"Pro-Choicers Advocate for the Killing of Unborn Babies"

In both cases you give I agree with the right to choose, I don't necessarily advocate that which is chosen - just accept, or expect that the option can be, or is, there. I can't keep repeating such an obvious distinction..





Whatever, and my previous impression is only strengthened.




Fibre is good, it keeps one regular.

Adults can choose whatever they want, if the options are there. However not all choices are proportionate, laudable, or legal and. once again, I would not necessarily advocate many or most of them. You will also have to explain your 'specific criteria' for child abuse, since I can't think of any - and, sorry, haven't felt the need to try to. (And, above you are also using 'can' while, I think, implying 'ought', for reasons of your own.) But I do not advocate, expect or even accept that there ought to exist a system for abusing children, so I do not see your point. There is, it hardly need be pointed out, a difference between choosing to abort, to amputate and to abuse children, one choice here being illegal.  And I am still see you are obsessing over paedophilia in an abortion thread, which is worrying..




Do you not think that there are elements suggesting moral panic around the protection of children (at least in the UK)?




Sorry I am not, I hope that is not a disappointment. The catfishing I leave entirely to you.




I guess one has to take the roughage with the smooth.

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:No argument whatsoever.

What makes "can" become "ought" in your mind?  

 I knew after I posted that I was risking just this quibble.  "You" in this case does not mean "you personally".


So, another "refinement" (I'm sure more will be needed):

If one advocates a system where adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] can choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex, does one advocate that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] can choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex?


And yet on this board, there really seems to be.  And one might suggest disingenuity in that second line for one who hasn't read the thread that was already mentioned as the direct genesis for this one.

Very likely I'm sure.   But I don't think it would be characterized as such if 4 year-olds were truly being legally made available for sex with adults.

Nah, the teenage girl catchphrases add color, like in the fiber!  Maybe I should take up "what you talkin bout Willis!?".

Lot's of whichever is on the particular skeezy side around these here parts.

---

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

Thank you.



Because that 'can' of your recently repeated questions would imply more than just 'able to' - especially when one so closely associates the suggested 'advocating' of an action. But it appears now then that, from your reply above, no one here at least is disputing freedom of choice for adults. Then why ask the same question three times when, apparently, both of us happily accept freedom of choice but not necessarily its every employment or result?




Yes, soon you'll refine your argument out of sight if you are not careful.

If one advocates a system where adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] can choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex, does one advocate that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] can choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex?

One can endorse internet chat rooms (as 'systems for meeting') but not advocate their misuse. It seems a fairly sensible observation. If one advocates a regulated national system road transport whereby, through bad driving, children can get run down by licenced drivers who make bad driving choices, one does not necessarily advocate that bad drivers with licences choose to do this. i.e one can say "here is a road system where one expects bad drivers can kill children" would sound offensively fatuous and cold-hearted, and could be misunderstood, but it is not "here is a road system where children ought to be killed."  (Obviously the argument is weakened if I set up a road network just for bad drivers and children, where the two are favoured out of the whole.) One might not be surprised that bad driving exists but one would not necessarily condone it. Please try and move on, as I am weary of explaining such distinctions to you.




Whatever. Here you are, still not discussing abortion lol



Thank you.




That's an agenda, or an unlikely state of affairs, which only you would worry about, it seems.

Then as already asked, why repeat your questions over and over?



Already answered, and at length just before; did you not read it? I can't really do more. But thanks for emphasising your (for me) disturbing obsession. Again.


Whatever, you are just too weird for me and apparently don't engage with my replies ... it is not rewarding and so, I'm outta here.





Indeed. But the truth about someone is not an insult, if this what you mean. You are not talking about abortion, and have never done so, lately with me at least. Instead you are repeating questioning statements about sex with four-year-olds, even to the point of ignoring extended answers clarifying the lack of distinctions relied on, the differences between expecting, or creating, freedom of choice and the 'advocating' of all consequences - a quite sensible distinction. If it is all a wind up, it is a distasteful one - which is why this is the last from me to you here.




If this is directed at me then you best remember back what you just said about ad hominems, my friend.

I always thank someone when I am agree with. And I am not talking about willys.

I will leave you then, leaving it up to the reader or whatever you do, but thanks.

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:Those were not to questions I had asked.

Nowhere have you answered - 

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 one advocate that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] are able to choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex?

But thanks for again demonstrating your mantra that ad hominems tell more about the one wielding them than the one they are directed at.  

What you talkin bout Willis!?  Don't forget the FF mantra.   As for "not engaging", how's "you're weird" in the place of "it do" or "it don't"?  Unless of course "is able" is too controversial so we need to slide over to "is permitted".  Or is that more disputable?  I mean debatable.  No that won't do, contentious? I know!  No I don't.

"You're weird", is and "obsession" and insinuations of the like, as opposed to speaking to the issue, or even "I don't want to answer that", is most assuredly pretty base ad hominem.  Especially dishonest because the direct connection of the topic to this thread has been related to you multiple time now.

I did, and the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I think you know that everyone knows that that's not the point of that reply of yours.  But feel free to discuss or not discuss any interest that comes to your mind re "4 year-olds abused by adults".

What you talkin bout Willis!?

I'll leave you with the current state of the relevant line of inquiry that spawned this thread - 

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 one advocate that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] are able to choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex?

---

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

Pro choice. I don't like the idea and would prefer people didn't, but it isn't upto me to make other people choices.

While I consider myself neither "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life".... I don't believe that statement to be true.



You don't have to be an advocate of anything to believe that others should have the right to do it.