PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 20:14:02 GMT
He is talking about JournalofEddieDeezenStudios. Ah--why does he keep repeating something that's made so inscrutable due to shoddy grammar, though? He's just very odd in a bad sort of way. He has a collection of quotes made by people who post here saved on his computer that he puts at the end of all his posts.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 20:19:00 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. Terrapin Station said:I have no doubt it baffles you, deez. but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 18, 2017 20:25:56 GMT
He has a collection of quotes made by people who post here saved on his computer that he puts at the end of all his posts. ...And usually taken out of context... and don't really mean what he thinks they mean. jus' sayin'
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 20:41:21 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. PanLeo said: The pedo brigade is back together! --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 20:46:46 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. PanLeo said: The pedo brigade is back together! --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true.See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 18, 2017 20:51:28 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. PanLeo said: The pedo brigade is back together! --- How about a months later one from you?
But the only situation in which sex with children is moral and should be allowed is when the child is capable of Informed consent. Now obviously a 7 year old can't do that but a 12 year old at the very least could.
--- Reply 10: Re: Is Sex with Children a bad thing? carmb09 replied 11 months, 3 weeks ago Definitely, I would estimate around 5 or 6 is the maximum age where they wouldn't be able to, but I really don't know.
Many children after they consent to sex with an adult are brainwashed into thinking they were raped and abused but that's just not true.See what I mean? I suppose everyone that voted "Pro-Choice, Disagree" in Eva's poll is a member of the Pedo Brigade in his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 21:17:23 GMT
I suppose everyone that voted "Pro-Choice, Disagree" in Eva's poll is a member of the Pedo Brigade in his mind. Earlier in this thread he called phlodowin and AJ my "acolytes" because they agreed with me. He said Cash (on the old board) had been "hooked" into agreeing with me. The poll he's "explaining away" by saying my wording was dishonest, even though I worded the question in that thread identically to how I worded it to him in this thread. Meanwhile, he's now changed the way he's worded the "advocates 4-year-olds subjected to abuse" thing about a dozen different way in order to make "advocate" mean what he wanted it to mean. Meanwhile, here's the post (and my response) that sparked this entire thing: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654683/threadBasically I'm saying "Eddie advocated a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor, just the ability to consent via his criteria." Because his criteria made it possible for 4-year-olds to consent to sex, rabbit has since argued some form of "Eddie advocated 4-year-olds being subject to abuse," and I've spent most of this thread (and the other thread) trying to explain to him why that's wrong. Keep in mind, both Rabbit and I agree about Eddie's criteria being a bad system and we agree on the reasons why, but this hasn't stopped him several times from accusing me of "defending Eddie's criteria" solely because I wanted to be accurate about what it was advocating and what the consequences were.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 18, 2017 21:39:02 GMT
I suppose everyone that voted "Pro-Choice, Disagree" in Eva's poll is a member of the Pedo Brigade in his mind. Earlier in this thread he called phlodowin and AJ my "acolytes" because they agreed with me. He said Cash (on the old board) had been "hooked" into agreeing with me. The poll he's "explaining away" by saying my wording was dishonest, even though I worded the question in that thread identically to how I worded it to him in this thread. Meanwhile, he's now changed the way he's worded the "advocates 4-year-olds subjected to abuse" thing about a dozen different way in order to make "advocate" mean what he wanted it to mean. Meanwhile, here's the post (and my response) that sparked this entire thing: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654683/threadBasically I'm saying "Eddie advocated a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor, just the ability to consent via his criteria." Because his criteria made it possible for 4-year-olds to consent to sex, rabbit has since argued some form of "Eddie advocated 4-year-olds being subject to abuse," and I've spent most of this thread (and the other thread) trying to explain to him why that's wrong. Keep in mind, both Rabbit and I agree about Eddie's criteria being a bad system and we agree on the reasons why, but this hasn't stopped him several times from accusing me of "defending Eddie's criteria" solely because I wanted to be accurate about what it was advocating and what the consequences were. But who is "Eddie"? Someone that only posted on the old IMDb? I was a relative newcomer on that board, and it closed not long after I started posting on RFS.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 21:46:22 GMT
Earlier in this thread he called phlodowin and AJ my "acolytes" because they agreed with me. He said Cash (on the old board) had been "hooked" into agreeing with me. The poll he's "explaining away" by saying my wording was dishonest, even though I worded the question in that thread identically to how I worded it to him in this thread. Meanwhile, he's now changed the way he's worded the "advocates 4-year-olds subjected to abuse" thing about a dozen different way in order to make "advocate" mean what he wanted it to mean. Meanwhile, here's the post (and my response) that sparked this entire thing: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/654683/threadBasically I'm saying "Eddie advocated a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor, just the ability to consent via his criteria." Because his criteria made it possible for 4-year-olds to consent to sex, rabbit has since argued some form of "Eddie advocated 4-year-olds being subject to abuse," and I've spent most of this thread (and the other thread) trying to explain to him why that's wrong. Keep in mind, both Rabbit and I agree about Eddie's criteria being a bad system and we agree on the reasons why, but this hasn't stopped him several times from accusing me of "defending Eddie's criteria" solely because I wanted to be accurate about what it was advocating and what the consequences were. But who is "Eddie"? Someone that only posted on the old IMDb? I was a relative newcomer on that board, and it closed not long after I started posting on RFS. Yeah, he was a poster on IMDb. You probably missed the wave of pedophile threads on the first IMDb that caused such a stir. Eddie participated by advocating a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor. This inevitably lead to many calling him (wrongly) a pedophile too. My participation came late when I started threads expressing my dismay at the horrible, emotion-based, fallacy-laced arguments being made against the pedophiles, and this also lead to rabbit trying to call me a pedophile as well. It's basically extended to this thread where my attempts at being accurate and rational are misconstrued by him as "defending" Eddie's criteria or "lacking in sympathy" or whatever.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 21:50:10 GMT
But who is "Eddie"? Someone that only posted on the old IMDb? I was a relative newcomer on that board, and it closed not long after I started posting on RFS. Yeah, he was a poster on IMDb. You probably missed the wave of pedophile threads on the first IMDb that caused such a stir. Eddie participated by advocating a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor. This inevitably lead to many calling him (wrongly) a pedophile too. My participation came late when I started threads expressing my dismay at the horrible, emotion-based, fallacy-laced arguments being made against the pedophiles, and this also lead to rabbit trying to call me a pedophile as well. It's basically extended to this thread where my attempts at being accurate and rational are misconstrued by him as "defending" Eddie's criteria or "lacking in sympathy" or whatever. All "the pedophiles" advocated a consent based approach just like EddieDeezen. Some consentency would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 22:00:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 5:47:37 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:Vapid nah's don't make for much of a response. It's not "moral outrage" to understand innately and coarsely but overwhelmingly the "rational distinctions" of the horrific of purposely subjecting 4 year-olds to adult predators to be used for sex vs. the normal-harmlessness of homosexual relationships, unless of course one is profoundly subnormal in critical ways. One doesn't "need" to delineate the minutia nor set up specific arguments of any kind for it to be head-smackingly obvious. The existence of people for whom it's not evident is disturbing to consider. Then your mention of it was pointless and absolutely twitted to boot. Your empathetic comprehension is frightening with your reading on par with it as you continually insipidly conflate outright rejection of your proffered garbage with "not understanding". Hint: In which case it's mention is still categorically useless, if I were to believe you could be that plodding. Of course it does, it mocks it. And then there's the paragraph that followed it, which you must know, since you replied to it below. I don't need arguments other than gays are grown-ass individuals with rights, nor does any reasonably unbroken person need a detailed list of arguments as to why children shouldn't be boned by adults. I don't care if that drops pellets into your cereal bowl. Only total freakshows who should be closely watched would need such "arguments". I don't care how you label it. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy Jr. felt oppressed by the "moral outrage". Same form as the outrage over denying the Trinity short of 2 millennia ago after all. There is no conceivable path, regardless of the beeping involved, to purposely having kids be subject to sex use by adults. I don't care how bad your pellet-sized moral center wants to have "arguments" for it. Once you reach "kids subject to adults for sex use" it clears the decks and marks everything that led up to it fatally, horribly flawed. You can't take one side out of an "or" clause. If he's not attracted to the underage, although I don't believe he wouldn't be given whatever parts he likes, then he's an empathy abnormal narcissist, like's going around this place. In that case he would fit the bit you put the ellipsis-foo on, and the assertion would still hold. quote arrangement on 'What other "they"s were on your shortlist?' was intentional 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? Social deficiencies abound. 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 19, 2017 8:13:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 8:15:00 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:Sorry, dude, it works the same as your brilliant "they" theory. And you remain the nutcase. "I haven't addressed this question up to this point as there are conflicting principles involved, but my opinion is that they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity. If they were to be available at all, I think under the care of a physician in some treatment plan would be the only manner I would likely find acceptable. Or perhaps if they were engendered with thoroughly nasty, bossy old termagant personalities and teeth or electric current at all of the orifices."1.) how might you posit that the experts "encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors". 2.) how might you posit that the principles of obscenity might disqualify the experts. 3.) how might the experts be provided under the care of a physician in some treatment plan, and why. 4.) ok, I can see why you'd thing the experts should be engendered with thoroughly nasty, bossy old termagant personalities and teeth or electric current at all of the orifices. Only one interpretation. In fact, after asking his "question", Bryce went on to use the correct "they" in that very reply. Just you and him pathetically trolling for "dings" in your inimitably flashy ways. And you with your bizarre compulsions to push your lunatic ideas. When you go on a tear you require staples. Having the pronoun refer to the subject of the thread instead of the subject of the post is a cumbersome style. There was agreement but the segue was poor. Happens, often enough, but still eminently parsable. As I noted above, he even answered correctly using the dolls in the rest of his reply. Nutcasery unlimited. You can hop through as many "experiments" as you're told to, I guess. "Initially confused" is meaningless as he answered to the right "they" within the same post he asked. Again, my reply of 'What other "they"s were on your shortlist?' was the perfect response to his catty reply, and "You're a raging nutcase" to yours. The complaint had to do with you being a confused enraged lunatic who after all this still doesn't know what "prove" is. And it's not your "board" of acolytes, it's a few those with your hate, those after a little payback, and those who bought into or looked no further than your thoroughly dishonest op. "Mother's choice for her own" to "adult predator's choice with trust relationship" You just use language to convey in the way you want! quote arrangement on 'What other "they"s were on your shortlist?' was intentional 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? For shame. 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 19, 2017 19:09:40 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Sorry, dude, it works the same as your brilliant "they" theory. And you remain the nutcase. "I haven't addressed this question up to this point as there are conflicting principles involved, but my opinion is that they are disqualified both by the assumption that they encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors, and secondly under the principles of obscenity. If they were to be available at all, I think under the care of a physician in some treatment plan would be the only manner I would likely find acceptable. Or perhaps if they were engendered with thoroughly nasty, bossy old termagant personalities and teeth or electric current at all of the orifices."1.) how might you posit that the experts "encourage a horrific pathology and by extension facilitate harm to minors". 2.) how might you posit that the principles of obscenity might disqualify the experts. 3.) how might the experts be provided under the care of a physician in some treatment plan, and why. 4.) ok, I can see why you'd thing the experts should be engendered with thoroughly nasty, bossy old termagant personalities and teeth or electric current at all of the orifices. Only one interpretation. In fact, after asking his "question", Bryce went on to use the correct "they" in that very reply. Just you and him pathetically trolling for "dings" in your inimitably flashy ways. And you with your bizarre compulsions to push your lunatic ideas. When you go on a tear you require staples. I already answered all your questions in one of my very first responses on the issue. I said explicitly that "Up until the 'facilitate harm to minors' it seems like your're referring to the experts.... When your response to a question about what makes experts qualified begins with 'they are disqualified,' it very much seems like you're referring to the experts. It was only once I got to the 'facilitate harm to minors' did I suspect you actually meant the sex-dolls..." Having the pronoun refer to the subject of the thread instead of the subject of the post is a cumbersome style. I'll add "cumbersome" to the list of words rabbit doesn't understand. And it's not your "board" of acolytes, it's a few those with your hate, those after a little payback, and those who bought into or looked no further than your thoroughly dishonest op. Look at the voting in the poll on the question that I phrased identically to how I phrased it to you. Now you're just trying to spin it into being dishonest, even though your reason is blatantly dishonest as I've proven with, again, how I phrased it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:10:01 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. general313 said: Nope, most of those guys were just deceived. "Mother's choice" as to "predator's choice" was purposely left out. What rabbit is purposefully leaving out is that "mother's choice" was purposefully left out when I asked him the question here. I even directly asked him "is leaving out the 'mother's choice' aspect a misrepresentation of what's being advocated?" and he said: " it is only misrepresentation in the Arlonsphere." Yet now he's trying to pretend as if me leaving out the "mother's choice" in the poll is dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:10:46 GMT
Just as your vapid accusations don't make for any evidence of their truthfulness. This is painfully close to Vegas's "sometimes you just know" arguments. Seriously, human history should've taught us well enough by now that, no, humans are not good at innately knowing anything, no matter how convinced they think they are of it. You can sit here and say there's no "need to delineate the minutia nor set up specific arguments," but, again, that's same kind of rhetoric that's been offered for why women shouldn't vote, blacks should be segregated, and (wo)men shouldn't marry/have sex with (wo)men. The people on the other sides of those arguments ALWAYS think they "innately and coarsely but overwhelmingly" know the righteousness of their position. For you to prove that you're any different, you HAVE to "delineate the minutiae and set up specific arguments." That's how ethics works. And for the umpteenth time, saying that in no way suggests that there is "any conceivable path to pedophilia," but you can not prove that with these "you just know" arguments. You didn't "reject" anything; you accused me of suggesting something I didn't suggest. You could only do this if you didn't understand what I said. You keep telling yourself that (and no, I don't care that elided your "except." You simply don't have any real arguments.). It's not how I label it, as if I invented those words and their meanings, it's what it is by virtue of it falling under the category of said labels. Again, basic words and their meanings are tripping you up. You're so blinded by your outrage you can't even get a basic definition right because it doesn't fit your narrative. Or he's someone who feels the virtue of sexual freedom outweighs the consequence of child abuse. Look, every freedom you endorse carries with it consequences that mean plenty of people of all ages getting hurt, abused, injured, or even killed. FilmFlaneur offered you a perfect example in the other thread of highways and the consequences that the freedom to drive carries with it. How many innocent people die from drinking-related accidents each year, and yet we still maintain the freedom to drink? How many people die from some kind of gun violence each year, yet we still maintain the freedom to bear arms? Are you "empathy impaired" if in each instance you value the freedom even while knowing that others suffer and die because of the consequences related to that freedom? Now, it's perfectly fine to say that on almost any issue that you feel the consequences outweigh the value of the freedom. When it comes to Eddie's consent-criteria, we both agree the consequences outweigh the virtues of the freedom. But, again, you're not happy with leaving it there. You take it farther by trying to pretend the virtues don't exist. You try to pretend as if the consequences are what's being advocated instead of the virtues. You do this now even after you have an entire thread of people explaining to you why you're wrong. It's all of this "extra" you do that shows how blinded you are by moral outrage that you aren't making rational distinctions and are even being blatantly dishonest and frequently outright lying.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:10:58 GMT
Yeah, he was a poster on IMDb. You probably missed the wave of pedophile threads on the first IMDb that caused such a stir. Eddie participated by advocating a consent-only system for sex where age wasn't a factor. This inevitably lead to many calling him (wrongly) a pedophile too. My participation came late when I started threads expressing my dismay at the horrible, emotion-based, fallacy-laced arguments being made against the pedophiles, and this also lead to rabbit trying to call me a pedophile as well. It's basically extended to this thread where my attempts at being accurate and rational are misconstrued by him as "defending" Eddie's criteria or "lacking in sympathy" or whatever. All "the pedophiles" advocated a consent based approach just like EddieDeezen. Some consentency would be nice. TBH, I don't remember much of what "the pedophiles" were arguing anyway since my participation mostly started out of my dismay for the bad arguments against them. The only reason Eddie's stuck in my mind was because we had had discussions on other subjects prior to the pedthreads (lol) and I had encountered his "consent" criteria as he thought it applied to other subjects, so when he was advocating nearly the same thing in those threads I knew where he was coming from because of my prior familiarity.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:35:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:37:54 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I'm not the one that says you have to "debate" pros/cons of making 4 year-olds available to predator adults for sex. I never said you "have" to debate anything. You chose to debate it and debated it badly. You don't recognize this because you are completely ignorant of philosophy and logic.
|
|