|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:03:48 GMT
tpfkar 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." Already responded to here.
And you don't know which is which through the moral outrage alone when both sides make the exact same arguments, which is my entire point. It takes making rational distinctions to clarify the difference. No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. Again, your reading comprehension is so abysmal that you completely misunderstand the points people are making even when they make them explicitly. What I'm "equating" is exactly what I said I was equating. Again, the exact quote: "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." What do you think I mean by "the form it takes?" Hint: I explained it in a later post. This is no way addresses what I said. Unmerited vs. merited are conclusions, not arguments. You can't just call something one or the other without rationally distinguishing the differences. See, this is a blatantly false response from someone who is blinded by moral outrage. There is a value in anyone who is capable of consent being able to do what they want to consent to. It's such a basic value we have names for it like "freedom" and "liberty." If you could get your one-track mind off the "4-year-olds being abused" you might be able to understand this, but your rabbit-sized brain only seems capable of holding one tiny thought at a time. Because I was pointing out that your definition was wrong. The "or" alternative was not relevant to this fact.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:04:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:05:51 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: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 oldI already responded to it for the second time. Again, maybe try reading the whole thread before responding to see if people have responded to things you think they haven't responded to. Will save you some time and effort.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:08:29 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:And that made for a premature end quote, whether you like it or not. 1,2,3, you're a cavilling crazybeep. I did the same thing you said Bryce did, really promise! Fo-real, I had to have done something like that or have seen it in one of the other 27.3 branches we had in that thread. So either you said it, or you quoting-gummed it, too bad for you from both ends, although it remains just some more of your patent uselessness, as you have in fact impugned/dismissed/questioned (I like 1&2, you like 3) them. " So I'm sorry for your apparent case of grammar-blindness." I still don't care about your continued juvenile diddling nonsense. I don't believe Bryce didn't know it, but if he didn't in actuality, then asking him to give me what else he might think could fit there was exactly the right response to give him. In any case your utterly ludicrous dronings-on about his or anybody's confusion and sentence chopping and whatever other salving pillow-pounding furiously engaged in was thoroughly rejected even as it was pipelining out of your Beakery piehole, as all I believed and do believe is that you were driven simply by your full mode manic pique. And your "autistic" "gutting" is oh so devastating, really promise, and not laughably ironic at all. "This is not published work or an English test and so colloquials, shortcuts, adventures, f!cking with, and whatever else goes on, regardless of you insipid snorts. If the reader is confused because of an incomplete or inadequate seque or because of feign, they can still actually read the sentence, or in some cases a following sentence to clarify whatever 'confusion' they have. In this case it is all in that sentence, only one 'they' was possible, regardless of your continued gushing jabbers on the matter." - is not smokescreening. It's pointing out that you are the biggest snorting imbecile about. 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 19:08:35 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:And I couldn't be happier about your poll thread, dishonesty imperson?ated. Spittle imperson?ated? Speaking of lying, I'm sure your first attempts made at responding to people who made the exact same arguments I was making here were done because you were "happy," about it, just like I'm sure your objection to the wording (when you didn't object when I phrased it to you identically the first time) was also done because you were "happy" about it. Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:11:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:16:02 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:And that made for a premature end quote, whether you like it or not. What do you think it means when an open quote is followed by another open quote and a closed quote around a single word? So Bryce asked you what the "they" referred to because....? Still, I answered for him. I answered correctly for him. Even after answering correctly for him in a way that any grade schooler could understand, you still wouldn't admit the mistake. I can't help if you have a big hole where your sense of personal responsibility should be. What this is is a discussion board in which English is used to communicate with other people. This means you have to use the language in a way that other people understand it. We have basic rules for doing this that we start learning in grade school. The correct use of pronouns doesn't depend on "colloquials," it depends on following those basic rules. You fucked up with it. Simple. Period. End of it. No amount of smokescreening will ever change this.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:16:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:19:35 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:"Responding" with utter crap is not answering, my vituperative spittle-rager friend. So what didn't I answer? Again, here's the new response: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/676217/thread So what in the fucking hell "question" do you think I'm not answering to your satisfaction?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 19:20:00 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. He is talking about JournalofEddieDeezenStudios.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:20:46 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:Or just f!ck 'im and make yourself the drink! Seriously, you two raging hypocrites blowharding on "childishness of statements"? That's almost as absurd as asserting that advocating a system that subjects 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults does not advocate subjecting 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. The semantic contortions are positively vertiginous! Too funny from the social cripple currently on the high end of the cycle who can support 4 year-olds being subject to sexual use by adults, or has to ponder if the big ill of pedophilia is the stigma, or spends reams on trying to divert to general consent-based approaches as opposed to dealing with the specific criteria at hand, and lies profusely about that and other things, natters idiot on English he doesn't know, typos that an ungroomed 4 year-old could read through, manic rages into conversations to serve his pique, pretends to be the up-and-up guy even as he climbs under the gutter. Pure ludicrous jabbering hypocrisy. Sure you do, board-beginski. You on the other hand share blade's crass creepy. 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 19:23:14 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:How many of your clique supported me last time? How many who said there was something wrong with you did? How many will next time? Non sequitur But anyway, it depends on what specific issue you're talking about anyone supporting me or you on. Between the original IMDb boards and this threads there's been probably a dozen or two sub-subjects that have been discussed under the general rubric of pedophila. Most of the time I don't even think you know what the actual subject being discussed is.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:27:48 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:It means poor style, home grammar professor, and someone not processing the whole sentence may attribute it as the end of the quote and see the rest as the author's own words. Much like your beautiful "theory". Or the couple of other guess I made. Because he left it too soon, brainshow. I know what you did, you answered with utter stupid-goop. Possibly cumbersome style isn't a mistake, and anyone reading in good faith, e.g. not crazily disingenuous you or him would have responded very differently. No, what this is is you losing your sh!t in a pique and making an utter fool of yourself. I use language to convey in the way I want, and I'm not going to "apologize" to disingenuous sh!ts who aren't reading in good faith by typo hunting and making the most ludicrous proclamations concerning a "they" that, by its use in the sentence it is in, could only be one very obvious thing in the thread and topic. If one advocates a system where adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] are able to choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex, does it necessarily follow that one advocates that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] are able to choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex? Page 13 of ?? and counting: This is the point where I get off the rabbit-go-round 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 19:40:03 GMT
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 19:40:25 GMT
Thanks for an amusing 28 pages.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:08:05 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:It means poor style, home grammar professor, and someone not processing the whole sentence may attribute it as the end of the quote and see the rest as the author's own words. Yes it is poor style, and incorrect grammar, as I already admitted, but it hardly took you processing the whole sentence to understand it. It should've been processed the moment you saw an open quote followed by another open quote, or the first close quote following the second open quote around a single word, or when you see another close quote at the end of the quote. The complaint had nothing to do with a "cumbersome style," the complaint had to do you with you using a pronoun to mean a different thing than the subject of the post you were responding to. That's not a mistake of being cumbersome. And please don't tell me you want me to do another "experiment" where I quote the OP, quote Bryce, and then quote your reply to Bryce to see if anyone else is initially confused by your pronoun usage. I already proved your use of "advocate" was dead wrong (with a little help from my board of acolytes); don't make me prove this simple fact too.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:09:08 GMT
tpfkar I know you don't, but spectrum disorders can do that to a person. As it has apparently done it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 18, 2017 20:10:21 GMT
I wasn't following the thread. What is the above? For one, it's difficult to understand grammatically. He is talking about JournalofEddieDeezenStudios. Ah--why does he keep repeating something that's made so inscrutable due to shoddy grammar, though? You'd think that if there's a message you consider important enough to keep repeating it, you'd try to write it so that it's comprehensible, so that it's in standard English.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:11:12 GMT
He is talking about JournalofEddieDeezenStudios. Ah--why does he keep repeating something that's made so inscrutable due to shoddy grammar, though? I think he just definitively answered that above, and I quote: "I use language to convey in the way I want"
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 18, 2017 20:13:47 GMT
Ah--why does he keep repeating something that's made so inscrutable due to shoddy grammar, though? I think he just definitively answered that above, and I quote: "I use language to convey in the way I want" haha
|
|