|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:07:17 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! What, pray tell, was the "beg" there?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:08:07 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You need to say you took it to the gutter because your diversion away from deezen's criteria to didn't give you the out you wanted. 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 22:10:35 GMT
You just responded to the same post with two different replies. Has your rabittbotic circuitry gone haywire?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 22:31:17 GMT
You just responded to the same post with two different replies. Has your rabittbotic circuitry gone haywire? This is why Rabbit is the only person I have put on ignore. I'm happy to debate literally anything. I'll admit when I'm wrong. I'll retract things I need to retract. He simply offers nothing in the way of arguments, it takes about ten posts before he puts himself on a loop of insults and evasion.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:35:16 GMT
You just responded to the same post with two different replies. Has your rabittbotic circuitry gone haywire? This is why Rabbit is the only person I have put on ignore. I'm happy to debate literally anything. I'll admit when I'm wrong. I'll retract things I need to retract. He simply offers nothing in the way of arguments, it takes about ten posts before he puts himself on a loop of insults and evasion. Welcome, my acolyte. (He earlier accused two other posters of being my acolytes because they agreed with me. He might have to pull the same trick in the pro-choice thread I started).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:41:38 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: Nah, he's one of the like-minded. Let the hate flow through your embrace! 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 22:50:26 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: Nah, he's one of the like-minded. Let the hate flow through your embrace! We know that everyone who disagrees with you is "like-minded." Pretty soon, that's going to be most of the board based on the voting so far in that pro-choice thread.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:56:38 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: Please, Cash, jump in and back me up! 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 23:00:57 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: Please, Cash, jump in and back me up! So you think I'm begging Cash in a thread that's 26 pages long, in which he hasn't participated in since around page 10, merely by mentioning (and not even tagging) his name? How do you figure I'm doing that? Is saying cash's name like summoning Beetlejuice where merely saying it is enough to get his attention?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:10:26 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 hooked him last time after begging. After 26 pages you wanted it bad enough to start OPing again, this time with a dishonest poll. 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 23:16:49 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 hooked him last time after begging. I "hooked" him last time by responding to him directly, and I remember doing that vividly. And by saying "hooked" you're basically insinuating that Cash was somehow duped into agreeing with me. You want to say that to him directly?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:30:05 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 expressed "surprise" that you weren't getting support, and openly begged. And I'm not surprised about your memory. Of course anyone who responds to your begging is either feeling cajoled or sorry for you. And most definitely he was duped by you back then, You do have a powerful sucking whine. Others hate. Just how badly do you want to use your friends? Line 'em up any way you can, my needy brother. 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 Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2017 23:43:29 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. I wasn't following the thread. What is the above? For one, it's difficult to understand grammatically.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:46:07 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. tpfkar Terrapin Station said:Follow the thread. You posted in it before. 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 18, 2017 0:22:23 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: Yeah, sure, you try to carry that about thors & me. Integrity personified. And I'm perfectly happy with you "winning" your poll. It's good to have such a clear example of the kind of "winning" you aspire to on record. I'll also be happy if "everyone" votes against an honest version of " advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers", or if you don't even pose it. Either way, your moves are all on record. 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 18, 2017 18:46:56 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: You expressed "surprise" that you weren't getting support, and openly begged. And I'm not surprised about your memory. Of course anyone who responds to your begging is either feeling cajoled or sorry for you. And most definitely he was duped by you back then, You do have a powerful sucking whine. I expressed a general surprise not directed at anyone, but Cash only said something once I replied to him directly. I didn't just casually mention his name umpteenth pages into a thread he wasn't much involved in, genius. So go ahead and go tell him he was duped into supporting what I said. Go ahead. I dare ya.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 18:49:14 GMT
tpfkar And I'm perfectly happy with you "winning" your poll. It's good to have such a clear example of the kind of "winning" you aspire to on record. I'll also be happy if "everyone" votes against an honest version of " advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers", or if you don't even pose it. Either way, your moves are all on record. Normally I don't give a damn about "winning" any discussion, but if the other side is so egregiously wrong and so mind-numbingly stupid to see it, then "winning" is the only way I have of perhaps teaching them something. You seem impervious to learning lessons, though. LOL, Honest version. I PHRASED THE QUESTION EXACTLY HOW I PHRASED IT TO YOU. If you had a problem with the wording you should've said so when I first said it here, not after you realized you were going to massively lose a poll with the exact same question.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 18:49:51 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, here you go aginners - "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." Sure, one of the both is horrific and the other of the both is normal good. Sure, sure, really you weren't suggesting in any way that the "outrage" at pedophilia might be misplaced similarly to the outrage at homosexuality. Course not. Because outrage at homosexuality and outrage at kid consumption are "emotional/puritanical" reactions, and not just bleedin' obvious to anyone near normal which way to go in both cases. Sure, which still left it at equating outrage at horrible with outrage at normal good. "Emotional/puritanical", after all. That particular stream of sh!t hasn't been waded through yet. Patience, my brother. By next week, I'm sure. Yes, of course, you're TOTEally not full of inane self-proclaiming self-praising gasbag crap. You've convinced me! "Unmerited" vs. "merited" is a difference quite cited, as in attempting to prostitute the persecution of homosexuals with "moral outrage against homosexuality" as the same "emotional/puritanical form" as "moral outrage against subjecting children to abuse by adult predators". May fly in in a den of seedy. So glad to have your approval. But sorry, no. There is no value in his criteria. Other than outing some. Is there any particular reason you swapped in the strategic ellipsis? Naw, no special reason for that at- all-, I'm sure. 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 18, 2017 18:50:18 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. I wasn't following the thread. What is the above? For one, it's difficult to understand grammatically. What he means is "Eddie's consent-criteria subjects 4-year-olds to sexual abuse by adults, so Eddie advocates 4-year-olds being sexually abused by adults."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 18:50:53 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:I truly believe that statement wholeheartedly. 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
|
|