|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 20:16:46 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:Well, you know the "F", and by position and similar forms of your vapid usage you should be able to figure out the "T". The 3nd "F" is standard. The last "F" and the "P" you can likely guess by the theme of this discussion. Go! So it was more of rabbit's autistic "it makes sense in my brain so it should in everyone's" nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up. Why can't you just answer a simple question? I'm not a mind reader.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 20:20:47 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:To "address" does not always, or with the youngy ones even frequently, "satisfactorily answer", grasshopper. Nor is, how is it said, gas-bagging words to new vistas like the great word master Arlon-F!. Once again. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 17, 2017 20:37:07 GMT
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". Err, Bryce, there's only been a handful of replies on this multiverse tangent. The vast majority of the discussion has been between rabbit and I over the child sex robots and related pedophilia issues (and a lot of semantic/grammar confusion). I didn't realize cupcakes was rabbit. I'll have to put him back on ignore now. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 20:39:22 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:To "address" does not always, or with the youngy ones even frequently, "satisfactorily answer", grasshopper. So what didn't I answer satisfactorily? Be specific.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 20:41:08 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:Sure, you doing your little pique flashdancing is a "mistake". And if I do something more than my not infrequent cumbersome prose, typos, and even last-edit-pass-lazily-skipped garble then I'll surely apologize. But whenever you dump your imbecilic diversionary spew, you'll just keep getting the figurative version of deezens's criteria. Here you go again, buckaboo - "someone who can support 4 year-olds being subject to sexual use by adults, or has to ponder if the big ill of pedophilia is just the stigma, or spends reams on trying to divert to general consent-based approaches as opposed to the specific criteria at hand, and lies profusely about that and other things - is either a pedophile, or as I've subsequently granted, profoundly broken in the social/empathy gland." No, it was language conveying both of you guys' induration (that's colorful language, beepaboo) (at the very least) to the consumption of minors. Better get protesting! Learn from all your mistakes. 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 17, 2017 20:58:58 GMT
tpfkar And if I do something more than my not infrequent cumbersome prose, typos, and even last-edit-pass-lazily-skipped garble then I'll surely apologize. You've repeatedly lied about me defending Eddie's position. Start your apologies there. 1. Haven't done that. 2. Haven't done that (wondering how much stigma contributes to the psychological effect of crimes is not pondering if it's "the big ill.") 3. You diverted to the specific criteria. My posts, from the very beginning, were about classifying Eddie's criteria as a consent-approach. I already proved this by linking to my first posts where I did so. 4. Haven't lied about anything, as both AJ and phlodowin attested to. You're just too stupid most of the time to understand what I'm saying so you warp it into lies in your mind. 5. Still doesn't follow. A pedophile is someone who's sexually attracted to children. I am not. Likewise, I'm not going to take seriously claims of being "profoundly broken in the social/empathy gland" from a guy who has no compunction about spewing blatant lies. This isn't making it any less disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 21:03:24 GMT
Whoa this thread is still goi-- Oh it's Eva and Rabbit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 21:04:31 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:Or perhaps "utter lack of respect for a ghastly autistic lacking any semblance of integrity, watch him dangle" And yet you still have your mind on it. I have complete faith in you armchair abilities. Go! Try. Do. Not that! 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 17, 2017 21:06:16 GMT
Whoa this thread is still goi-- Oh it's Eva and Rabbit. You'd think I'd know better by now.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 21:08:18 GMT
I'm going to ask one more time and then I'm done with this: what, specifically, do you want to respond to in that post that you think I didn't already satisfactorily respond to in my post HERE?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 21:08:44 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. Drop a line in and we'll break it down again if you like. You... can.. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 21:13:38 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 haven't told a single lie. And I don't expect any apologies to me for your thoroughly atrocious behavior nor any integrity in you at all. Disingenuous insipid "apologies" to the board, sure, like you did on the last board and then just ramped up you mania. You'll have the rest in a minute. I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 17, 2017 21:24:02 GMT
Whoa this thread is still goi-- Oh it's Eva and Rabbit. You'd think I'd know better by now. Just be sure to stay hydrated.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 21:30:23 GMT
Fine, I'll oblige and respond to the whole damn thing again Going back to my first post, all I said was Eddie argued for a consent-based approach to sex that didn't specifically mention 4-year-olds. When Saorodh responding saying that 4-year-olds could have sex under his criteria (and would thus be subject to sexual abuse from predators), I immediately agreed. So nowhere did I ever deny that with his criteria 4-year-olds would be "subject to sexual abuse from predators." The "didn't advocate..." thing happened later and I already explained what advocation means when it comes you issues. We already agreed to disagree on that. See, this is why I insult your reading comprehension. What I'm saying here is that YOU diverted the topic because the "assertion" you quoted (and supposedly disagreed with) was about classifying Eddie's position, and you apparently mistook that for me disagreeing with the idea that 4-year-olds would be subject to sexual abuse, which is something I had already admitted before you even responded to me. So your response about the specific criteria and what it meant was a "diversion" because, one, it didn't address what my original post was actually about and, two, what you wanted to address I had already addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 21:31:11 GMT
You'd think I'd know better by now. Just be sure to stay hydrated. I'm in Oklahoma in mid-July. If I don't drink I die.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 17, 2017 21:33:18 GMT
Whoa this thread is still goi-- Oh it's Eva and Rabbit. You'd think I'd know better by now. You're only human, I guess. Cupcakes still failed to present any rational justification for his positions, and is still bad at answering questions in a non ambiguous way. You, however, have started stooping to his level by dishing out personal insults. Reminds me of the saying: "Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 21:34:33 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:Than being a dishonest spewer that dials the tone to the gutter, you sure should. I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread. 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 17, 2017 21:37:41 GMT
You'd think I'd know better by now. You're only human, I guess. Cupcakes still failed to present any rational justification for his positions, and is still bad at answering questions in a non ambiguous way. You, however, have started stooping to his level by dishing out personal insults. Reminds me of the saying: "Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Oh, I readily admit I'm dishing out personal insults, but as long as it's not affecting the rationality of my arguments I'm not too concerned. Cash doles out insults like nobody's business but he's also one of the most rational posters around here.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 21:40:37 GMT
tpfkar phludowin said: That made it all better. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:04:33 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: Good lord, why don't you go ahead and offer him some of deezen's criteria. Beggity-beg-beg-beg! I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|