fun of you making up stuff whole cloth is dodge only in "jibber-jabber let's talk our way into making 4 year-olds adult abuse fodder" world.
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 captainbryce on Jul 13, 2017 21:55:06 GMT
I agree that it's irrelevant to the point that 15 year-olds are generally considered more naive and pliant/"groomable" than, and generally have features that distinguish them from full-fledged adults.
Be that as it may, I don't know that this pat point is relevant with respect to a discussion of "pedophilia". I think you are conflating two different issues at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 21:57:55 GMT
Because most people that advocate for sex with children are pedophiles. I only knew Eddie was different because I was aware of his general philosophical approach to a number of issues and the consent-based approach to sex was in align with his consent-based approach on other matters. Is that a conclusion you reached rationally or your prejudice talking? Regardless everybody is a pedophile, even you. Do you really think biology cares if it's a 17 year old or a 30 year old with big tits? If you're defining "pedophile" as "attraction to anyone under the legal age of consent" then, yes, most everyone (including myself; see the aforementioned Traci Lords) would be a pedophile; but the common definition and usage of pedophile is those attracted to pre-pubescent children, in which case most people wouldn't be pedophiles. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 21:58:24 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:It's certainly relevant if the naivety/pliability that is the ultimate source of the attraction. That exists on a continuum that doesn't just switch over at the end of puberty.
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 22:01:47 GMT
Is that a conclusion you reached rationally or your prejudice talking? Regardless everybody is a pedophile, even you. Do you really think biology cares if it's a 17 year old or a 30 year old with big tits? If you're defining "pedophile" as "attraction to anyone under the legal age of consent" then, yes, most everyone (including myself; see the aforementioned Traci Lords) would be a pedophile; but the common definition and usage of pedophile is those attracted to pre-pubescent children, in which case most people wouldn't be pedophiles. Can we really be sure of that? Are you familiar with the Little Albert experiment in psychology? It's entirely possible that all humans have the capacity to be attracted to prepubescent kids but they aren't because of its pairing with negative stimuli. I dont get sexually aroused by prepubescent kids kids btw before some troll tries to claim I am. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 22:02:35 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:  I suppose pedos and the like are the thing most likely to cause a run-ins with me where they wouldn't ordinarily happen.
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 22:02:57 GMT
This is the point where I get off the rabbit-go-round, but I'll address this: there are only a few ways a 4-year-old can learn about sex, and the most common would either be via their parents or via some predator. Most 4-year-olds that accidentally/casually encountered sex (say, walked in on parents having sex, saw it in a movie/TV show, saw it on the internet, etc.) would not automatically know and understand what it is, and in not understanding would not be able to consent. So for any "bulk" of 4-year-olds to be able to consent you have to suggest some way that they're coming to know and understand what sex is, and then argue why you think most would want to do it. The only way both things would be relatively easily accomplished would be through grooming. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 13, 2017 22:03:56 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:It's certainly relevant if the naivety/pliability that is the ultimate source of the attraction. That exists on a continuum that doesn't just switch over at the end of puberty. I don't know if that is truly the case or not. This sounds more like a personal theory you have about the nature of pedophilia, but I don't know that this is the common belief among psychologists. Regardless, even if it is (for the sake of argument), the discussion is about pedophiles/pedophilia. And pedophiles are by definition NOT attracted to teenagers. So regardless of what triggers the attraction to teenagers, that doesn't speak to the notion of "ability to consent" beyond the legal definition. Clearly there is a difference in sexual maturity between the average 9 year old and the average 15 year old. And because there is, the morality associated with a sexual attraction to each should be judged differently, and not considered under the same umbrella. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 13, 2017 22:09:03 GMT
If you're defining "pedophile" as "attraction to anyone under the legal age of consent" then, yes, most everyone (including myself; see the aforementioned Traci Lords) would be a pedophile; but the common definition and usage of pedophile is those attracted to pre-pubescent children, in which case most people wouldn't be pedophiles. Can we really be sure of that? Are you familiar with the Little Albert experiment in psychology? It's entirely possible that all humans have the capacity to be attracted to prepubescent kids but they aren't because of its pairing with negative stimuli. It's a possibility but I don't know of any evidence to suggest it's the case here. Even historically the closest thing we see are things like Pederasty where it was men with adolescent boys rather than young children. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 22:10:12 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:We're back to the "I think" thing again that you just acknowledged. And this is a discussion about child sex robots and wherever that discussion branches off to. And abuse of the immature pliable does not suddenly become moral because hormones have worked some magic, nor is there a point where the day before there was no consent ability and the day after full. And I haven't in any way suggested that all maturity levels should be judged nor treated exactly the same.
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 22:13:23 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: I suppose pedos and the like are the thing most likely to cause a run-ins with me where they wouldn't ordinarily happen. The sad thing is that we're both basically in agreement that the consent-only approach is wrong and we agree on the reason why. Our only actual disagreement here is over the method of arguing against it. Again, same problem I had with the initial threads; conclusions were fine, arguments were bad. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 22:17:24 GMT
tpfkar PanLeo said:Age and gender are very different things. I can conceive of the interaction between men and between women. Regardless of your freely admitted attractions, I don't see how it is possible to advocate sex with children without having some attraction in there. What word would you like for someone who promotes boning children but really really promise doesn't want to themselves?
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 22:18:32 GMT
Can we really be sure of that? Are you familiar with the Little Albert experiment in psychology? It's entirely possible that all humans have the capacity to be attracted to prepubescent kids but they aren't because of its pairing with negative stimuli. It's a possibility but I don't know of any evidence to suggest it's the case here. Even historically the closest thing we see are things like Pederasty where it was men with adolescent boys rather than young children. Was sex with prepubescent boys considered acceptable in places like Greece where Greek love was allowed though? Even if that was true that wouldn't really tell us much considering teenagers who have gone/are going through puberty would be considered much more attractive to the average person interested in males. Also societies were Greek love was acceptable were ancient societies, the historians of ancient societies only documented the lives of the elite and all the written records we have are from the elite. Traditionally the elite have more attractive partners. From the standpoint of a society that accepts sex with pubescant and prepubescent children the former would be considered more attractive. Edit: Let us not also forget that prepubescent children are not very interested in sex. Edit 2: Are you familiar with the Bambi effect in psychology? This coukd be considered evidence for what I said about the Little Albert experiment. |
|
