OT: Child sex robots

So you knew I "likely did (understand it)" which is why you said: "Your "non-understanding" of the sentence was your stupidity."? 

I jumped in because you asked "What other "they"s were on your shortlist?" and I knew the answer. I'm not interested in your fantasy reasons for why I jumped in. 

The order is pretty important in you being able to honestly answer my question (which you continue to avoid): Why did you say I was free to impugn the experts' credentials when I had not mentioned their credentials? Your first answer (here: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/668618 ) was that you said it was because I had supported Bryce, and I pointed out I had in no way supported Bryce before you said it, so that can't be the reason you said it. So try to find another reason that actually makes sense. 

This is not answering the question of why you stated that before I had ever mentioned them. I don't know what you're finding complicated about that question. 

Yes, I guess your stupid doesn't go away. 

You have to have misunderstood what I said because this response makes no sense. Let me try again:

The "warning" the experts made in the OP is this: "the availability of child sex dolls could encourage abuse and rape." I say that's a controversial claim because there is no evidence for it. It's also basically identical to these two arguments: "the availability of porn would encourage sexual assault" and "the availability of violent video games would encourage real-world violence" (these are common arguments made by those opposed to porn and violent video games). The latter two claims are also controversial in that both sexual assault and violent crimes have decreased as porn and violent video games have become more common/available. So, yes, these types of claims ("availability of a simulated outlet increases real world instances") have zero evidence in their favor, and are thus controversial. So it's perfectly legitimate to question such claims made by anonymous experts by asking who the experts are and what expertise they're basing the claim on. You're just so blinded by confirmation bias that you can't even understand that stupidly simple point.  

Where have you explained it? 

The sheer "bulk" of your posting shows otherwise. You can continue to misrepresent the approach by framing it in terms of advocating its negative consequences all you want. It won't make it any less intellectually dishonest just because you feel all warmly and fuzzily morally righteous inside. 

No, you imbecile, everyone (regardless of age) gets the freedom to have sex if they are capable of consenting to do it and do consent to it. Kids being manipulated by leches into consenting would be a negative consequence of that freedom. The "reactionary outrage" is that you keep bringing up the consequence and pretending as if there's zero value to the freedom. 

Have you lost your damn mind? Restating a consequence of Eddie's criteria is not evidence of me supporting said criteria. 

But they don't! They can't be subject to it if they can't consent, they can't consent if they don't know what sex is, they can't know what sex is unless their parents tell them or a predator grooms them. Simple logic. The only way they would "count" otherwise would be hypothetically, as in they hypothetically could consent if they were taught/groomed. I only ever debated the actuality of that (in that "most 4-year-olds actually know about sex and could consent") and not the hypothetical. 

All these days and posts are spent because your reading comprehension and writing level are absymal and leads to a lot of confusion (on your part and others), combined with your blinding case of intellectual dishonesty that sees every disagreement on any point as someone wholesale advocating for the other side. 

Yeah, I finally figured out it was "as," but I'm sure you'll see my initial failure to figure out your typo as all my fault. You obviously have no responsibility for making sure what you type makes actual sense. Rather, the burden is on everyone else to figure it out, including your weird typos where you hit a wrong key on the opposite end of the keyboard from the one you intended to hit. 

WTF does that even mean? You just said two mutually exclusive things ("You likely did understand the sentence," and "Your non-understanding of the sentence was your stupidity") and you think this response even helps to clarify that? 

There are two possible things you can mean by this: 

1. I said your "they's" could all only be referring to one thing - I didn't say this, but it was implied because it's basic English to only use a single pronoun referent in the same sentence because otherwise it creates obvious confusion. So if you were using "they" to refer to different things in the same sentence, that was piss-poor grammar. Literally more grade-school level failure. 

2. I said there was only one possibility as to what your "they" could refer to - I didn't say this at all because my first post explicitly mentioned two possibilities: "your post is unclear whether your "they" is referring to the experts or the sex-dolls
"

Those "crapload of links" included our entire discussion on the matter up until the point you made the "you're free to impugn..." remark, so I don't know why you're asking me to "pull where I came in" instead. I made it easier to read by linking to the posts, saving you the time from scrolling through all the non-related stuff. But here is where I first came in: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667032/thread 

You reply, I reply to your reply, and your next reply has the "you're free to impugn" remark, that happens before I had supported anything Bryce said.

Yes, I mentioned porn and video games as containing analogous "simulated outlets lead to real world instances" arguments. I don't know what you think this has to do with "my twist of sex to sex violence and orgasmy videogames" or whatever. These examples were used early in the thread by posters other than myself. 

You can just as easily claim that getting off on f!cking pedolicious bangin' child simulacrums can't help but ease the urge to try the real thing. There's more evidence for that than what you claimed. 

It's rather delicious how you'll go with the assertions of anonymous experts despite the fact that the experts aren't listed, you have no idea what their expertise even is (assuming they actually exist), nor what they based the assertion on, and the only available evidence for that general argument ("simulated outlets encourage real world instances") are actually against it. It's literally worse than Creationists citing Michael Behe as an expert that supports Creationism; worse because at least Behe is an actual expert in a relevant field and not just some anonymously cited one. 


1. How does that even make sense to begin with? The people who would be most likely to watch porn would be those who can't have sex with real people. Those that are having sex with real people would be more likely to be satisfied with that and not need porn (though many still watch it because they aren't completely satisfied with real life sex). 

2. The issue is whether those predisposed to committing real-life sexual abuse would be more or less likely to commit it because of the existence of porn (especially violent porn, which, depending on how you define "violent," is pretty common these days). The anti-porn side says it makes them more likely to do it, the pro-porn side says it decreases their urge to do it. The stats are that violent sexual crimes are down since porn has become more widely available. We'd expect the opposite correlation if porn was spurring people to real-life sexual violence (already pre-disposed to it or not). 

3. It only "makes sense" if you think simulated outlets are more likely to make people engage in the real life acts, and on the two similar issues (video games/porn), the statistics suggest the opposite. 

Go ahead and explain it again. Remember, the key point of contention is whether advocating for any given position is tantamount to advocating for all of its consequences, and whether or not claiming that it's advocating for the consequences is a misrepresentation. I say it is for the reasons explained in the link. Now, counter those reasons with something resembling logic and a correct use of the English language. 

As far as them being correlated or not, all I can say is that it's the closest analog we have. I don't know of any evidence that would suggest that pedophilia has a cause that can be cured any more than homosexuality did, and a lot of time and money was wasted on the latter. I'm certainly open to the possibility of being wrong, though, and it would definitely be nice if I was. 

Again you conflate the consequence with the freedom. I guess you really are that stupid. 

If you can't show where I've supported it then you also have no evidence of any "empathy hole." 

The issue is not whether it would hypothetically be easy for 4-year-olds. The issue is whether in actual reality "a/the bulk" of 4-year-olds are going to know about sex in order to be able to consent. You have not given one shred of evidence nor argument that would suggest this would be the case. 

I don't know why "finally" is in scare quotes, but I edited my initial post and noted when I figured it out. Amazing how you can't even take responsibility for not making sense when you blatantly obviously didn't make sense because of a typo. 

Pardon me. Two contentions: 

1. Is advocating for a position tantamount to advocating for all its negative consequences? I say no for the reasons given in my link. 

2. Is claiming that those arguing for a position are advocating its consequences (while not mentioning the values of the position) a misrepresentation of the position? I say it is, for what should be obvious reasons (namely, it's not telling the whole story by only directing attention to what its opponents think others would find negative about it). 

Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). 

I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not.