|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:49:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:51:38 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: No, you're just unrepentant dishonest. I that's what you were "really arguing" you would have included the subjecting to instead of again prostituting another heated issue. Yes, I'm dishonest for phrasing the question the exact same way I phrased it to you in the other thread that you immediately accepted. OK, again, good luck selling that one. And if what you were objecting to was NOT including "subjecting to" you would've objected to it in the other thread when I first asked the question. You either didn't understand the difference or just wanted to invent it after this thread became full of people making the same arguments I had already made to you. You don't say?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 19:53:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 19:55:40 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:Nor does the fact that deezen's specific criteria can be categorized as "consent-based" in any way invalidate the prior. And I never said it did; you just started tilting at that strawman because you didn't understand what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 20:09:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:17:38 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:That question that did not match the underlying question that actually related to deezen's criteria. Then you should've objected to it in the other thread when I first phrased it. Hell, I even repeated it because I mistakenly used "pro-life" for "pro-choice" the first time and you just doubled-down on your acceptance. You now have this whole thread of people making the same arguments to you I made over there. If you haven't learned by now... well, to quote the villain from Cool Hand Luke: "some men you just can't reach." Besides, the "advocates criteria -> consequence of criteria is 4-year-olds are subjected to abuse" was never even in dispute at all. It only ever was in your mind because you never understood what I was saying from the start. To expand the above quote: "what we've got here is failure to communicate." And the reason I hammer on stuff like your pronoun misuse is because it proves that the failure isn't with me. I know what you meant. I was rolling my eyes at how absurdly obvious the statement was and in how you'd bring it up given that it's never been in dispute as if it had been in dispute.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 20:24:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:30:12 GMT
Eventually you're going to torture this enough to where you're stating a tautology, but no: if one advocates a system then one advocates a system, it doesn't mean they advocate all its consequences. You can't remove the word "system" and make the sentence mean the same thing, nor ignore the notion of consequences from what's being advocated and act like you've made someone advocate those consequences. Again, this thread is full of people saying the exact same damn thing. You're wrong on this rabbit. Move on to greener pastures.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 20:32:46 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:And yet you called yours " The accurate statement". Poor poor grammar, armchair English perfesser. It was accurate. I assume by "the prior" you meant it didn't invalidate the consequence. Did you mean something else by "the prior?"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 20:35:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 21:00:49 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:No, you should have used the relevant one to begin with. You knew when I used it that I meant the mother choosing and was not taking some antinatalist stance. If you didn't think it was relevant you should've said so from the get-go. Not my fault you only chose to object once most of the board agreed with me. You always think people know what you mean when you "use language to convey in the way you want." The big problem with doing that is that it doesn't always convey WHAT you want to people that understand the correct meaning(s) and usage of words. As far as "what you meant," I even made that exact distinction in the other thread HERE when I said: "...advocating for a position doesn't mean advocating for all of its consequences... Thinking a woman's right to choose is more valuable than the life of a fetus doesn't mean you...think the fetus life has zero value or that you actually support or would advocate...killing it. You could say that many antinatalists would advocate for the killing of fetuses, but not most who are pro-choice." And yet when I asked the question AGAIN you jumped on the "Being pro-choice means advocating killing fetuses." So this is just more evidence of your refusal to learn how to correctly use words. No it doesn't, for the same reasons that I and just about everyone in this thread have explained to you.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 21:02:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 21:06:54 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 wonder in your world you can have deezen advocating a system where adult predators can have sex with 4-year-olds but he's not advocating adults being able to have sex with four year-olds. BEEP! You've changed the way you've phrased this statement about a dozen times since the last thread, and have warped it so far beyond the original statement that I responded to (that you responded to me responding to), the only point it's serving now is to illustrate your desperate attempt to not be wrong about this.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 18, 2017 21:33:10 GMT
Eva YojimboLets me take a guess what is happening. 1) Rabbit has misread something 2) He has failed to accept he misread or misunderstood 3) He is being extremely vague and evasive 4) He then started calling people liars 5) He is now on a loop between 3 and 4 How far off am I?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2017 21:39:34 GMT
Eva Yojimbo Lets me take a guess what is happening. 1) Rabbit has misread something 2) He has failed to accept he misread or misunderstood 3) He is being extremely vague and evasive 4) He then started calling people liars 5) He is now on a loop between 3 and 4 How far off am I? Pretty much dead on. You might also add: 6) Has made dead wrong and dead stupid statements and refuses to accept their wrongness and stupidity even after it's been explained. As an example of the latter, he accused Bryce of dismissing the anonymous experts cited in the other thread because Bryce questioned who the anonymous experts were. As an example of the former, he's basically said that anyone advocating a cause must want to partake in that cause (he later added an "or they're lacking in sympathy" alternative, only after it was pointed out to him by multiple people how wrong it was; he never actually admitted to being wrong).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 21:45:48 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:With "mother's choice" my torqued dishonest brother. However it was worded over there, however I didn't catch or know your dishonest in place, it's just profoundly dishonest without the the intentionality of the mother. And clarification happens all the time. Especially necessary in the face of crass deception. No, I figure a lot of times, probably not. Sometimes I use ambiguity as it's kind of fun at appropriate times. But I figure if somebody is interested and sincere and not doing positively embarrassingly silly revenge hunts, they can ask. If like your ludicrous display? Pshaw. And I never argued that it did of course. But if you favor a woman's right to choose, then you favor women being able to "kill their prebaby" in your "pro-life" slant. Of course "pro-choicers" are going to balk at the purposeful language that you primed them with. And as I stated before, in such cases you hold that the cons are worth the pros. The intentional ones. As in a/the bulk of 4 year-olds being subject to sexual use at the choice of the adult, whether somebody values that as "pro", or "con". That's advocating that mothers get to choose if the criteria is met (fetuses up to a certain number of weeks as proxy of developmental stage) and advocating that adult predators with trust access get to choose to abuse 4 year-olds that can meet the trivial specified criteria (a/the bulk). 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 it necessarily follow that one advocates that adult predators, by meeting [specific criteria D] are able to choose to abuse 4 year-old's for sex? Mother's choice, predator's choice, my dishonest brother. In both cases that's what's being advocated. With the noncontroversial assumption in context that "killing fetuses" was at the mother's choice. Which you knew but used dishonesty to obscure. You also knew I made sure that was clarified yesterday, although i should not have had to. But you knew it wasn't some antinatalist serial killer stance. I hate it for you man, some people thought you were above it. Much as it yields advocates fetuses being subject to termination by the mother. Airtight. Sorry. I know you've been so excited. Page 13 of ?? and counting: This is the point where I get off the rabbit-go-round but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 18, 2017 22:36:49 GMT
Disagree, we can argue on the exact definition of "killing", but for general purposes it has a distinct context it's usually used in, kinda the same way vegans are "meat is murder". If you said "Mary just killed her baby", no one is going to assume it was an abortion. It's the same reason no one considers jerking off to be mass genocide. It's just a lame appeal to emotion argument
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 23:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 18, 2017 23:09:13 GMT
Eva Yojimbo Lets me take a guess what is happening. 1) Rabbit has misread something 2) He has failed to accept he misread or misunderstood 3) He is being extremely vague and evasive 4) He then started calling people liars 5) He is now on a loop between 3 and 4 How far off am I? Pretty much dead on. You might also add: 6) Has made dead wrong and dead stupid statements and refuses to accept their wrongness and stupidity even after it's been explained. As an example of the latter, he accused Bryce of dismissing the anonymous experts cited in the other thread because Bryce questioned who the anonymous experts were. As an example of the former, he's basically said that anyone advocating a cause must want to partake in that cause (he later added an "or they're lacking in sympathy" alternative, only after it was pointed out to him by multiple people how wrong it was; he never actually admitted to being wrong). Do you remember on the old board when he totally misread what Ruth had said and we both , along with several others pointed out why he was wrong and he just talked shit for 20 pages, even after Ruth had clarified what she meant? Baffling individual. On a broader point it is interesting how so many people forgotten the underlying principles of Liberalism. There are any number of things I personally wouldn't do or don't agree with, but I would defend the right of people to do. Such as being vegan, supporting Manchester United or thinking the Star Wars prequel trilogy is good.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 18, 2017 23:14:50 GMT
|
|