|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 21:32:31 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:Maybe get Bryce to help you out with your English/typos.  Not in a reply to posts about abortion. Seriously dude. I've known what you meant since the first time you posted it. I also knew then as I still know that your position on it is utter semantical rubbish And what, now you've given up your slew of manic insults for your juvenile memeing again? Must be at a different part of the cycle!
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:38:50 GMT
tpfkar Not in a reply to a posts about abortion. Seriously dude. If the thread is about abortions then there's really only those two sides so it would kinda be implied (which isn't the case here), but it would still be a misrepresentation because of the omission and the attempt made at focusing only on the consequence while ignoring the values. It's always semantical rubbish, gibbering, nattering, quibbling, and all the other colorful language you use when someone proves you wrong. Funny how that works. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 21:39:48 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. Eva Yojimbo said:No, I broached and pursued your explicit denial of his advocacy, in whatever was around not mitigating the implications one whit. Beep-dude you must have all kinds of word gravel in your teeth. I did not divert, bizarro Arlon dude. I had a specific assertion of yours I disagreed with and I pursued that, weathering your continuous diverting sludge the entire time.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 16, 2017 21:40:45 GMT
note - my cap lock Doesnt work re evolutionary psychology - Do we really know it wouldnt stick over time though? Why do you that? I think evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists cherry pick positive "adaptions". If you really look at human behaviour there are thousands more examples of weaknesses. someone would be just as justified in founding a discipline called Death psychology and claiming human behaviour and biological make up is shaped by the principle of the survival of the death. You dont have a self aware penis that detects danger when near? blame the survival of the death! Your skull isnt made of unbreakable metal? Well blame the survival of the death! and so on. It could only stick if there was a mechanism to make it stick, otherwise each successive stroke would still be random. Evolution, in general, works by natural selection acting upon random mutations, and the mutations replicating so that it isn't a random mutation in the next generation. For this to be true of psychology all we really have to assume, at the most basic level, is that this same theory is true of brains and that brains are (at least largely) responsible for what we call psychology. I'm not sure if I really want to get into specific examples, though, since evolution isn't about creating the perfect survival-and-reproduction being, but rather just replicating whatever happens to survive and reproduce. There are millions/billions of variations on how this can happen, and most of them will have flaws that got through only because they didn't matter enough to the success rate (and if it does matter then they eventually go extinct). He isn't just arguing for his mathematical multiverse, though; he's explaining the other versions of the multiverse and the arguments for and against them. When using "universe" in the context of discussing the multiverse, the universe is just limited to our observable universe that began about 14 billion years ago. I do know some define it as all that exists, but in this context you have to distinguish "are universe" from the potential "other universes" out there. you didnt answer my Question. Why cant that all just be a coincidence? I know I just would finD it hard to take someone who believes in something like that seriously but I will still have a read of his article. observable universe? I dont think anybody says any planet that is too far away for us to see is in another universe. another question, what would be the bounDary between a universe anD another? Can you give me an answer like "a concrete wall seperates my bedroom from the bathroom". |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:47:28 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, I broached and pursued your explicit denial of his advocacy, in whatever was around not mitigating the implications one whit. You broached and pursued by responding to my post about the classification of his criteria; the "denial of his advocacy" was only in the context of that classification. You tried to divert by talking about the actual criteria. You did divert, actual-Arlon dude. The specific assertion you disagreed with was in the context of discussing how to classify Eddie's criteria. I don't know how to make that any simpler. I mean, for proof, THIS is the post you responded to. Not once in that post did I say anything about his actual criteria. All I said, that I continued to say in 4 posts after that, was Eddie was arguing for a consent-only approach to sex. When you responded, you were the only one besides saoradh who had mentioned his specific criteria. You diverted. You diverted. You diverted. I'll say it as many times as it takes for you to get it through your furry skull. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 21:47:37 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:Pure absurdity of course. If the value was zero or eleven it matters not in the direct result of advocating the termination of pregnancies. Or, more horrifically, making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. No, only when you try to use semantics to minimize, deny, divert, and when you quibble, cavil, sashay - wait, I guess that part is always. But beep on in your pipe dream. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 21:57:49 GMT
It could only stick if there was a mechanism to make it stick, otherwise each successive stroke would still be random. Evolution, in general, works by natural selection acting upon random mutations, and the mutations replicating so that it isn't a random mutation in the next generation. For this to be true of psychology all we really have to assume, at the most basic level, is that this same theory is true of brains and that brains are (at least largely) responsible for what we call psychology. I'm not sure if I really want to get into specific examples, though, since evolution isn't about creating the perfect survival-and-reproduction being, but rather just replicating whatever happens to survive and reproduce. There are millions/billions of variations on how this can happen, and most of them will have flaws that got through only because they didn't matter enough to the success rate (and if it does matter then they eventually go extinct). He isn't just arguing for his mathematical multiverse, though; he's explaining the other versions of the multiverse and the arguments for and against them. When using "universe" in the context of discussing the multiverse, the universe is just limited to our observable universe that began about 14 billion years ago. I do know some define it as all that exists, but in this context you have to distinguish "are universe" from the potential "other universes" out there. you didnt answer my Question. Why cant that all just be a coincidence? Assuming you're talking about evolutionary psychology here, any given mutation is a random coincidence; but reproduction is a pretty deterministic one outside those mutation. So these random coincidences are passed on in a more repeatable ways via reproduction. The survival and reproductive success is in large part determined by the environment and what advantages (if any) such mutations provide. Which survive can be "coincidental" in the sense that some are neutral, some don't help but don't hurt, and some only hurt marginally but are still passed on. The same could be true of psychology, meaning that there's plenty of junk that gets passed on solely because it didn't hurt, or didn't hurt enough to affect survival and reproduction. Certainly not every psychological component would've conferred some evolutionary advantage because this isn't even how physical mutations work. So if your objection is that evolutionary psychology is trying to find an evolutionary advantage to every psychological phenomena, then, yeah, I can understand that objection; but I don't think it's bad trying to think of psychology in evolutionary terms in general. "Observable" would just mean "potentially observable" in this case. I'm not sure what the "boundaries" would be--perhaps space itself--but most ideas about the multiverse have them existing in Hilbert Space to begin with (something I don't entirely understand), which is different than our regular conceptions of space; so I'm not sure if any traditional thinking of boundaries would make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 22:02:38 GMT
tpfkar If the value was zero or eleven it matters not in the direct result of advocating the termination of pregnancies. What "matters" is the evaluation of both the values and the consequences. When people try to frame an argument only in terms of their consequences, especially when using inflammatory language, it's a cheap, irrational, rhetorical, and emotional trick to bias other people (either that or it reveals their own ignorance and emotional, irrational bias). We see this all the times in politics in "attack ads" where all that's focused on is whatever negative consequences one side can find about the other. In rational, intellectually honest discussions about issues, values and consequences should be fully and openly recognized and discussed/debated, and these cheap, rhetorical appeals to emotional outrage avoided. I use semantics to correct your continual misuse of words. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 22:05:11 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:Oodabbadabbay.  Could you spew any more? You said he didn't advocate making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. I said he did (a/the bulk). My evidence was his explicit criteria with the specific results. I don't know how you can keep this pretense going! You're nutty. Either his specific criteria makes 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, or it does not. What context are you suggesting would alter his specific explicit rules? You said he did not advocate making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. I said he did. My evidence was his specific criteria. Are you now saying he does if we do simply look at his actual rules?
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 22:41:14 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You said he didn't advocate making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. Yes, because I know what the fuck the word advocate means and how it's correctly used when discussing such issues. I readily admitted to PanLeo (here: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654701/thread) that 4-year-olds would "subject to sexual abuse" (though Eddie wouldn't consider it abuse; that's, again, a different subject) if they could consent per the criteria, so if that was literally your only point I had already admitted that before you even joined in. However, the original post/discussion that you responded to was about classifying Eddie's criteria as consent-based, hence I repeated using that term afterwards, and hence why YOU were diverting by arguing the actual criteria. I love these glimpses into rabbit's black-and-white world where if I respond to a post explaining and classifying Eddie's consent-based approach where age isn't explicitly mentioned, literally the only thing that matters is whether 4-year-olds are subject to sexual abuse. In rabbitverse, the only thing that matters is whatever rabbit cares about and be damned what the discussion was really about in the first place. Like I said, saoradh questioned me about the same thing, I readily admitted 4-year-olds would be potentially subject, but that Eddie's criteria didn't mention them explicitly, and saoradh got it within half-a-dozen posts by page 10. Here we are on page 23 and you STILL don't get it (or else you do get it and are arguing just as a way to avoid admitting what happened). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 22:42:36 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:No, what matters is that if those rules went into effect then 4 year-olds would be made subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, regardless of your ludicrously feeble semantic heaves. Regardless of what "values" you frantic guys say you or the sexualized kids get out of it. What's cheap is your pathetic Christian-like use of homosexuality, equating moral outrage of good+healthy with that of perniciously noxious and purposely avoiding the fact that there is no reason for "outrage" for consenting adult heterosexual nor homosexual relationships, but obvious reasons for the horrific outcomes of old dirty slime beeping their way into foddering 4 year-olds to predator adults - for any possible thoroughly cynical "values". And then pathetically try to defend their goal by attempting crassly, nonsensically, sickeningly shame people for rightfully categorizing the consumption of children. You use semantics 'cause you secretly enjoy being mocked. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 22:57:08 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:No, what matters is that if those rules went into effect then 4 year-olds would be made subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, regardless of your ludicrously feeble semantic heaves. I know that's all that matters to you. Unfortunately for you, we live in a world where you are not the sole arbiter of what matters. I'm sure you'll learn to accept this one day. God you are a Blade-level moron. I did not "equate" the moral outrage and the substance of the arguments for each (which you accuse me of here); I equated the moral outrage and the form of the arguments for each (namely, using the outrage itself as the argument). That you don't understand the difference is just more evidence of your complete and utter ignorance of logic. Secondly, the "reasons" for the outrage are precisely what should be given. Reasons, as in logic, as in the thing that doesn't care how you feel about something. Throughout this thread and those on IMDb all you've been able to muster is the emotional outrage without the logic, without the reasons, and this shows in so many of the blatant fallacies you utter like "questioning who anonymous experts are is dismissing them" and "Eddie must be a pedophile because of advocacy of his consent-based approach to sex" and "anyone who can envision children as sex objects must be a pedophile" and "saying child-sex-robots would lead to real life child sexual abuse isn't controversial." These are statements that are so ridiculously easily disprovable with counter-examples that the only possible mind that could make them would be one so clouded by rage that all logic has flown the coop. You've had two of my "acolytes" point this out to you already, and I'd bet a sizable amount you could not find anyone else on here to agree with any of these statements, regardless of how much they were "on your side" otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:00:11 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: You're beeping crazy.  Try to read the first reply to you and stand your streaming hoses from there. And read this some more. I love your desperate crashes to ad hominem when you realize you've cornered yourself with your bullsh!t. Rabbit rabbit rabbit! Easter's going to suck for you forevermore. But I'm glad you can go back to the first reply and agree with me now.  You started off denying that he mentioned the 4 year old stuff, then had to eat it when his criteria was pointed out to everybody, and then you denied the advocacy, I disputed your assertion, and you went into one of your patent manic wild tizzies. And I still have so much more I can reply to!
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:19:13 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: You're beeping crazy. Try to read the first reply to you and stand your streaming hoses from there. Yeah, the first reply to me was saorodh HERE. We discussed the criteria for a bit before he finally understood what I meant and admitted his misunderstanding HERE. When you replied, I even reiterated my position about classifying Eddie's approach as a consent-only approach HERE (my "again" is pretty much giving it away that "this is the point I was making"), so by the time you trotted out the old "misrepresentation" accusation (and later the "diversion" accusation) it was really ludicrous given how many times I had stated what I was arguing, restated what I was arguing, and after saorodh had gotten it and moved on. If you had never brought up the "misrepresentation" and "diversion" crap I would've been happy to discuss whatever actual criteria-diversion you wanted to. After that, though, I couldn't help but point out your blatant hypocrisy (not that you care, or probably even get it). LOL, I'm the one actually linking posts to prove what the fuck I'm saying, while you're blowing hot air and repeating the same easily provably false statements, yet I'M the one cornered with bullshit. OK then. I swear I don't even know why I (or anyone) bothers responding to you given your reading comprehension is this abysmal. 1. I "started off" by saying that Eddie's belief was that sex should be a consent-only matter and age shouldn't matter. The only reference I made to 4-year-olds was "I don't remember him giving an age of 4 years old for anything" as in "4-year-olds were not mentioned as part of his consent-criteria." Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654683/thread2. I never had to "eat" anything. The very first post after the above was saorodh's. In the very next post I admitted that 4-year-olds would be "subject to abuse" (your term) if they could consent. Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654701/thread3. Yes, because I know what the fuck advocacy means and explained it. Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/667203/thread4. Since you're the one making this claim, and since only you know what counts as as "manic wild tizzies." I'll let you prove that one. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:26:40 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:Nope, unfortunately for you the world we live in frustrates the beepers that wish to slide the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by adults, out of malignant pedoville and into some kind of norm/respectability. No amount of continuous horrible is just wunnerful gassing is going to do the trick for you. And of course, it is a fact that if the rules in question went into effect then 4 year-olds would be made subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, regardless of your ludicrously feeble semantic heaves and reamed diversion attempts. Feast your eyes.You keep injuring me beep-dude.  Such a sublime individual you are. No, you equated outrage for horrific with outrage for the normal good, regardless of how bad you want to prostitute homosexulity for your cause. And, of course, making 4 year-olds fodder to adults for sex is just that reason, regardless of what "value" you ascribe to it. Nope, deezen's a pedophile (or he has severely subnormal social/empathy levels and hypernormal narcissism levels - a type around here) because he advocates subjecting 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by predator adults. Regardless of your pathetic attempts to ascribe it to emotion. That won't stick, except to you (please don't hit me again!).
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:42:55 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, unfortunately for you the world we live in frustrates the beepers that wish to slide the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by adults, out of malignant pedoville and into some kind of norm/respectability. And we're back to the game of "rabbit makes ridiculous insinuations based on nothing more than the fact others disagree with him on points that have nothing to do with the insinuations he's making." Well done. No, I equated the form the outrage takes with both. Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/669620/thread ("The "emotional/puritanical" seems to crop up in a lot of sex-related subjects and the form it takes with pedophilia is basically identical to the form it takes (or took) with homosexuality.") So I explained exactly and explicitly how I was comparing them. But because you didn't understand what I meant, you just confused it with equating them outright. In fact, you even quoted me saying it in your next post with scare quotes around "the form it takes," accused me of weasel-wording, and then asked "So what is that supposed to suggest?" Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/669630/threadTo which I responded clarifying what I meant even further. Proof for the above: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/671103/thread ("No weasel wording--that's another term you don't understand. If you understood a lick of logic and rationality you would know precisely what I mean by form, but even with NOT knowing about them it was made pretty clear by my post precisely what I meant. It "suggests" what I said explicitly: that that method of argumentation doesn't distinguish between right and wrong positions, as emotion-based outrage-appeals do not in any circumstance. When you cite a difference, such as your "between consenting adults it was misplaced," then that's an example of a rational rebuttal, and not an emotional outrage appeal. If you were capable of more of the former I wouldn't mind. It's your preference for the latter that drives me crazy, because you end up harming your own side without realizing it, and you're too stupid to realize it.") Which is fine, but you don't stop there. You have to go further by ignoring the values in the position and try to make it seem like it's only advocating for the consequences. Tactics of the irrational, intellectually dishonest, morally outraged. Not that it matters at this point, but your "because" does not make someone a pedophile. Again, your blatant misuse of words. Eddie would be a pedophile if he was sexually attracted to children. Period. That's what pedophile means. Learn to use words. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:43:46 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: Between you and me, brother.
ZE EYES!That hash pipe can be a comforting thing! I dig it!  Between you and me, brother. Sorry again you had to eat it. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:48:09 GMT
So what point are you trying to make with these links? You seem to think they're making me "eat" something, but what you claimed I was "eating" I had already admitted before you posted. So go ahead and explain what relevance you think these two posts have to whatever point you're making. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 23:49:13 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. Eva Yojimbo said:You be so whack! Freedom for some is consequence for others. Ditto, my "misplaced outrage" like-that-for-homosexuality brother.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 23:54:53 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 be so whack! Freedom for some is consequence for others. No, freedom for everyone means consequences for some. That's how the freedom/consequence dynamic works. The issue is that in only bringing up the consequences you are intentionally, dishonestly, ignoring the values in the freedom. Being honest would be in recognizing both, and arguing that the consequence is worse than the freedom is good, and not trying to dishonestly frame advocating for a freedom as advocating for a consequence while ignoring the freedom. You can't seem to manage that, though. |
|
