|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 22:55:05 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:Why don't you word it as "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers".  I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 17, 2017 22:56:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 22:57:14 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:Why don't you word it as "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers". |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:03:46 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:Sure, by why don't you word it so it matches what you're really arguing. I'm perfectly willing to clarify my abortion wording to "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers" to match the real question at hand.  I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
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 23:14:05 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Sure, by why don't you word it so it matches what you're really arguing. I'm perfectly willing to clarify my abortion wording to "advocate fetuses being subject to abortion by their mothers" to match the real question at hand. Because it DOES match the point I was really arguing. If you actually go back to the other thread and go back to the very first post I responded to (and that you responded to me responding to), perhaps you'd understand that. And that's not "clarifying your wording." The entire point I was making is that the two different "wordings" mean very different things. You may notice I said the same thing in the other thread multiple times, including in response to your very first response to me. This is all a big honking clue as to what I was arguing in the first place that you utterly failed to grasp (reading comprehension again). And finally, nobody who is pro-choice anyway would say "I'm advocating for subjecting fetuses to abortion." What they're advocating for (and what everyone in this thread is telling you) is the right of the mother to choose; just as what Eddie was advocating was a consent-only approach to sex. "Subjecting fetuses to being aborted" and "subjecting 4-year-olds to sexual abuse" are both consequences of what's being advocated. I was really hoping that other people in this thread using "advocate" correctly might enlighten you to correct usage of the word. You're still being stubborn about it, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:20:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 17, 2017 23:24:36 GMT
^ Here's a helpful tip, rabbit: reload and check a thread to see if someone has responded (preferably after a reasonable amount of time) before repeating a question or linking to a post you think they haven't responded to yet. It will save a lot of hassle.
Anyway, I'm probably done for the night. Hopefully you can find some other poor sods to entertain you.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:39:54 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:No, my silly brother. You'll wait and deal with it as it comes. I'll get to every single one of your posts at my leisure and pleasure. And you having "responded" is in no way indicative of successfully answered, nor even partially or sensibly addressed, my silly silly brother, *snort-prove-snort*. Are you feeling hassled? I'm having a good time. This dishonest thread of yours is a great on the record reveal and gift from you. Be sure to catch up in the morning, if you can hold off the go-round that long. [beep-wink] I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 17, 2017 23:47:06 GMT
One reason I disagree with the thread title is that the word "for" makes sound like we didn't pass 9th grade English.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 23:59:38 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:So you've been agreeing that deezen advocates subjecting 4 year-olds (a/the bulk) to sexual use by adults? Who knew about 26 1/2 pages were for naught! Uh-oh, crazy deja vu... What <deezen/Pro-choicer> is advocating for is <adults/mothers> to be able to legally <bone 4 year-olds/abort fetuses>. What deezen's advocating is for specific criteria that allow adults with trust access to legally bone virtually any normal/healthy 4 year-old. The eve's still diverting, and using dishonest poll op's to do it. I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 18, 2017 2:39:02 GMT
I think there are very few (if any) posters here that would agree with the notion that Eva is dishonest. His integrity, thoroughness and helpfulness is quite exemplary, not to mention his (apparently largely self-taught) knowlege.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 3:05:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 4:59:06 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:  Like "nobody saying" in the nuke zone of abortion is related to what's actually happening.  right of the mother to choose == right to terminate pregnancy, right to use deezen's criteria == right for adult predators to sexually abuse 4 year-olds Advocates the "legal right of the mother to choose (to terminate a pregnancy if fetus age and certain other criteria are met)" like advocates the "legal right of an adult with trust access to choose (to have sex with a 4 year-old if criteria that are trivially easy for normal 4 year-olds to meet are met)" == advocates "subjecting a/the bulk of 4 year-olds to sex abuse by adult predators".Substitute "exposes" if you don't like "subjects". If you need it, 4 year-olds that can trivially meet requirements == a/the bulk of 4 year-olds. Yes they are, and whether you want to purposefully shade the language or not, pro-choicers advocate "subjecting fetuses to being aborted" much as pedophiles (some) advocate "subjecting 4-year-olds to sexual abuse". Still down to: "deezen advocates a system in which a/the bulk of 5 year-olds are subject to sex abuse by adult predators"
"deezen advocates a/the bulk of 4 year-olds be subject to sex abuse by adult predators"  You should have stuck to fit mania, grammar insanity, typo hunting (armchair physician heal thyself), juvenile epithets and insipid overused meme jabs. I utterly refuse to respond to rabbit in this thread.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 18, 2017 6:28:46 GMT
Pro-choice, disagree.
First, as others already said, "killing unborn babies" is a loaded term used by anti-choicers.
Second, even if we replaced it by more neutral vocabulary, like "pro-choicers advocate for the termination of pregnancies", I would still disagree.
Abortions, like all medical procedures, are not inherently good. They could go wrong, the mother could die, or suffer other long-term consequences. To use a sentence I read from a pro-choicer: Every abortion is one too many.
So why am I pro-choice? Because I believe that the alternative (outlawing abortions) is worse. The risk of women dying during childbirth is bigger than the risk of dying during an abortion (I believe). A child born when the parents aren't willing or able to care for it (which is the main reason why abortions happen) has little chances of living a happy life.
In a perfect world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. But the world is not perfect. And in my opinion a world where abortions are legal is a better world than a world where abortions are illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 8:26:10 GMT
Pro-choice and disagree. I don't 'advocate' abortion any more than I 'advocate' leg amputations. Also 'killing babies' sounds an emotionally loaded term, which could suggest disapproval more than neutral terminology would (but guess that is part of the point).
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jul 18, 2017 9:06:41 GMT
The question is way too simplistic. Firstly, as others point out, it should be "advocate for the right to killunborn babies". Secondly, even that is a blanket declaration. I consider myself pro-choice, but support existing laws that disallow abortions beyond a maximum term except under exceptional circumstances. And when it comes to selective abortions - e.g. getting a termination because the foetus is a girl and you want a boy - I'm as anti-choice as you can get.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 10:50:00 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. FilmFlaneur said:If you advocate a system where people with gangrene can choose to get leg amputations, do you advocate that people with gangrene can chose to get leg amputations? If you advocate a system where adult predators, by meeting deezen's criteria can abuse 4 year-old's for sex, do you advocate that adult predators, by meeting deezen's criteria can abuse 4 year-old's for sex? What <deezen/gangreneguy> is advocating for is <adults/gangreneguy> to be able to legally <bone 4 year-olds with deezen's criteria/amputate their leg with Doc's/AMA's criteria>.
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 11:02:49 GMT
If you advocate a system where people with gangrene can choose to get leg amputations, do you advocate that people with gangrene can chose to get leg amputations? Advocating the right to choose something is not the same as advocating that thing. For instance I am an advocate of free speech but not the rightness of the views made by extremists. It merely suggests that one would find a something acceptable in some circumstances - or at least would not wish it banned. I merely note here that you seem oddly determined on discussing 4-year old sex in a thread on abortion. My view is that the biological threshold for sex is changing (i.e. in the west the age of puberty is slowly growing earlier through better diet & etc), while the legal threshold is something else again, and is not uniform around the world. There is also something of a moral panic around the whole issue, at least in the UK. I am not sure what you mean here. I haven't been following the previous discussion, but the phrase 'bone 4 year olds' certainly tells me more about you than it does them. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 11:11:02 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. FilmFlaneur said: Are you not able to answer: "If you advocate a system where people with gangrene can choose to get leg amputations, do you advocate that people with gangrene can chose to get leg amputations? " ? And I'm telling you there is nothing odd about it, that being the multi-page genesis. "Have 'penetrative sexual relations' with 4 year-olds". No time like the present to get fully informed to prevent yourself from being conned, and your willingness for avoidance under the light of reality tells me you're more concerned with semantics than reality. 
but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 11:22:06 GMT
Are you not able to answer:
"If you advocate a system where people with gangrene can choose to get leg amputations, do you advocate that people with gangrene can chose to get leg amputations? "? I did. But advocating the availability of choice for a something is still not the same as advocating that thing. I am sorry if it is not clear. I might then agree that the amputation of a leg is best when life is at stake, the limb being damaged beyond repair & etc. But again even that is not the same as advocating 'leg amputation' generally. Whatever. Again, this seems more of thing for you to obsess over than it ever would be for me. I would say though it is highly unlikely that I would ever be conned into such activities. Maybe your light of reality needs a new bulb? |
|
