|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 13, 2017 22:25:11 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:The sad thing is that is not anything I was specifically arguing nor caring about, regardless of how often you frolic off to it in the attempt to avoid that deezen advocates 4 year-olds being available to adults for sexual abuse. Your conclusions aren't even bad; the arguments are so sideways and dishonest that the conclusions are simply rambled irrelevancies.
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 14, 2017 0:35:15 GMT
We're back to the "I think" thing again that you just acknowledged. I didn't see you or I say "I think" at any point in this discussion. Yes, it branched off to pedophilia (which is what I addressed). I never suggested anything to the contrary. This is becoming a straw man argument. By being unspecific with your use of the word "children" after I clearly pointed out the difference, and by continuing to resist the notion that some children are not immature and therefore CAN consent...you kind of are! |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 14, 2017 0:55:15 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:Then I think you should wash out the ol' eyeballs some. I am happy for you. What this is becoming is rambling irrelevant quibbling nonsense. You made assertion that the discussion is somehow magically restricted to prepubescence. My reply was au contraire, it is also about taking advantage of the immature/naive. Well, I'm not worried too much about it when you post things like "pedophiles are by definition NOT attracted to teenagers". Nor your arbitrary restrictions on a word that I am using properly. I can't help what you fabricate out of the air. 
You see, I can argue against (and most likely destroy) your \"reasoning\" were you to actually provide any. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 14, 2017 14:49:36 GMT
Then I think you should wash out the ol' eyeballs some. I am happy for you. What this is becoming is rambling irrelevant quibbling nonsense. I really don't understand why you are becoming confrontational about this. I'm pretty sure we both agree on the big picture items. It sounds like you're trying to argue something different than what I am addressing. I did no such thing. I made the assertion that pedophilia applies to attraction to prepubescent children, and that was the focus of my comments as it relates to child sex robots. A discussion of post pubescent children is irrelevant to that, and I don't see any value added to conflating the two things since there is clearly a difference in the ability for a young child to consent as compared to most teenagers. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it's pretty clear that "children" implies young children, and pedophile implies someone who might pray on young children. Developing "sex robots" to satisfy the desires of pedophiles either becomes a moral issue for some people, or and acceptable alternative solution to dealing with the problem of child predators. And that particular point was never in dispute. I think everyone is in agreement that pedophiles do this. Whether people who target teenagers do this as well is also not in dispute, but I think it is of less relevance since teenagers are often sexually mature, and capable of making their way an sexual decisions. It becomes purely a "legal" issue at that point, but not necessarily a moral one for me since it's no different than a 40 year old taking advantage of a 19 year old. The only thing that makes it different is what the law says in that jurisdiction. So it really is a different discussion altogether. But you're NOT using the word properly if you disagree with my statement. Because generally speaking teenagers are not "prepubescent", which is the standard for declaring someone a pedophile by definition. So it would seem that you don't know what the word means, and that might be the source of your confusion. Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent childMerriam-Webster (pedophilia)So you agree then that SOME "children" (however you define that term) are in fact mature, and can in fact consent albeit not legally? Because your previous comments seemed to suggest the opposite.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 14, 2017 15:17:13 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said:I'm responding you your irrelevant quibbles, false assignments, arbitrary dications, and just plain erroneous statements. You focused on "attraction to body type", I brought up that "attraction to body type" could well stem from that body type being associated with the traits of naivete and pliability and chance of taking advantage of that are less found in normal adults. 'Be that as it may, I don't know that this pat point is relevant with respect to a discussion of "pedophilia".' '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.' "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." "However, the only moral issue I'd have is an adult having sex with a prepubescent child, since they are not sexually developed yet." To which I wanted to opine that I think the vulnerability to taking advantage might be a root for the attraction rather than the body type leading, which doesn't cliff things at puberty. Which I did. And yet - "However, the only moral issue I'd have is an adult having sex with a prepubescent child, since they are not sexually developed yet." And I think that does not follow at all, hence my post. The typical 19 year old will generally be light years more mature mentally than the typical pubescent regardless of the condition of their sexual organs. How "often" reduces things to purely legal and not moral I do not know.  That is funny. And "pedophile" and it's definition is not where the morality consideration of taking advantage of the immature end. And I can't help it that you don't know the word and further choose to repeatedly broadcast your ignorance. I suppose you'd need to flag the alleged statement that triggered your fancy.
She was sharing her spin dryer with a guy in a tie-dye |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 14, 2017 20:21:00 GMT
I'm responding you your irrelevant quibbles, false assignments, arbitrary dications, and just plain erroneous statements.[/quote]State one thing that I have said which is "erroneous". One chance: go! But you didn't validate that with any facts. So there is no reason for me to assume that this is true. What IS true is that there is a difference between a prepubescent child and a post pubescent child in terms of both sexual development, appearance, maturity, legality, AND ability to consent. And those are the points that are relevant to this conversation, not hypotheticals and theories about what causes people who prey on the young to be attracted to them, or what specifically attracts their interest. Because that was the entire basis of my argument! You are at liberty to bring up any hypotheticals you want as it relates to child sex robots, or why predators are attracted to what. But you replied to ME, and your response was not applicable to the point I was making. But there is no evidence of that, so who cares? You've already acknowledged that this was only an opinion and haven't validated it. So what impact does that have on how we should view pedophiles? Psychologists (and the dictionary) defines pedophilia as an attraction to prepubescent children. Puberty (and body type) are determined by biological age, not chronological age. So regardless of what inspires pedophiles to go after young children, the point is that they go after physically, young (or post pubescent looking) children. How mentally or sexually developed the child is in reality isn't relevant as far as the pedophile is concerned because he doesn't see that. If they look post pubescent, they lose interest (whether that "child" is naive or sophisticated). And even if they did go after post pubescent children (because they are naïve and easily taken advantage of), at that point they are no longer pedophiles by definition. So again, your point about how these are qualities that a pedophile might key in on is irrelevant. Correct. And I stand by that statement. What's your point? A) What is a typical pubescent? B) What does this fact have to do with my statement regarding morality? You mean for YOU it isn't. And you may feel free to elaborate on what arbitrary chronological age YOU believe every magically goes from being immature to mature is. I choose not to do that because it is a futile gesture. I gave you the definition of the word. If you choose to apply it incorrectly and broadcast your ignorance (in spite of the definition), then I can't help you! And at this point I have no hesitation about being equally, and unnecessarily snarky since you can't seem to resist yourself. I suppose you'd need to flag the alleged statement that triggered your fancy.[/quote]Rather than continue parsing what's already been stated, this can be resolved with some simple questions: Do you think that all children are incapable of consent? If yes: 1) Is your belief based solely on the law? 2) Is your belief based on the idea that ALL children are immature? If no: Then how is the fact that they can be taken advantage of relevant (when even legal adults can be similarly taken advantage of), and therefore why did you bring that up? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 14, 2017 22:03:56 GMT
tpfkar captainbryce said: If only there was only a single chance and not ongoing crazy opportunity for going on years now. "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" "and by continuing to resist the notion that some children are not immature and therefore CAN consent" I don't give a crap what you assume is true. It is a fact that immature humans are generally more naive, pliable, groomable, easier prey for the broken old dogs that want to get into their pants, as adult social incompetents have difficulty with social/sexual interactions with grown people possessing any standards. And it is also true that there is naivete, vulnerability, groomability, suitability as prey for the socially inept, and that these traits do not simply disappear at pubescence. Too bad for you that you don't get to dictate relevance according to your preferences. I'm also at liberty to bring up disagreements with any of your positions that I feel like, for instance the convenient absurdity that moral issues click off upon pubescence. I don't care what you care. It is also only opinion that pedophiles are driven first or solely by body type and not accessibility as prey. And predation doesn't stop because you define one as pedophile and another as hebephile. The fact that they go after immature-looking children does not address why they do so nor in any way contradict the reasons being the associated ease of manipulation and degree of vulnerability and a perceived inability to succeed in social/sexual regards with grown individuals. I suppose you may have some personal insight into what they see that I don't Certainly not irrelevant if that is what drives them, regardless as to the range from prepubescent to the still manipulable immature prey of just post-pubescent. And still, pedophile/pubescence is not the arbiter of predation/immorality. That it is absurd to discard the moral considerations with taking advantage of the immature/naive just because they reached pubescence. A) An incompletely formed juvenile that needs protection from the immoral incapable adults who desire to get in their pants. B) That your statement that an adult going after a pubescent is "no different than a 40 year old taking advantage of a 19 year old" is patently absurd. You bet, and I think adults going after pubescents need to be watched and segregated when necessary similarly to those after pre-pubescents, but on a sliding scale of severity. And I don't think there is any magical time, as my statements heretofore make clear, but an evolution. You are the one who contrives the magical moral open season at pubescence. Your "snarky" has only barely been eclipsed by your inanity. Including your silly complaint here. And you can pick whatever specific definition you want for whatever convenience you like, but "child" still covers it. In any case, I used "kids" and you went on about children, even specifying "prepubescent child" before my first post to you, as well as subsequently. Why would you need such an, according to you redundant, modifier? Other than to use it or drop it depending on what best serves your meandering sloughs of bullsh!t. Sure, since you can't back up your freely-flung horsepuckey. No; because immature humans should be protected from the unscrupulous adults that would prey upon them, and pubescence should not open them up as fodder for these predators.
I'm oftentimes one of the only "reasonable" people here. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:17:55 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 I don't know if you are being serious or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:20:57 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 Making LOVE to a child is way less harmful than many things we routinely do to them such as circumcision. Do I want to have my genitals touched, or chopped up? Hmmm! It's crazy to think that even in the liberal haven of California, you can get married at 15 but you still can't have sex for 3 more years. A million years ago, we'd all have had at least 15 kids by then. Progressive! Making 'love' (your sick way of putting it when you should have said 'raping') to a child is less harmful than circumcision? |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:24:04 GMT
No, it's not a verb. The above is called "statutory rape". Paedophilia is, clinically, attraction to a pre-pubescent child and, more broadly, attraction towards minors. It can be what I want it to be. Words are just a collection of graphemes/a collection of phonemes. There is no "correct" definition of anything. Okay, I know who you are though I've forgotten your old IMDb name. We've argued about this many times there. You love to play semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:25:50 GMT
Sex between an adult and a minor cannot be consensual by definition. An adult who has sex with a minor has raped that minor. Why can't it be "by definition"? Because a minor doesn't understand what it is they are consenting to. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:28:09 GMT
right so at what age do you think (generally) that children can consent to sex? I don't know. No decent scientific research has been done. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that remark. You really wish they would do research on the matter, don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:30:36 GMT
You said by definition. What definition and how? The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. Don't waste your time. He could go on and on like this forever. Believe me, I know. I've argued with him on this subject on the old boards. He's impossible to pin down and loves to play with words. |
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 15, 2017 11:34:03 GMT
Every sentence in Superdude's post is true. You are a liar and a troll. will be the best man to judge the truth but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old. Carmb (Apollo) advocated for sex with 12 year old kids. Also he never had socks. Yes, he had 2 profiles but never tried to hide the fact and everyone knew it. I agree that he trolled and still trolls. In any case he has never advocated such things on this site. I think IRSP is JournalofEddie |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 15, 2017 11:44:43 GMT
Thing is logically an age of consent doesn't really exist. Once a child is sexually mature, then that child should be able to consent. However, we live in a society that recognises that children's mental development and physical development are not in sync. Therefore we put an arbitrary limit on sexual consent to protect the vulnerable. And I'm very ok with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 15, 2017 11:59:10 GMT
They're warning that based on ? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 12:27:59 GMT
Making LOVE to a child is way less harmful than many things we routinely do to them such as circumcision. Do I want to have my genitals touched, or chopped up? Hmmm! It's crazy to think that even in the liberal haven of California, you can get married at 15 but you still can't have sex for 3 more years. A million years ago, we'd all have had at least 15 kids by then. Progressive! Making 'love' (your sick way of putting it when you should have said 'raping') to a child is less harmful than circumcision? Well circumcision is a form a rape in my opinion, so one thing isn't particularly "worse" than they other. The only thing I'm prepared to agree with is the fact that it's all BAD! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 12:31:04 GMT
Thing is logically an age of consent doesn't really exist. Once a child is sexually mature, then that child should be able to consent. However, we live in a society that recognises that children's mental development and physical development are not in sync. Therefore we put an arbitrary limit on sexual consent to protect the vulnerable. And I'm very ok with that. Which arbitrary age limit would you say is correct? Every jurisdiction has set a different one, so what is the correct age of consent? Under 14 14 15 16 17 18 Over 18 |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 12:34:25 GMT
They're warning that based on ? That is a question to which the answer has still not been established. But I suppose else can just take it at face value and base it on the fact that they are "experts". Of course that does bring us to the next obvious question of what qualifies them as experts in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 15, 2017 12:37:08 GMT
Thing is logically an age of consent doesn't really exist. Once a child is sexually mature, then that child should be able to consent. However, we live in a society that recognises that children's mental development and physical development are not in sync. Therefore we put an arbitrary limit on sexual consent to protect the vulnerable. And I'm very ok with that. Which arbitrary age limit would you say is correct? Every jurisdiction has set a different one, so what is the correct age of consent? Under 14 14 15 16 17 18 Over 18 Well, for me it would be 16. 14 is too young in my opinion and 16 clears that middle ground. This is all obviously subjective and I can offer nothing but my interaction with teenagers to validate my thoughts. |
|
