OT: Child sex robots

^ Another "link to post I already responded to as if I haven't responded to it" tic.

^ More fruity loops. "Follow your nose, it always knows!"

Quoted for truth.

In my opinion, people who use arguments like "for normal people", "blatantly obvious", "common sense", or declare people who disagree with them "subnormal" or "lacking basic human qualities", are either narrow-minded, intellectually challenged and tend to see things in black or white; or they are wannabe fascists who want to dictate what and how other people should think.

With cupcakes I hope it's only the former.

Just for the record... Most of my "sometimes you just know" arguments are premised on the person thoroughly examining evidence or having years of experience in dealing with the subject...  

I don't usually argue that we "innately" know anything.



Just for the record...

Eva Yojimbo said:At least you know about your "nah's" & accusations.  

At least Vegas is not like Lecter.    And I know, like your Christian counterparts,  you want to compare it to that of homosexuality.  Like you, when they get an absurd result, they do not know to throw out the path that got them there.   But that people believe your particular delusion somehow manages to be even more disturbing.

And for however many times I've replied+1; if you want me to reply to something I've said, you need to show it in context.   Let me field something.  Since ultimately it's based on values, and since not letting the freakshows legally get their hands on the 4 year-olds is the value that trumps them all by leagues, given this axiom there is absolutely no reason to debate those favoring such enormities in any way other than pointing out their disturbed narcissistic state, and highlighting their attempts to deny specific ramifications via general-speak and obtuse discussions of pros/cons, regardless of your frequent demands to the contrary.  It primarily should just be pointed out as the sick work it is.


More nah's.  I'm going to petty much skip them from here unless I feel like lobbing one back for a particular hiss of yours.  If there's something you think I skip unfairly, feel free to refile in the next reply.  


Whether you're talking about deez or yourself in the third (I ain't going to look back), I know it's believed, and believed that it's reasonable for someone to make that valuation.  Both of which are quite disturbing attitudes and indicate troubling deficiencies in sense, specifically empathetic, generally social and otherwise.  

As for the auto for example, if someone was advocating people choosing to drink & drive, then that would be rejected as the sexual freedom to abuse 4 year-olds.  Nobody's advocating that people have a choice to commit vehicular homicide, either.  One is seriously broken if they advocate that adults can choose to sexually abuse 4 year old's, regardless of any "value".

You can dishonestly, conveniently ignore intentionality for as long as you wish.

I don't pretend the virtues don't exist.  The are just not, and could not ever be significant in this case, regardless of your "understanding".  And every time you bring up your op, I know you're just bullhorning, because I also know you know that with the mother's choice removed, your specific deceptive move, the is no real analogy.  

And you complaining about "dishonest" as you started out the gate with, is just the deficiency icing on the pedophile cake. 

---

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.

---

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

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 got that right beeps.    Occasionally I'll throw in a BOOyah or two to complement clicks & whirs.

---

Rejecting out of hand the idea of adults having sex with 4 year-olds is simply moral outrage much like the puritanical/emotional outrage against homosexuality.

---

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

Eva Yojimbo said:  Much like all of your 'HERE's fro things I already responded to. 

---

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.

---

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

I'm guessing if you polled this board they'd unanimously say that Vegas has shown a far greater lack of sympathy, empathy, and sensitivity on issues than I have. I don't know why you're saying "Christian counterparts" as I'm not a Christian, and the only comparison I made (again) was in the form the outrage takes, not on whether it was right or wrong in either case. They got an "absurd result" by having their moral outrage countered with rational arguments; you think you don't need rational arguments when you just know you're right via your moral outrage, which is precisely what they think. 

I don't know what you're talking about RE you responding to something you said in context. What of yours did I take out of context that you think I want you to respond to? 

Like I said, it's perfectly legitimate for you to say "the negative consequence of adults being able to legally abuse 4-year-olds far outweighs the value of anyone being able to have sex if they consent, so I reject that position." Not only is it legitimate, it's what both you and I agree on. Where we disagree entirely is in your method of going about this, where you've tried to distort what the position is and conflate what's being advocated with the consequences while denying the very obvious virtues it offers in sexual freedom for everyone; And it is FOR EVERYONE, not just the freakshows. There are just as many (if not a helluva lot more) 16-year-olds out there who are perfectly capable of consenting and could legally under Eddie's criteria; but you refuse to mention THEM because it would make it appear as if, indeed, the position has any virtues at all; and you can't allow that in your world of black-and-white morality. 

I don't even know what the "more nah's" are in reference to there. Typically you've accused me of "nah"ing when you've made baseless claims about me, in which case the burden would be on you to support what you said. 

I'm talking about Eddie. As far as it being reasonable, reason has limited use in ethical evaluations because ethical evaluations not about factual matters but about how we feel about factual matters. You can't purely reason your way to morality (see the "is-ought problem," which I referenced way back on IMDb as being highly relevant to these discussions and those like them). 

Do you seriously think I was limiting the consequences of having highways to the illegal things that happen on them? You do realize that having them means that kids playing ball can run out in the street and get killed through THEIR negligence, not any illegality on the part of the motorist, right? Yet according to your "advocate the right, advocate the consequence," someone who advocates the right to have/drive on highways is advocating that kids get killed by motorists driving on it, and in doing so are profoundly lacking in empathy. 

Why do you think I made the statement so general? Every freedom carries with it consequences, not all of them illegal, that will lead to the injuries, harm, deaths, etc. of many, many, many people of all ages. In every single case, what we do is decide whether the virtues of the freedom outweigh these inevitable consequences. In doing this, it doesn't mean we're advocating the consequences in any shape or form, and it doesn't mean we have some "empathy hole" either. Again, the whole "empathy hole" is the spin that pro-lifers try to put on pro-choicers, that they are callous murderers who don't care about the life of unborn babies. When it comes to Eddie's criteria, you simply can't unlock your pitbull-like mind-jaw from the notion that 4-year-olds will get abused to understand that its not THAT that's being advocated. Hell, Eddie would even say that, by definition, it can't be abuse if its consensual. You might say in response that children can't consent, so it would be abuse; and when he asks you to prove that, what facts are you going to respond with? Facts. Not moral outrage. Facts. 

You spent a whole damn thread ignoring the virtues, not mentioning them once, and pretending as if it was the consequence rather than the virtues that were being advocated.   

LOL, for the millionth time, I intentionally removed the mother's choice, and when I first phrased it to you I specifically said that the mother's choice was removed and asked you if doing so was dishonest. You said it wasn't. You only started saying it was dishonest AFTER I posted the poll. Now you seem to be saying that you only said that because you weren't really paying attention to what I said. Amazing how you can not pay attention to what someone's saying yet have the gall to try to call them dishonest and a liar. Sadly for you, I pay very careful attention to what you say, which is why I've been so ready with quotes to support my claims when I say you said something. 

I didn't ask any questions so you did not and could not have answered them. There was no "confusion" on my part as to how to read sentences; again, I was explaining someone else's confusion to you. Your pronoun misuse created the confusion, no matter how much you want to insist that "reading whole sentence makes it clear." Again, I'm more than happy to copy OP, copy Bryce's comment and your response and see if the board thinks your "they" is confusing. Just say the word. 

25 have voted "pro-choice, disagree;" and 3 have voted for each of the other options. So if you just consider the pro-choicers, it's 25:3, and if you consider everyone it's 28:6. 

And you can keep calling it dishonest until the cows come home. I phrased it as I originally phrased it to you. The reason you think it was dishonest is nonsense because I had already asked you if leaving out the mother's choice was dishonest and you said no. You only changed your tune AFTER the vote.