|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 21:57:11 GMT
tpfkar tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1. You have said his criteria is not advocating the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults, 2. and have pushed that because they haven't already been pregroomed and not previously, 3. and made all manner of attempts to divert from his actual criteria. 4. All the way back to where you first started trying to pretend that "advocating for a consent-based approach" somehow cleansed his specific criteria, 5. up to this point where you babbled quibbles about not advocating the cons of a system with pros and cons that you advocate. 1. Correct. 2. Incorrect. I explained why I "pushed that" in the post where I explained what advocacy means. To restate: advocating for a position doesn't mean advocating for its negative consequences, and claiming it does is the misrepresentation. Our discussion of 4-year-olds being abused under Eddie's criteria stemmed for your assertion that "the bulk" of 4-year-olds would be subject to abuse. I said that was only the case in theory, but not in actuality where most 4-year-olds don't know about sex. 3. I haven't tried to divert from anything. The reason I don't see the point of discussing his actual criteria is because we agree it's bad and we agree on why it's bad. The issue, from the very beginning, was in my claim that calling it "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" was a misrepresenation, and your claim that calling it a "consent-based approach" was a misrepresentation. THAT'S what our disagreement is about, not his actual criteria. 4. I never pretended that. That's pure fab-rabbit-ication. 5. I know you think using language correctly is "quibbling" whenever it's been shown your usage is incorrect. For fuck's sake, the predator's rights were not being compared to the mother's rights; if anything, the comparison would be to the rights of anyone of any age to have sex if they understood and consented; but no surprise you completely mangled the analogy. You're the one lying about what I'm supporting. No I didn't. Another lie. What I denied was your claim that in actuality it would be a consequence for "the bulk" (your term) of 4-year-olds. I'm not, and have made that repeatedly and abundantly clear. That you keep suggesting I am after I've made it repeatedly and abundantly clear is, again, more evidence of your abject dishonesty. "al" is not a word, you missed the closed quote (probably supposed to go after "baby!"?), and I can't figure out what you're trying to say with the bolded part. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:57:37 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 need to commune with Arlon. You can figure it out in context, big boy. If not, I don't care. And you're again a lying liar. If deezen's is a specific consent approach, then it must share something will all consent-based approaches. I still don't care about what does or does not qualify any particular or general approach save deezen's specific criteria, nor have I even suggested that his does not qualify as a specific instance of a consent-based approach. You're just gibbering because you know you're full of the pedo sh!t. You mental. If it encompasses consent approaches then it cannot specify incompatible implementations, like deezen's that advocates 4 year-olds being made available to predator adults for sex at the same time as one that specified basic social knowledge in addition to reams of being to recite reams of theory obtained at armchair. So you're up-is-down mental.  Maybe when they are relating deezen's criterial one hour of kindergarten-level time they'll explain this as well.
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 22:02:23 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1. Because you are free to do so, 2. and also to silly-quibble about "impugn" vs. "question". 1. Didn't answer my question. 2. Why is it suddenly a "silly-quibble" when people challenge your claims with the words you use assuming you mean what the words actually mean? My "babble" is about the actual meaning! If you were actually concerned about the meaning then you would address my "babble." Funny that I only "babble" once I prove that you're incorrectly using words. Well that's a steaming pile of bullshit. Correction: maybe THIS is as close as you get to admitting you were wrong about something. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 22:10:56 GMT
tpfkar If deezen's is a specific consent approach, then it must share something will all consent-based approaches. I still don't care about what does or does not qualify any particular or general approach save deezen's specific criteria, nor have I even suggested that his does not qualify as a specific instance of a consent-based approach. Then what in the world was your objection (that you called a "misrepresentation") to my categorizing Eddie's approach as a consent-approach and discussing the general category? I don't even know if I want to try to make sense of this. Again, what is the "it" referring to here? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 22:12:07 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:I didn't write that eva-gal. But since I'm feeling charitable, my 1. is correct, my 2 is correct, and my 3, 4, and 5, is correct. Hope that helps. How's the rabbit-go-round that you brightly left going? Oh for kidf!ck's sake, of course you'll frame 4 year-olds available as freedom for the poor sex-starved rippables. You're the one lying about me lying about what you're supporting. Yes you did! Another drippy lie from you. I don't have to repeat the "a/the bulk" each time. And you're free to quibble about what "subejct to", and made available for" means in pedgasm world. Them you should learn to write better, especially dem pronouns. Typo-hunt baby! The dive of the melting! Or is it weeping? Seeping? And I believe you, really promise. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 22:38:46 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I didn't write that eva-gal. But since I'm feeling charitable, my 1. is correct, my 2 is correct, and my 3, 4, and 5, is correct. Hope that helps. The only thing of that you didn't write were the numbers, which I supplied. The only thing correct was your 1. The rest were wrong; but keep insisting otherwise and avoiding my arguments as to why they're wrong. This isn't a "framing." There are typically consequences for any freedoms. To deny either the freedom or the consequence is what's dishonest; I'm not denying either, you are because it helps your appeal to reactionary outrage. Then show where I've supported Eddie's criteria. So go ahead: show where I denied that predators having sex with 4-year-olds was not a likely consequence of Eddie's criteria. Go ahead. I'll wait. In the meantime, what you'll actually find (if you bother to read any of this discussion) was that the only thing I denied is that it would be a consequence for "a/the" (whatever the hell you think that's supposed mean) bulk of 4-year-olds. Yeah, because when I said: "we're both basically in agreement that the consent-only approach is wrong and we agree on the reason why," it was really ambiguous as to whether or not I was supporting Eddie's consent-only approach. It wasn't a "hunt;" the sentence doesn't make sense with the typo, and if you meant "all" instead of "al" then it still doesn't make sense. Edit: Finally figured out you probably meant "as." How you mistype "l" for "s" is odd given they're on opposite ends of the keyboard. Anyway, now that I understand what that means: you're lying again, as I've never, ever, ever, not for even a millisecond, been in that "camp." The idea that I ever was has been completely fabricated in your sub-grade-school reading level brain because you can't understand the difference between the attempt to correctly identify what an argument is and the acceptance of that argument. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 22:39:27 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:That's two different things. But as I've linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restated it to you so many times (damn, you guys are persistent), I did not object to nor care about you classifying deezens's fantasy as consent-based. I just didn't care either about your diverting ramblings on them, only that his specific criteria subjected a/the bulk of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by old skeeves.  Oh, I do know how you struggle not to.
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 16, 2017 1:28:09 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I did not object to nor care about you classifying deezens's fantasy as consent-based.... Again, you: "the misrepresentation is in the shift to talk of some generalized "consent-based approach" as opposed to his specific stated ideas." For the umpeenth time: how is it a "misrepresentation" to categorize Eddie's approach as consent-based and talk about the general category of consent-based approaches? Do you even know what "misrepresentation" means? Or was this another case of Rabbit's "I'll use words however I like and be damned their generally understood meaning?" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 1:37:14 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:1. What was the question? II) Only when it's a silly-quibble. Θ: Damn, there's no 3. Yes, you have dominated all. I'll go put on a onesie. That's why I responded to it. Your word dumps are foul, brother. In the "freedom"-loving fantasy worlds you subscribe to, I sorta almost don't doubt that you believe it.
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 16, 2017 1:45:33 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1. What was the question? II) Only when it's a silly-quibble. Θ: Damn, there's no 3. The question was: "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?" Doesn't follow. How in the world do you figure questioning something "and leaving it" (what are you supposed to do when there are no experts cited?) means you're "at the stage of dismissing it?" Only a seriously fucked up mind could think that. Don't you get tired of lying? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 1:49:18 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:I certainly know that you care. Again, again again, the misrepresentation is that I had anything at all to say or any care of the general category of content-based approaches. Your ongoing overt dishonesty is your continuing pretense that it's the categorization itself instead of the diverting yappery about it to get away from the actual real-world horrible of deezen's pedo fantasy criteria. Next go ahead and post an insipid-via-repeated-vacuous-misuse pithy line from The Princess Bride. That'll show me!
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 16, 2017 1:55:40 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:...the misrepresentation is that I had anything at all to say or any care of the general category of content-based approaches. So, yeah, it was a case of Rabbit's "I'll use words however I like and damn their actual meanings," because what you're describing here is not a misrepresentation and has absolutely zero to do with what I was doing or what you said. And it's your ongoing overt dishonesty that this was any "pretense" when it was literally the source of our disagreement to start with. Further, the actual "diversion" was in your attempting to discuss Eddie's actual criteria when the only issue was in the accurate categorization/framing of his approach. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 1:57:25 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:This isn't hard, which is why I'm often left just wondering about you. Bryce did, you jumped in propping him up about it. So still, you and he are welcome to impugn their credentials just as I am free to point out his convenient dismissal. Follows perfectly. The article mentioned experts. Bryce didn't look them up or investigate them or their qualifications in any way, he simply discounted them. The very essence of dismissed regardless of your perpetual up-is-down kidboning-is-freedom absolute kidf!cked in the head nonsense. I never get tired of spading out your pathetic lying. I don't even cry-lie about getting of the evagal-merry-go-round. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 2:12:24 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Bryce did, you jumped in propping him up about it. No I didn't. I jumped in to explain the source of confusion over your use of the pronoun "they." This was my first post in response to yours/Bryce's discussion: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667032 Here's your response that is only about what "they" refers to: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667097 Here's my second attempt to fully and clearly explain to you why it was easy to confuse your "they" to be referring to "experts" where I quote Bryce's post: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667117 and here was your first "you're free to impugn their credentials" post, which came out of nowhere because nowhere had I supported Bryce's post questioning their credentials or mentioned their credentials at all: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667242/threadEDIT: Literally the only thing I can make of this is you confused my quoting Bryce with me supporting Bryce, even though I had only quoted Bryce to show how it was easy to confuse your "they" to be referring to the subject of his post (the experts). Because your "you're free to impugn..." post even quotes the part of my post where I was quoting Bryce, as if you were responding to it as something I was saying instead of something I was quoting Bryce as saying. Is this your poor reading comprehension cropping up again? Yes, the article mentions experts; it does not mention who the experts are. Bryce has no way of looking them up or investigating them because the article does not name them. Have you even read the OP or the article it links to? Would you seriously accept any "experts said" claim where the experts aren't even named? Or do you only do that with claims you already agree with? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 2:13:02 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:It'll be ok evagal. Maybe create some callout threads to beg the board. You're an unrepentant liar, of course. My only topical disagreement is with your statement that deezen's pedo fantasy does not subject the 4 year-olds to old lech rape. All the rest is just boring through your patent sludge and easy dishonesty when your crawly goop is exposed.
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 16, 2017 2:22:41 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:It'll be ok evagal. Maybe create some callout threads to beg the board. Dodge noted. Speaking of a unrepentant liar: you have yet to support that I ever stated what you claim I stated in bold. You stupidly confuse me denying your "a/the bulk of" 4-year-olds with "any 4-year-olds." What's more, we've been disagreeing over what you called my "misrepresentation" concerning Eddie's position since page 10. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 2:22:56 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:Your "non-understanding" of the sentence was your stupidity. And your links are useless because you've repeatedly argued that he wasn't dismissing them. Honestly, do you even know what you've typed or does it all just flow out Ada-style? I would certainly do more than simply dismiss them, especially since the claims are not in the least controversial.
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 16, 2017 2:38:23 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1. Your "non-understanding" of the sentence was your stupidity. 2. And your links are useless because you've repeatedly argued that he wasn't dismissing them. Honestly, do you even know what you've typed or does it all just flow out Ada-style? 1. I DID understand the sentence, you dope. I was explaining why Bryce was confused by your use of the pronoun "they." Explaining someone else's confusion doesn't mean you're confused. 2. I only started arguing he wasn't dismissing them AFTER you said "you and he are free to impugn them." After you said "you're free to impugn them" this was my response and the first time I had in any way supported anything Bryce had said: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667291So unless you were psychic and knew I was going to post that in response to your post, I still ask the question: why did you say I was free to impugn their credentials when I had never mentioned them? So again we're back to your bizarre claim that questioning who the experts are and their credentials is tantamount to dismissing them. How do you figure the claim isn't controversial? Where is there any evidence that the availability of child-sex-dolls would increase the amount of child sex-abuse? As others have mentioned, it's nearly identical to the claim that the availability of porn and violent video games increase real-world sex crimes and violence, even though both the latter have declined since the former have become more prevalent. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 2:39:08 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: Flip to the next page of your Big Book Of Insipid Internet Comebacks. Let me rephrase my last colorful entry in the more precise form it has taken so many times heretofore, unrepentant meaninglessness-wrangler. That deezen's pedo fantasy is not advocacy of subjecting the 4 year-olds to old lech rape.
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 16, 2017 2:45:59 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: Flip to the next page of your Big Book Of Insipid Internet Comebacks. Flip to the next page of your Big Book of Insipid Ways to Continually Dodge Points You Can't Respond To. Yes, and I've explained why that's the case here: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667203Your predictable response was to call my explanation "fatuous quibbling over the word 'advocate.'" Like I said, it always becomes "fatuous quibbling" when your usage of words is laughably wrong. |
|
