OT: Child sex robots

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, freedom for a lech beeper to tear open a 4 year-old's orifices is a helluva consequence for the tyke.  The dishonesty is you trying to bury the fact that no "freedom" can warrant the consequences for the minors in this pedo's dream, regardless of how proud you are of your ability to chatter people down with your continuous black-is-white utter nonsense.  And you're right, I certainly can't manage to stomach your horsesh!t going unspaded, hence why I'll answer it every time.


Too bad so sad.

---

but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old

Jesus Christ, isn't it about time you guys started a new thread? It's 24 pages in and it's been 2 guys having a conversation about other universes on a thread that was about "child sex robots".

Thank you for explaining 😁

I have no reason to think we could, but given how much science has advanced in just the last 150 years I also wouldn't say the idea is completely impossible. Regarding the edge of the universe, I simply have no idea. We know space is expanding, and it's hard to imagine an "edge" of space and what the hell it could be expanding into. 

Dude, YOU'RE the one that first asked what other "theys" Bryce had in mind, so you were undeniably asking for an explanation, so I explained it, in plain English, with lessons that gradeschoolers are taught. So I don't know what you're talking about with "rejecting my tripe," because everything I said about pronouns, how people read, why Bryce was confused, why your mistake facilitated the confusion, etc. is all FACTUALLY CORRECT. It's not an opinion, it's not an argument, it's all fact. You trying to get past this is like Arlon and Erjen struggling with basic scientific and mathematical problems; probably worse because at least most of their struggles are on high school level material. You can't even figure out how to use pronouns correctly, and when your mistake is thoroughly explained to you either you don't get it, which makes you Blade-level dumb, or you do get and are smokescreening to avoid taking responsibility for the mistake, which makes you intellectually dishonest. Take your pick. 

As for the first, you don't "value it" because just like with basic grammar you don't understand basic semantics. As for the second, that's your abysmal reading comprehension cropping up again. What I said was (essentially) that I didn't know how much social stigma contributed to the (psychological) harm done, and neither do you. We know that social stigmas contribute to much of what women feel after being raped (especially things like "shame"), so it should be blatantly obvious that the same thing could affect children who also pick up on social/shame attitudes about sex. Obviously this wouldn't have anything to do with physical harm, and I never suggested otherwise. 

^ Proof positive of smokescreen deployed to avoid admitting mistake. It's helpful when I make a claim and you immediately prove it for me. Thanks for the assist. 



1. No shit, Sherlock, and I never denied it. You've been tilting at a strawman this entire thread with that one, but at least you finally seemed to correctly use "freedom" and "consequence." Now why don't you try to figure out freedoms for OTHER people of OTHER ages in OTHER situations that would happen under that criteria. Go ahead, give it a shot. I'm sure you can manage once you get kid-fucking off your furry brain. 

2. There was no "dishonesty," and it's your abject lie that I tried to "bury" this when it's been made repeatedly obvious that I agree with it and it's why I reject Eddie's consent-only approach. But in your pea-sized brain you think me trying to accurately present the approach, both its freedoms/values and its consequences, is somehow me "burying the consequences" because your brain is too small to contain any other aspect of it. 

FIFY

My mistake, I guess it is a word. (see how easy it is to admit mistakes? Why don't you try it sometimes). 

Now, what did you mean by it in that context? If you're trying to accuse me of offering 4-year-olds as fodder for predators, then it's a damned disgusting lie just like I said it was. 

YOU'RE the one that used the term "break 18-month baby over it," and given the reference was regarding phludowin's advocacy of abortion at 18-months past birth it seems pretty obvious what you meant. So, again, for you to include me in something you know I never even discussed, and do not support, is just more evidence of what a disgusting human being you are. 

It was. Glad you're catching on. 

Am I supposed to know what FTFYOFTP is supposed to mean? Or is that just more of rabbit's autistic "it makes sense in my brain so it should in everyone's" nonsense? Likewise: WTF are you talking about "explaining basic case to Bryce" and what "previous post?" There are a lot of previous posts. 

And again you link to that post with a nonsensical phrase without explaining what you think I need to reply to that I didn't already reply to. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO REPLY TO IN THAT POST?

Dude, I responded to that post HERE. So what in your post do you think I failed to address with my post? It shouldn't be that difficult to answer the question of what significance you think your post has that I need to respond to again. Because right now I still stand by what I said in my response.