|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 25, 2017 11:16:56 GMT
Are you suggesting that for him to post that unqualified laypeople should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus that adult/minor sex is harmful and somehow weigh any contrary studies against that consensus is not defending adult/minor sex? Yes. It is most certainly both defending and promoting it. You advocated that parents should be able to kill their toddlers up to 18 months of age at their discretion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 18:10:49 GMT
I think that people suffering from pedophilia would benefit a lot more from therapy or talk to people who have the same issues, or any other way that would put them in a situation with certain people who won't judge them for their problem. I think they just need to know they can be accepted in society despite their problem, and support would help them stop. These robots are more used for an escape for their problem and not really a way to actually confront the problem or fix the problem. They may not do harm but they definitely won't do any good for anyone either. I'm sure people who have these robots wouldn't openly tell anyone they have them either. They most likely wouldn't want people to judge them but they are not helping themselves and are actually burying the issue by having them. I'm sure that would make them feel even more isolated.
Shouldnt people stop sexual urges by focusing on something else to get their minds off of sex in general? You're not burying the issue if you found other things in life that are much more fulfilling.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 18:43:47 GMT
It is most certainly both defending and promoting it. No it's not. This is better English than the sentence I replied to in my previous post; but it still reflects poorly on your language skills. And it still has nothing to do with child sex robots.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 25, 2017 19:03:50 GMT
It is most certainly both defending and promoting it. No it's not. Of course suggesting that unqualified lay people should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus on it and somehow weigh any potentially contrary studies against it, even when he has posted that he, himself hasn't undertaken said research - not that any lay person is qualified to the task - is both defending and promoting the idea of adult/minor sexual relations. Not to mention suggesting problems with the profession while simultaneously noting he really has no idea about it within the profession. It's similar to what ErJen does with his "issues". I am prostrate before your most excellent typo-hunting and grammar-criticism skills. Different abuse of kids. And it has everything to do with defense/promotion and your dog in that hunt.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 25, 2017 19:48:24 GMT
Of course suggesting that unqualified lay people should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus on it and somehow weigh any potentially contrary studies against it, even when he has posted that he, himself hasn't undertaken said research - not that any lay person is qualified to the task - is both defending and promoting the idea of adult/minor sexual relations. Mentioning studies and professional opinions without even mentioning adult/minor sexual relations is not defending or promoting adult/minor sexual relations. Unless you are using a language where words from the English language are used but mean something different. Given your linguistic abilities, I consider that a possibility. I don't have a dog in that hunt. And since when is using child sex robots "abuse of kids"? Are robots alive? Can they feel pain?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 25, 2017 20:54:50 GMT
Of course suggesting that unqualified lay people should "research" and "challenge" the mainline professional expert consensus on it and somehow weigh any potentially contrary studies against it, even when he has posted that he, himself hasn't undertaken said research - not that any lay person is qualified to the task - is both defending and promoting the idea of adult/minor sexual relations. Mentioning studies and professional opinions without even mentioning adult/minor sexual relations is not defending or promoting adult/minor sexual relations. Unless you are using a language where words from the English language are used but mean something different. Given your linguistic abilities, I consider that a possibility. If that was all that he did. Of course adult/child sex was covered specifically, and further how the expert consensus view of the harm of it should be challenged by lay "research". And I do understand silly personal attacks are you guys' go-to in pinches. You advocated parents having their up to 18 month-old toddlers killed at their discretion. Adult/child sex, the subject to which I was replying, is abuse of kids. Much as your toddler termination plan is to the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 27, 2017 21:41:24 GMT
Let me offer another example of the latter. I know we got into about quantum physics once upon a time to and you also appealed to expert consensus. The major thing I tried to explain to you is that within quantum physics there were two very different kinds of experts: experimental physicists, who used the basic formulations for pragmatic purposes (like engineering); and theoretical physicists, who were still trying to "explain" what quantum physics really meant and if there was some more general theory that could explain it better. When it came to the former, the vast majority were not even informed of much theoretical work, and were not even taught ideas like "many-worlds" or "Schrodinger's Cat" because, to paraphrase physicist Matthew Rave, those were philosophical concepts and not relevant to the work of a practicing physicist. So even though you could consider both experimental and theoretical physicists experts on quantum mechanics, they had very different kinds of expertise, and the former were often quite ignorant when it came to the philosophy behind the concept of something like many-worlds. Given that, it wouldn't really be fair to speak of a generalized "expert consensus" on many-worlds, because some quantum physicists would've been entirely ignorant of the relevant information about it. I think you are remembering inaccurately, as the only thing you and I really "got into" over quantum physics was your statement that you believed in many worlds and the multiverse with Occam's Razor as the best evidence for it. And perhaps your overstatement of consensus among theoretical physicists regarding MWI. Not all fields are in the same state, with theoretical physics regarding QM interpretations currently being particularly tumultuous. I've never been one to guess on the theoretical edges of QM where heavy research is still ongoing and verification lags far behind even where it is practical/possible. I will however accept their consensus conclusions as they happen. But then this situation does not translate well to many, if any other fields. In any case, I don't believe physicists, theoretical or otherwise, have promulgated information on MWI that we should apply directly in our lives. If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
|
|