|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 19:53:45 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, that's still you. Jesus, the density. "Unborn babies". When did you stop abusing the kids. I don't know where "unborn babies" begin. But of course, the "pro-choice", including me, are advocating the killing of fetuses.
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 15, 2017 20:16:39 GMT
Repeating the lie isn't helping your case. Just like on iMDB you will not be able to point to a single post where I have advocated Eddie's criteria/approach. It's just a fantasy you've invented to make arguing against me easier. I actually meant the "you guys" part. You seem to be lumping me in with some vague group. OK, then at least you're just wrong rather than blatantly dishonest (about this point at least; you're blatantly dishonest about me "greenlighting" Eddie's consent-only approach). Here's a quick lesson for you: advocating for a position doesn't mean advocating for all of its consequences. Most positions have pros and cons that we evaluate based on how much we value the pros VS how bad we think the cons are. When we think the pros are more valuable, it doesn't mean that we're actually advocating for the cons, it just means we're willing to live with them because we think it's more of a net-positive than negative. It's perfectly fine to disagree on this assessment, but what isn't fine is the attempt at framing the issue as people advocating for any specific consequence. Thinking a woman's right to choose is more valuable than the life of a fetus doesn't mean you don't think the fetus life has zero value or that you actually support or would advocate for killing it. You could say that many antinatalists would advocate for the killing of fetuses, but not most who are pro-choice. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 15, 2017 20:17:08 GMT
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. Not sure about your question, but it certainly wasn't as common and practically institutionalized like Pederasty was (if it was I'd be surprised that we don't hear about it being such the way we do with the latter). So I think it's pretty safe to safe that prepubescent sex has rarely (if ever) been as common as pubescent (and adult) sex. RE Edit 1: Children can be interested in anything and everything, even if it's only in the form of a passing question. They certainly aren't interested in sex the way adolescents and adults are (in that they experience hormonal, sexual urges). RE Edit 2: Never heard of it, but it seems a plausible explanation for why people are more sympathetic to some animals. I think it's a stretch to say that it's an explanation for pedophilia, though. re bambi. Its a psychological fact that males prefer neotenic features (babylike( such as large eyes, no hair, large forehead, small nose etc. This could be why males are way more likely to be pedophiles Considering this it seems like its not that big of a stretch to say the little albert related explanation is not that far fetched. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 20:17:20 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, you're just blatantly lying as you have been throughout. You've done everything possible to try to pretend the criteria are not horrific and have gone to great idiocies to defend it. You've lied outright about me supposedly quibbling about his vs. consent-based, when that's strictly been your continued frantic obfuscation attempt. Either his criteria are horrific or not. You not denying it doesn't somehow make it any less demented. Once again again, to discount them as subject to abuse by predatory adults simply because they haven't already been pre-groomed through the simple steps required to lead them to meet the advocated pedophile fantasy criteria is pure la-la dystopian predator land stuff. Hence, the bulk are subject to that abuse.
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 15, 2017 20:19:44 GMT
Not sure about your question, but it certainly wasn't as common and practically institutionalized like Pederasty was (if it was I'd be surprised that we don't hear about it being such the way we do with the latter). So I think it's pretty safe to safe that prepubescent sex has rarely (if ever) been as common as pubescent (and adult) sex. RE Edit 1: Children can be interested in anything and everything, even if it's only in the form of a passing question. They certainly aren't interested in sex the way adolescents and adults are (in that they experience hormonal, sexual urges). RE Edit 2: Never heard of it, but it seems a plausible explanation for why people are more sympathetic to some animals. I think it's a stretch to say that it's an explanation for pedophilia, though. re bambi. Its a psychological fact that males prefer neotenic features (babylike( such as large eyes, no hair, large forehead, small nose etc also if we take into account that males are way more likely to be pedophiles it seems like its not that big of a stretch to say the little albert related explanation is not that far fetched. And I'm saying it's a stretch to assume that preferring babylike features on adults/adolescents would translate to most or even many males being pedophiles. I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest this. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 15, 2017 20:22:17 GMT
re bambi. Its a psychological fact that males prefer neotenic features (babylike( such as large eyes, no hair, large forehead, small nose etc also if we take into account that males are way more likely to be pedophiles it seems like its not that big of a stretch to say the little albert related explanation is not that far fetched. And I'm saying it's a stretch to assume that preferring babylike features on adults/adolescents would translate to most or even many males being pedophiles. I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest this. I am not saying it is conclusive or anything I am saying if you consider this evidence there is more of a chance that the theory is correct. It could very well be wrong but it could also very well be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 15, 2017 20:24:58 GMT
Its a psychological fact that males prefer neotenic features (babylike( such as large eyes, no hair, large forehead, small nose etc. What research are you using for that? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 20:27:13 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You're mental. The entire sentence was referring to one thing. And you and he are welcome to impugn their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal. I don't care what seems to purposely diverting mental cases. That sentence could only refer to one thing to the scrupulous/undemented.
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 15, 2017 20:31:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 20:38:27 GMT
tpfkar You've done everything possible to try to pretend the criteria are not horrific and have gone to great idiocies to defend it. There has been no "pretending" and the only "defending" I've done has been to accurately state what it is. I condemn it for the same reasons you do, but because I won't imitate your reactionary moral outrage (precisely because I've seen it too often in cases where those being "outraged" were morally wrong), you warp this into me "defending" it. You said this: "the misrepresentation is in the shift to talk of some generalized "consent-based approach" as opposed to his specific stated ideas. " The only "talk of some generalized consent-based approach" was in the categorizing Eddie's approach as a consent-based approach. So when I asked: "How is it a misrepresentation to call his specific stated ideas a "consent-based approach?"" you didn't really offer an answer other than to repeat your notion that any approach that made 4-year-olds available for sex would be reprehensible. So I then pressed you about what distinction you were originally trying to make between "general consent-based approach" and Eddie's and you said: "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
" at which point I pressed you to argue for the latter by naming any consent approach that wouldn't, and you failed to support the assertion. So do you mind telling me where in this exchange was the lie? Yes, because everything in life is black-and-white. It doesn't follow. For them to be subject for abuse they would have to meet said criteria, and said criteria can only be met by parents or predators teaching them about sex, and by them agreeing to do it. This would not happen to the bulk of 4-year-olds. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 20:39:59 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've advocated them as not horrific. How you think that is not supporting them, I don't know, but you seem to think you can ream any fatuousness into acceptability. No doubt. Others, like you, who throw around "unborn babies". You're a lying sack of sh!it right down the line, and whenver you pronounce someone "wrong" or whatever other chant, I know to look very closely for the inept bullsh!t. So you're advocating for the position. Okden. And just as I've valued ending pregnancies up to a certain stage over forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term, you've valued 4 year-olds being available to adult predators for sex over, something I guess. And I don't care about your debilitated coarse semantics, "unborn babies", and fatuous quibbling on "advocate". If you are advocating the position you are advocating that the "cons" are worth the pros. At a minimum, anyway.
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 15, 2017 20:44:59 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You're mental. The entire sentence was referring to one thing. Yes, in your mind I'm sure it was. Unfortunately you're using a communal language to communicate with others, and I was relating to you where the confusion for others was at. Are you really this stupid? I wasn't impugning any credentials, and neither was Bryce in the post you responded to (questioning who the experts were is not questioning their credentials). I was pointing out why there was confusion about what your "they" was referring to. Geez. It would seem that way to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills. When you respond to a post about experts with "they," the pronoun would naturally be referring to the experts, not to the subject the experts were talking about (which wasn't even mentioned in the post you were responding to). I'm sorry if basic English is this complicated for you. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 15, 2017 20:48:02 GMT
If you specify some "confusion" that's not pure diverting caviling bullsh!t, you ought to be able to specify where that "confusion" lies. I did. I said: "When you say "they" are disqualified, to what are you referring?" But it seems clear at this point that you'd rather not answer direct questions with direct answers, but rather divert with your own bullsh!t, so I'll just move on to the next point (as you clearly desire). Positive experience in the simulation would lead to projecting positive experience with the real thing. Again, based on WHAT evidence? Which "experts" say this, and which research are you citing to back up this claim? People who really enjoy olestra chips are likely to look favorably upon Pringles as well if they can stand a fat instead of a stinky ass. This is such an asinine and failed analogy that it doesn't even deserve a response. But since it's apparently the best one you can come up with, I'll simply point out the obvious facts that Pringles are not PEOPLE, and eating them is not ILLEGAL, or HARMFUL to anyone. So since there is no negative impact to society, the individual eating the Pringles, or the Pringles "feelings", there is no reason why the person who might be tempted to eat them instead of Olestra chips might persuaded to stick with Olestra chips! This shouldn't have to be dumbed down this much but people aren't risking prison time, sex offender registry, public disgrace, and self shame by eating Pringles instead of Olestra chips. There are legitimate reasons why a pedophile would want to avoid targeting children if there was a legal alternative. And that's why this was such a ludicrous failure of an analogy! I didn't think so! You can look up child porn and the like if you like. No, YOU could look it up if you think that's what's required to sell your claim as legitimate and validate your argument as "reasonable". You made a claim that is completely unsupported. If you choose NOT to support it, then you shouldn't expect others to accept it. I wasn't interested in your vague convenient "question" you had for the article. If you wish to impugn the article, knock yourself out. Until then it's just you yapping because it undercuts your supported outcome. First of all, I don't have a supported outcome; all I've done so far is ask you questions about your supported outcome. Unlike you who seems to be drawing a lot of conclusions without actually backing any of them up, I'm not drawing any conclusions. Secondly, you made claims about human nature, and then spoke of "experts" influencing your opinion (possibly the unnamed experts mentioned in the article, or your own made up experts). But the point is, you haven't actually named any such experts nor have you shown any of the supposed research that might have been done. So basically, you have an unvalidated claim left out there, and then when challenged on that, your answer was to tell me to go look up child porn. So you have actually undercut your own argument sir! You can assume anything you want about how pedophiles would be more inclined to pursue actual children once they have access to sex dolls. But the reason you haven't made a convincing argument that this is likely is because A) you made claims about human nature that do not fit the situation, B) you evoked experts without citing the research or naming the experts, and C) did both of those things to draw a conclusion that YOU WANT. I don't necessarily want anything but a reasonable argument for why sex robots should be either LEGAL or ILLEGAL. I haven't drawn a conclusion yet, but I have heard a reasonable argument for why they should be legal (one that seems legit on the surface and hasn't really even been challenged with anything of substance). And I've also heard a very pisspoor argument for why they should be illegal, which is the conclusion you have drawn. Sure, for the sick bastards who want to use those with kids. Or at all! Because what is/isn't obscene or perverted is ultimately subjective. And I'd even point out that someone who gave a sex toy to a minor, or allowed them access to pornography is MORE guilty of harming children than someone who buys a sex doll and uses it in the privacy of their own bedroom. But there are differences, Such as? and anybody who wants to f!ck kids, simulated or otherwise, needs to be closely tracked and potentially segregated away from any possible uncontrolled access. No sh!t Sherlock, but that wasn't the question was it, and that's not what we are talking about is it? Everyone already agrees that pedophiles should be segregated from actual children. The question is should they be segregated from "sex-robots". So that last point is a red-herring!  And since "sex robots" haven't existed, the only basis is analogous situations, which have in fact been made illegal. Unfortunately, you haven't actually stated what any of those "analogous" situations are, or named the so-called experts who've supposedly did such research, or linked to any research that supported such conclusions. Instead, you made a absurd analogy about Pringles! First you declare definitively regarding sex dolls: "Positive experience in the simulation would lead to projecting positive experience with the real thing", then you acknowledge that: "since "sex robots" haven't existed, the only basis is analogous situations", without actually providing any example of an analogous situation, or the evidence that validates the truth of your claim. So basically, you just seem to be making this up as you go along. The fact of the matter is, sex robots DO exist now (hence the conversation). And if you're going to say that they are bad because (insert reason here), then you should have a compelling reason for why they are bad, based on some actual research, by actual experts who you can name, or whose research you can cite. If the best argument you can come up with is Pringles, then I guess I can just rest my case here (which for the record is that you don't actually have one). If you don't know about the legalities of obscenity in your country... That's not what I asked you. PAY ATTENTION: You implied that child sex dolls violate "principles of obscenity". I'm asking you which principles of obscenity they violate. The question of whether I know the legalities of obscenity in my country is irrelevant. You made a claim that child sex dolls violate SOMETHING. I'm asking you what specifically they violate, because the burden of proof is on you (since you made that part of your reasoning). If you can't answer that question, then just say you don't know. Making that claim and then telling the person challenging you to back up your claim that they have a problem of not knowing the legal obscenities of their country is a cop-out. Serious question: Do you actually think you are winning this debate right now?  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:00:24 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:And I related back to you you error, profound confusion, and repeated disingenuity. Not unfortunate, just reality.  Oh ze irony. Where did I say you were impugning their credentials? I said, specifically "And you and he are welcome to impugn their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal." And I reeeally don't care about more of your babble this time quibbling about bryce dismissing vs. the oh so tame "questioning". Your 'pointing out why there was confusion about what your "they"' was either pure ineptness or pure dishonesty.  That would appear to not be found in your bailiwick. When you freakishly distort a sentence that could only be referring to one thing in the current conversation, you're either a lowlife who feels free to sh!t all over conversations, or a profound idiot, or, well, both.
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 15, 2017 21:02:34 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You've advocated them as not horrific. How you think that is not supporting them, I don't know, but you seem to think you can ream any fatuousness into acceptability. 1. I have not advocated for them as "not horrific." I haven't even said anything on that matter. 2. Not calling something horrific is not tantamount to supporting that something. This is just more rabbit "gibbering" (to appropriate one of your malapropisms). I threw around "unborn babies" because it's the common term used by pro-lifers, and it displays the common word-games tactic of those trying to be emotionally manipulative rather than rationally sound; I'm not "one of them." Seriously rabbit, go take a grade-school reading comprehension course. You fail at the most basic of levels. How the fuck you get me advocating for Eddie's position from a generalized lesson about what advocating for a position means is... well, it's something that could only make sense in your brain. There's that lie again. I'll try to make this very simple for you: 1. The "value" of Eddie's (or any) consent-only approach is that allows anyone of any age who understands sex and wants to have sex the freedom to do it. Freedoms are generally seen as something of value. 2. A "consequence" of Eddie's (or any I can conceive of) consent-only approach is that it would allow predators to groom children for sex and not be punished for it if the children understood what sex was and had agreed to do it. Most people, including both you and myself, agree that the negative of consequence of 2. outweighs the value of 1. That we agree on this doesn't mean you get to phrase the argument as advocating for 2. when it's really advocating for 1. and 2. is a negative consequence. Of course you don't care once it's been proven that your usage was incorrect all along. Are you going to join the Arlon "I've argued with dictionaries and won" club? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:07:40 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:And yet there have, and you have. No sh!t. As nailed down repeatedly in situ, deezen's approach is not some generalized consent approach, and I had no interest in any generalized or specific implementation other than his specific criteria. So keep rattling away with the nonsense. I can only guess your braincase is filled with petroleum jelly. A generalized approach doesn't deal with specific implementable criteria, it would need to be made specific; I didn't and don't care about any generalized approach, only deezen's specific criteria; I made no assertion of any other specific consent-based approach and your request for one, like so much of your output, was diverting irrelevance. Just about every one of your posts, but if you want to explore some directly, go back to where the potency of your hash was repeatedly pointed out. I don't think his criteria are "everything in life". Are you feeling a little hopped up or something? It follows inescapably. I'm thinking it could likely happen similarly to you.
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 15, 2017 21:18:25 GMT
tpfkar Where did I say you were impugning their credentials? I said, specifically "And you and he are welcome to impugn their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal." Why in the world would you even mention me being "free to impugn their credentials" in a post that literally had nothing to do with me even questioning their credentials? Of course you don't care. You always stop caring about what words mean when it's made clear your usage has been laughably incorrect. Questioning who the experts referred to are is in no way shape or form tantamount to dismissing them. Only an idiot would conflate those two things, just like only an idiot would accept a statement just because someone said that anonymous experts claimed it. No one is distorting the sentence, and most people do not read most sentences all in one gulp but rather word-by-word. When you start a sentence with "they," the natural referent is whatever the subject was of the post you responded to. The post you responded to was about experts, so anyone with basic reading comprehension would immediately think "they" referred to the experts. It's only once they reach the "facilitate harm to minors" part that "they" being "experts" doesn't make sense, but that also doesn't mean that someone instantly jumps to the conclusion that "they" actually meant "child sex robots," because the latter weren't even mentioned in the post your responded to. This was just very poor pronoun usage on your part. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:37:48 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You have said his criteria is not advocating the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults, and have pushed that because they haven't already been pregroomed and not previously, and made all manner of attempts to divert from his actual criteria. All the way back to where you first started trying to pretend that "advocating for a consent-based approach" somehow cleansed his specific criteria, up to this point where you babbled quibbles about not advocating the cons of a system with pros and cons that you advocate. And of course the nonsense irrelevancy spewer will deny his output is gibberish. Shocker. Right, that being you. Like that smackheaded comparison of terminating fetuses due to not overriding the mother's rights to making 4 year-olds available for f!cking to not override the predator's rights. Complete repulsive doofishness. Sure, why don't you sust past "I'll take that as a concession", eva-girl, or some other idiot vacuousness. So stop doing them. You've just spent your time denying the consequence was a consequence. I don't care that you're feeling it now. And that is not the value of deezen's approach, because his definition of 'consent" is pedorifically obtuse. So I'm good if you're now down on deezen's advocacy. No telling what fantasy you'll come up with next. Given you're in the "really, I'm not a pedo, but al long as you can have 4 year olds fulfill this criteria that any normal 4 year-old could do, then f!ck 'em, baby! Oh wait, you've no come around to crapping on his approach.
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 15, 2017 21:37:59 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:And yet there have, and you have. You need to stop eliding words: "there have" what, and "I have" what? If it's "pretending" and "defending" then you're lying again. Nobody ever used the term "generalized consent approach" until you mentioned it. Before then the only talk of "consent approach" was in the categorizing of Eddie's position as one, and in discussing it. Categorizing something specific into a general category and then discussing the category isn't conflating the general category with the specific thing or misrepresenting it. The only reason calling Eddie's position a "consent-approach" would be a "misrepresentation" (your word) is if it didn't qualify for the categorization. You never specified why it didn't qualify. Any generalized approach would have some criteria that would apply to all specific instances or else it couldn't be generalized. When you say that the generalized approach doesn't subject the bulk of 4-year-olds to abuse, this would mean that there is/are some specific instance(s) which do not, and I asked you to name one, and you could not. So you failed to support your assertion. So you can't support your claim that I lied. Figures. I can't figure out what you mean here. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:55:22 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:Because you are free to do so, and also to silly-quibble about "impugn" vs. "question". Of course you're a liar again, as you well know what I'm purporting to not be concerned with is your babble as opposed to actual meaning. If you question and leave it, you are at that stage dismissing it. Too bad. I really don't know how to reply to you saying this. I hear you word-mouther!
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. |
|
? Just who are the "experts" you are referring to, and where are these "conclusions" that were supposedly reached? All I've seen so far is a claim made by Independent.co.uk that "Experts have warned that the compliant robots, built only to service their owners, could encourage objectification, abuse, rape and paedophilia", and claim that is never validated or qualified.