|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 20:38:27 GMT
tpfkar You've done everything possible to try to pretend the criteria are not horrific and have gone to great idiocies to defend it. There has been no "pretending" and the only "defending" I've done has been to accurately state what it is. I condemn it for the same reasons you do, but because I won't imitate your reactionary moral outrage (precisely because I've seen it too often in cases where those being "outraged" were morally wrong), you warp this into me "defending" it. You said this: "the misrepresentation is in the shift to talk of some generalized "consent-based approach" as opposed to his specific stated ideas. " The only "talk of some generalized consent-based approach" was in the categorizing Eddie's approach as a consent-based approach. So when I asked: "How is it a misrepresentation to call his specific stated ideas a "consent-based approach?"" you didn't really offer an answer other than to repeat your notion that any approach that made 4-year-olds available for sex would be reprehensible. So I then pressed you about what distinction you were originally trying to make between "general consent-based approach" and Eddie's and you said: "The specifics he advocates open a/the bulk of 4 year-olds to being sexually abused. A general "consent approach" doesn't take that step
" at which point I pressed you to argue for the latter by naming any consent approach that wouldn't, and you failed to support the assertion. So do you mind telling me where in this exchange was the lie? Yes, because everything in life is black-and-white. It doesn't follow. For them to be subject for abuse they would have to meet said criteria, and said criteria can only be met by parents or predators teaching them about sex, and by them agreeing to do it. This would not happen to the bulk of 4-year-olds. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:07:40 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 yet there have, and you have. No sh!t. As nailed down repeatedly in situ, deezen's approach is not some generalized consent approach, and I had no interest in any generalized or specific implementation other than his specific criteria. So keep rattling away with the nonsense. I can only guess your braincase is filled with petroleum jelly. A generalized approach doesn't deal with specific implementable criteria, it would need to be made specific; I didn't and don't care about any generalized approach, only deezen's specific criteria; I made no assertion of any other specific consent-based approach and your request for one, like so much of your output, was diverting irrelevance. Just about every one of your posts, but if you want to explore some directly, go back to where the potency of your hash was repeatedly pointed out. I don't think his criteria are "everything in life". Are you feeling a little hopped up or something? It follows inescapably. I'm thinking it could likely happen similarly to you.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 21:37:59 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 yet there have, and you have. You need to stop eliding words: "there have" what, and "I have" what? If it's "pretending" and "defending" then you're lying again. Nobody ever used the term "generalized consent approach" until you mentioned it. Before then the only talk of "consent approach" was in the categorizing of Eddie's position as one, and in discussing it. Categorizing something specific into a general category and then discussing the category isn't conflating the general category with the specific thing or misrepresenting it. The only reason calling Eddie's position a "consent-approach" would be a "misrepresentation" (your word) is if it didn't qualify for the categorization. You never specified why it didn't qualify. Any generalized approach would have some criteria that would apply to all specific instances or else it couldn't be generalized. When you say that the generalized approach doesn't subject the bulk of 4-year-olds to abuse, this would mean that there is/are some specific instance(s) which do not, and I asked you to name one, and you could not. So you failed to support your assertion. So you can't support your claim that I lied. Figures. I can't figure out what you mean here. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 21:57:11 GMT
tpfkar tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:1. You have said his criteria is not advocating the subjecting of 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults, 2. and have pushed that because they haven't already been pregroomed and not previously, 3. and made all manner of attempts to divert from his actual criteria. 4. All the way back to where you first started trying to pretend that "advocating for a consent-based approach" somehow cleansed his specific criteria, 5. up to this point where you babbled quibbles about not advocating the cons of a system with pros and cons that you advocate. 1. Correct. 2. Incorrect. I explained why I "pushed that" in the post where I explained what advocacy means. To restate: advocating for a position doesn't mean advocating for its negative consequences, and claiming it does is the misrepresentation. Our discussion of 4-year-olds being abused under Eddie's criteria stemmed for your assertion that "the bulk" of 4-year-olds would be subject to abuse. I said that was only the case in theory, but not in actuality where most 4-year-olds don't know about sex. 3. I haven't tried to divert from anything. The reason I don't see the point of discussing his actual criteria is because we agree it's bad and we agree on why it's bad. The issue, from the very beginning, was in my claim that calling it "advocating for sex with 4-year-olds" was a misrepresenation, and your claim that calling it a "consent-based approach" was a misrepresentation. THAT'S what our disagreement is about, not his actual criteria. 4. I never pretended that. That's pure fab-rabbit-ication. 5. I know you think using language correctly is "quibbling" whenever it's been shown your usage is incorrect. For fuck's sake, the predator's rights were not being compared to the mother's rights; if anything, the comparison would be to the rights of anyone of any age to have sex if they understood and consented; but no surprise you completely mangled the analogy. You're the one lying about what I'm supporting. No I didn't. Another lie. What I denied was your claim that in actuality it would be a consequence for "the bulk" (your term) of 4-year-olds. I'm not, and have made that repeatedly and abundantly clear. That you keep suggesting I am after I've made it repeatedly and abundantly clear is, again, more evidence of your abject dishonesty. "al" is not a word, you missed the closed quote (probably supposed to go after "baby!"?), and I can't figure out what you're trying to say with the bolded part. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 21:57:37 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:  You need to commune with Arlon. You can figure it out in context, big boy. If not, I don't care. And you're again a lying liar. If deezen's is a specific consent approach, then it must share something will all consent-based approaches. I still don't care about what does or does not qualify any particular or general approach save deezen's specific criteria, nor have I even suggested that his does not qualify as a specific instance of a consent-based approach. You're just gibbering because you know you're full of the pedo sh!t. You mental. If it encompasses consent approaches then it cannot specify incompatible implementations, like deezen's that advocates 4 year-olds being made available to predator adults for sex at the same time as one that specified basic social knowledge in addition to reams of being to recite reams of theory obtained at armchair. So you're up-is-down mental.  Maybe when they are relating deezen's criterial one hour of kindergarten-level time they'll explain this as well.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 22:12:07 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. Eva Yojimbo said:I didn't write that eva-gal. But since I'm feeling charitable, my 1. is correct, my 2 is correct, and my 3, 4, and 5, is correct. Hope that helps. How's the rabbit-go-round that you brightly left going? Oh for kidf!ck's sake, of course you'll frame 4 year-olds available as freedom for the poor sex-starved rippables. You're the one lying about me lying about what you're supporting. Yes you did! Another drippy lie from you. I don't have to repeat the "a/the bulk" each time. And you're free to quibble about what "subejct to", and made available for" means in pedgasm world. Them you should learn to write better, especially dem pronouns. Typo-hunt baby! The dive of the melting! Or is it weeping? Seeping? And I believe you, really promise. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 15, 2017 22:38:46 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:I didn't write that eva-gal. But since I'm feeling charitable, my 1. is correct, my 2 is correct, and my 3, 4, and 5, is correct. Hope that helps. The only thing of that you didn't write were the numbers, which I supplied. The only thing correct was your 1. The rest were wrong; but keep insisting otherwise and avoiding my arguments as to why they're wrong. This isn't a "framing." There are typically consequences for any freedoms. To deny either the freedom or the consequence is what's dishonest; I'm not denying either, you are because it helps your appeal to reactionary outrage. Then show where I've supported Eddie's criteria. So go ahead: show where I denied that predators having sex with 4-year-olds was not a likely consequence of Eddie's criteria. Go ahead. I'll wait. In the meantime, what you'll actually find (if you bother to read any of this discussion) was that the only thing I denied is that it would be a consequence for "a/the" (whatever the hell you think that's supposed mean) bulk of 4-year-olds. Yeah, because when I said: "we're both basically in agreement that the consent-only approach is wrong and we agree on the reason why," it was really ambiguous as to whether or not I was supporting Eddie's consent-only approach. It wasn't a "hunt;" the sentence doesn't make sense with the typo, and if you meant "all" instead of "al" then it still doesn't make sense. Edit: Finally figured out you probably meant "as." How you mistype "l" for "s" is odd given they're on opposite ends of the keyboard. Anyway, now that I understand what that means: you're lying again, as I've never, ever, ever, not for even a millisecond, been in that "camp." The idea that I ever was has been completely fabricated in your sub-grade-school reading level brain because you can't understand the difference between the attempt to correctly identify what an argument is and the acceptance of that argument. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 15, 2017 22:39:27 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:That's two different things. But as I've linguistically (in speech, writing, signing, etc.) restated it to you so many times (damn, you guys are persistent), I did not object to nor care about you classifying deezens's fantasy as consent-based. I just didn't care either about your diverting ramblings on them, only that his specific criteria subjected a/the bulk of 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by old skeeves.  Oh, I do know how you struggle not to.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 2:22:41 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:It'll be ok evagal. Maybe create some callout threads to beg the board. Dodge noted. Speaking of a unrepentant liar: you have yet to support that I ever stated what you claim I stated in bold. You stupidly confuse me denying your "a/the bulk of" 4-year-olds with "any 4-year-olds." What's more, we've been disagreeing over what you called my "misrepresentation" concerning Eddie's position since page 10. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 2:39:08 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: Flip to the next page of your Big Book Of Insipid Internet Comebacks. Let me rephrase my last colorful entry in the more precise form it has taken so many times heretofore, unrepentant meaninglessness-wrangler. That deezen's pedo fantasy is not advocacy of subjecting the 4 year-olds to old lech rape.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 4:03:32 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'll just let you and the Irish pedo keep grossly misusing ones you've copped from everybody. Sure, and I've explained peppered multiple times in this thread why your "explanation" is utter tripe. I don't care that you absurdly cavil-down that advocating a system that subjects a/the bulk of 4-year olds to sexual use by the surprisingly prevalent predators isn't advocating that a/the bulk of 4-year olds be subject to sexual use by the surprisingly prevalent predators. If I did I'm sure I'd be more nauseated.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 4:10:45 GMT
tpfkar Sure, and I've explained peppered multiple times in this thread why your "explanation" is utter tripe. Where have you explained it? The sheer "bulk" of your posting shows otherwise. You can continue to misrepresent the approach by framing it in terms of advocating its negative consequences all you want. It won't make it any less intellectually dishonest just because you feel all warmly and fuzzily morally righteous inside. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 4:11:26 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: Keep fantasizing, bother. It's kept you in the go-round this far (with the exception of periodic precious exits, of course). Right. The kids get the "freedom" speaking of Arlon meanings, to get boned by old leches, and rejecting that is just "reactionary outrage". And nothing has been "denied". Just the relative "freedoms" and ass-ripping "consequences", and your typo-hunting self, openly mocked. Ok, great. Deezen's criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. This was over first post then! Only via your ludicrous apologetic "they don't count as subject if they're not pre-educated/pre-groomed" with the simple requirements of the criteria. Sure, after how many days and posts all spent lying, diverting and obfuscating. I believe you, really promise. Well then, great job in pointing out the "al" in "but al long as you can have 4 year olds fulfill this criteria that any normal 4 year-old could do" was impossible to trivially read-through as, wait for it, "as". I do appreciate your sincerity. I suppose I really shouldn't joke about what is trivial for sound peeps. 
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 5:19:11 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:Multiple times in the thread. If you ask me again, I'll explain it again for ya again. It's an idiom, beep-dude. It means that "I unreservedly dismiss your driveling poppycock", not that I don't care to reply, which I've made very plain to you that I'll do long past the very end. I'm quite happy pointing out your bullshi!t and seeing the apesh!it come out of you. Oh crap (npi), you're a chimera! (pi) At least alimentarily.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 5:42:26 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You're right, there is absolutely zero value for the 4-year-old (and much older) f!ckers to have the "freedom" to rip the holes, however angy that makes you. Again you conflate the consequence with the freedom. I guess you really are that stupid. If you can't show where I've supported it then you also have no evidence of any "empathy hole." The issue is not whether it would hypothetically be easy for 4-year-olds. The issue is whether in actual reality "a/the bulk" of 4-year-olds are going to know about sex in order to be able to consent. You have not given one shred of evidence nor argument that would suggest this would be the case. I don't know why "finally" is in scare quotes, but I edited my initial post and noted when I figured it out. Amazing how you can't even take responsibility for not making sense when you blatantly obviously didn't make sense because of a typo. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 9:14:51 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:You be so whack! Freedom for some is consequence for others. I guess you really are that invested. And that really hurt, Cody. Ifs, buts, candies, nuts. Equally, it's either that or savagely defending it is what it is. The veneer of clinicality (that might actually be clinicalness) totes makes the pedo a-ok though.  As I've stated many many times, the assertion that they need have ahead of time completed this simple criteria clearing in order to be considered subject is pure pedo fantasyland and is of course evidence of a "hole". They're bullsh!t quotes. And I'm coming to believe that it might really have stopped you cold. Pinky promise.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 22:05:11 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:Oodabbadabbay.  Could you spew any more? You said he didn't advocate making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. I said he did (a/the bulk). My evidence was his explicit criteria with the specific results. I don't know how you can keep this pretense going! You're nutty. Either his specific criteria makes 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults, or it does not. What context are you suggesting would alter his specific explicit rules? You said he did not advocate making 4 year-olds subject to sexual abuse from predator adults. I said he did. My evidence was his specific criteria. Are you now saying he does if we do simply look at his actual rules?
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 17, 2017 19:09:58 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:The bulk of it evagal pursuing obfuscatory firehouses of irrelevancy. But watch out as that second sentence may confuse the hell out of Bryce. Lunch time.
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 19:12:34 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:The bulk of it rabbitguy refusing to admit gradeschool grammar/semantic mistakes and why they illustrate the near-impossibility of fruitful discussion with him. FIFY |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 21:30:23 GMT
Fine, I'll oblige and respond to the whole damn thing again Going back to my first post, all I said was Eddie argued for a consent-based approach to sex that didn't specifically mention 4-year-olds. When Saorodh responding saying that 4-year-olds could have sex under his criteria (and would thus be subject to sexual abuse from predators), I immediately agreed. So nowhere did I ever deny that with his criteria 4-year-olds would be "subject to sexual abuse from predators." The "didn't advocate..." thing happened later and I already explained what advocation means when it comes you issues. We already agreed to disagree on that. See, this is why I insult your reading comprehension. What I'm saying here is that YOU diverted the topic because the "assertion" you quoted (and supposedly disagreed with) was about classifying Eddie's position, and you apparently mistook that for me disagreeing with the idea that 4-year-olds would be subject to sexual abuse, which is something I had already admitted before you even responded to me. So your response about the specific criteria and what it meant was a "diversion" because, one, it didn't address what my original post was actually about and, two, what you wanted to address I had already addressed. |
|
