|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 19, 2017 6:39:52 GMT
tpfkar As you well know that conditional was present even in all of the IMDB1 pedo surge OP's you started. The bunch either have the pedophilia (that's purposely affected by the way, perfesser) or are lacking reality checks / humanity failsafes / empathy electric buzzers, or some combination. I understand that you have some problems in understanding your own posts but this statement here "Anyone that can envision 4 year-olds or any prepubescents in general as sex objects certainly is a pedo" is unambiguous. Now given your tenacity to lie you will deny it but any objective person knows that that statement has no conditional. And it still remained without any conditional in your reply to me even after you were explained your fallacious argument. "Anyone who advocates the advocating a system offering 4 year-old up to adults is inescapably one." [Here also there is no room for not being a pedo through any conditional. Thank you for clearing that you do not understand the meaning of "inescapably" and "certainly"] Yeah, shameless liar. Keep lying some more. But in my post I have made it clear beyond any doubt that you are an idiot and a liar at the same time. Eva Yojimbo Yeah man, Cham313 feels his sting because Cham didn't reply to his worthless post. PHE_DE, cham and I are your friends. Cash is not an objective poster and can come up to support his friends when called upon losing his objectivity. Filmflaneur, Ruth etc. are liars and hypocrites and we have here the man who speaks the truth.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 19, 2017 7:35:31 GMT
I'm pro-choice and I voted with the majority.
I would never get an abortion, but I believe a woman should have the choice.
I would not want to be born to a mother who didn't want me, I'd prefer to wait for the next vessel.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 7:50:11 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:Sure, and I'll change/warp it as many times as needed to accommodate quibbles / gross dishonesty over obvious context, I meant clarifications for whatever it takes to get down to the base ideas that are being debated, at least from one side. Whatever it takes to pin it down in the deluge of crazy. I don't care about your inanities about "desperate attempt to not be wrong". Your continuous attempts at character assassination as substitute for addressing content reveal where the the actual desperation is, as is so often the case, with the one gushing on about it. I'll just keep addressing your quibbles until we reach an end, and your contention and mine can stand for whomever to look at or ignore. As for your continuous vapid vituperation, I'll address those as well at my leisure. However your dishonesty remains quite grotesque. 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? 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 19, 2017 8:08:02 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. Aj_June said:Are you trying to be parrot-comical? Can you really not see that you quoted "or are lacking reality checks / humanity failsafes / empathy electric buzzers, or some combination" in the thread you are replying to? I'm allowed to refine; I'm allowed to omit previous clauses that I grant, even though have a hard time really believing, esp. considering the rife hypocrisy and dishonesty. I'm also allowed to blow off an idiot thinking that a hose of epithets is going to get what he wants. If you wanted to argue it down you should have done it wherever I omitted it, so we could consider what heat and bullsh!it was going down at that moment, not get all in a tizzy when it is attached. But the base fact is I've attached that since IMDB1 and I may leave it off at times again in, I don't know, maybe 10 of the 12,000 posts we're going to do on this. But you can consider it always there. Again, read the "or are lacking reality checks / humanity failsafes / empathy electric buzzers, or some combination". I don't have to always repeat that option that I've attached since the last board. Argue it out where it's not there, not where it is. Also see from nearly an hour before your post.Believe me, I know you guys go all with berserker vituperation fits and lugubrious hugfests because you can't stand arguments, but all that's going to get from me is more frankness. So either address the issues without your friend-rage parties, or not, and we can trade back and forth, you guys with your worthless insult fits, and me giving back reality, of course with more "piss off" mixed in. Here's a bit yanked for your viewing pleasure that can be discussed, just to be clear: - Deezen advocates that 4-year olds be subject to sexual abuse by predator adults. (Why does that sound so familiar?) - It's not "moral outrage" to understand innately and coarsely but overwhelmingly the "rational distinctions" of the horrific of purposely subjecting 4 year-olds to adult predators to be used for sex vs. the normal-harmlessness of homosexual relationships, unless of course one is profoundly subnormal in critical ways. One doesn't "need" to delineate the minutia nor set up specific arguments of any kind for it to be head-smackingly obvious. The existence of people for whom it's not evident is disturbing to consider. - deezen's a pedophile (or he has severely subnormal social/empathy levels and hypernormal narcissism levels - a type around here) because he advocates subjecting 4 year-olds to sexual abuse by predator adults. - the affirmative on: 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?
You do babble so, I guess you think that covers for this sludge. Why don't you address any of these angry lies of yours where they supposedly happen, so the facts can be examined? If you were so concerned about a disagreement I had with Ruth on IMDB1 then why do you periodically send me gossipy pms about posters? There's a reason why you turn to bull here when your crazy bud has popped his cork again. You started this rolling with "but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old", so you deal with the discussion of facts from there without gratuitous attacks or not, but I promise I'll respond to each and every one both with facts and reality checks on your insipid juvenile rage insults and flat out friend-angry fantasies. You guys, especially the manic lunacy-hoser, want that to be the tone from here on out, then that is what the tone will be for just as as long as you give me posts with tone to reply in kind. You set it, we'll live it. Patent dishonesty Aj_June: 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 19, 2017 8:31:34 GMT
Since you are asking this question in almost every of your posts, I'll answer it. The answer is: No, it does not necessarily follow. Now you can ask the next simple question. And maybe someone else without reading comprehension problems will be so kind to answer it for you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2017 8:33:50 GMT
Hey, FilmFlaneur , welcome to my 28-page hell. Sorry I had to subject you to this, but since I couldn't teach rabbit such a basic thing... I know how you feel lol
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2017 8:39:19 GMT
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. Explaining this to Cupcakes is a waste of breath. So much so, I think he is on a wind-up. Or just enjoys the thrill of associating young children with sex on the pretence of asking questions. Either way, it was enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 8:39:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 19, 2017 8:48:49 GMT
How 'bout this one? PD is advocating a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. PD is not, however, advocating subjecting murderers to grievous bodily harm nor death.That's not a question, that's a statement. I don't remember Poisoned_Dragon having participated on this thread; I don't know if he is even on this board, and I don't know his opinion on punishment of murderers. Therefore, I don't know if this statement is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 19, 2017 8:49:48 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. Aj_June said:Are you trying to be parrot-comical? Can you really not see that you quoted "or are lacking reality checks / humanity failsafes / empathy electric buzzers, or some combination" in the thread you are replying to? I'm allowed to refine; I'm allowed to omit previous clauses that I grant, even though have a hard time really believing, esp. considering the rife hypocrisy and dishonesty. I'm also allowed to blow off an idiot thinking that a hose of epithets is going to get what he wants. If you wanted to argue it down you should have done it wherever I omitted it, so we could consider what heat and bullsh!it was going down at that moment, not get all in a tizzy when it is attached. But the base fact is I've attached that since IMDB1 and I may leave it off at times again in, I don't know, maybe 10 of the 12,000 posts we're going to do on this. But you can consider it always there. Talk about some level of dishonesty. A man says there is only one conclusion possible. He is explained his fallacious logic. He reiterates his position and says there is only one conclusion possible. He later adds conditional to his previous unconditional statements and then he says " I'm allowed to refine"...lol. Oh yes, this is even worse than Blade. This is ayelewis stuff, right here, folks. and no, I am not continuing this farce here. You pretty much proved in this reply and in your replies to filmflaneur that you repeat the same thing. So this is my last post to you. But a few more words. You once said board/readers deserve an apology from Eva or something like that. I can only laugh at your delusion. I will be surprised if even one reader wants an apology from Eva. But almost everyone is tired of your incessant stupidity, idiotic unfounded allegations and self righteous behaviour. Oh, but you are the same person who won the troll of the year award on RFS and were so badly hurt that you even even picked a fight with the host. Well, don't worry, man. You will be voted stupid troll of the year for this post alone to which I am replying. babel some more but you won't get any more attention from me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 8:54:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 19, 2017 9:08:10 GMT
You are hereby granted permission to substitute "one" for "PD", and to append the statement with, "Is this true or false". Which would mean the following question. One is advocating a justice system of the world today whereby the families of murder victims are given carte blanche in dealing with the offender. One is not, however, advocating subjecting murderers to grievous bodily harm nor death. Is this true or false?The answer is: It depends on the person. One can advocate a revenge justice system without advocating bodily harm to offenders; one can also advocate a revenge justice system while hoping that the victims will practice revenge in a brutal way. Therefore, the statement is not simply true or false. But this may not be clear to people who tend to see things only in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 9:10:33 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. Aj_June said:Yeah, sure, I didn't say anything at all to that. Post the links so we can see the light & heat. Or just jabber on. Oo-oo! I can't wait to repost my awards lists! And I respond to all who dog or facilitate the dogging. Like you with your fancy arsehole tearing. Ouch! I think I'll collect all of these in a binder. Wait, does this mean you won't be sending me unsolicited PMs any more either? Or should I get a binder for them too. Was this "same" enough"?. Aj_June: but from what I remember it was journalofeddi who advocated for sex with children as young as 4 years old
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jul 19, 2017 11:07:21 GMT
Perusing this thread...which is long and a spawn of other conversations so ultimately a little confusing...
But is the main argument that if you support a system that allows certain actions, ultimately you are ok with those actions?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 19, 2017 16:16:38 GMT
I couldn't vote for any of the options. You've completely left out all moderate views, every which way.
So, couldn't vote. I'm neutral, and as fore the question of "advocate for the killing of unborn babies", I don't know, so when you don't know, you go to the side of caution, just as if you plan to test a bomb on an island, and if you don't know if there is a living, completely innocent human hiding on it, but you think it is possible, you don't test the bomb.
Still, the fact is that almost no pro life person ever makes a threat, or ever tries to discredit a pro choice person in anything outside of political jobs. Meanwhile, I've worked at hundreds of jobs, and at each one whre there are more than four workers, I have always seen pro choice people yell at, threaten, and try to discredit pro life people. We know which side has the demons backing them, so that says something.
Still, I think the population of humans is too high in the world, and if it isn't addressed by birth control, demonic beings will be able to lure the animal in all of us to do terrible things. The momentum of the pollution, sewage, and other factors will continue beyond the initial births of more humans. There is an island of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean, and the momentum already is in place for more islands.
"Abortion" is a "trap" step. It's another lure into a trap of savage hatefulness and divisiveness. And it stems from an already overpopulated world, which was the first trap. The demon possessed liars will claim that the world can support many more people, but that's not reality. Each human being won't be exactly .5 miles apart all the time. Each will experience different hazards and blessings. The worst will steal and cheat against the best.
Really, the logical solution is encouragement of birth control with benefits for the childless. If a criteria for being a leader was being childless, that would benefit humanity the most. Less nepotism, fairer rulings, and an incentive for people to have birth control. In fact, higher positions should be granted for those with no nephews or nieces. Higher for no grand nephews. And so forth. Many will choose to be stewards of families, and many will choose to be stewards of culture, law, government, military, and so forth. Everyone can have the choice. Abortions will not be needed.
As it stands now, low income mothers sometimes panic, figuring they'll be homeless if the child is born. It may be true or false, but that is their fear. They're not to blame for this. What is to blame is the people who have kept lower class people in their place and in despair. Anyone who says there is "opportunity" in America is either a liar or a naïve fool. The mob infiltrated every estate long ago, and now they are all related, and decide who lives and who dies. Even the press is part of the problem, but so is Trump. They simply collect money from innocent people, pretending to blame each other, while actually being butt buddies.
Sometimes, the truth comes out, despite attempts to squelch it from every estate. When I said that they try to decide who lives and dies, that was proven in one story about Halliburton that is still kept under the rug to this day. Cheney and others in charge of Halliburton abused the military of his own country, and when the soldiers wanted him to pay, he chose a few truck drivers to be sacrificed in a deliberate set up, by putting them under the mercy of a military escort in a zone which everyone in power knew to be a suicide zone for Americans. Cheney knew the military would desert the truck drivers to death. Anyone who says different is either a liar or retard, period. It was Cheney playing God.
What does this have to do with abortions? It's part of the same game. It's still Cheney and his allegedly conservative crew who force abortions upon people. They're guiltier than any of the mothers.
And they know it in their demon possessed hearts.
Yep, lots of people advocate for the killing of unborn babies. Most of them won't even admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:10:15 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:Sure, and I'll change/warp it as many times as needed to accommodate quibbles / gross dishonesty over obvious context, I meant clarifications for whatever it takes to get down to the base ideas that are being debated, at least from one side. Whatever it takes to pin it down in the deluge of crazy. I don't care about your inanities about "desperate attempt to not be wrong". Your continuous attempts at character assassination as substitute for addressing content reveal where the the actual desperation is, as is so often the case, with the one gushing on about it. I'll just keep addressing your quibbles until we reach an end, and your contention and mine can stand for whomever to look at or ignore. As for your continuous vapid vituperation, I'll address those as well at my leisure. Seriously rabbit, the only one you're fooling at this point is yourself. AJ definitively proved what an abject liar you are. Not a single person on this board doubts my integrity, in spite of YOUR attempts at "character assassination." Literally my only attempt at assassinating your character has been in quoting your own words exactly as you said them. You're warping the statement because you're trying to make it mean what you want it to mean rather than what it actually means and always meant from the beginning. You're playing with words and achieving nothing but word salad. It would be so simple for you to read this thread, read all the arguments that have been made against you by everyone here, and then go back to the other thread to the first post of mine that you disputed and read that post in light of this thread and understand precisely what I meant and didn't mean. But you won't do that, because doing that would require some integrity and an ability to admit that you were wrong, and that you've spent 28 pages tilting at a strawman of your own imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:10:33 GMT
tpfkar 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. Dude, here is the EXACT (copied word-for-word) way I phrased it over there: "Person A is pro-choice. Person B says that Person A advocates for the killing of unborn babies without mentioning that Person A is pro-choice, or that they value the mother's decision more than the life of the fetus. Is Person B misrepresenting the position of Person A by only saying they advocate for the consequence?" Why in the world do you think I included the part in italics? And when I asked you directly if leaving out the part in italics was dishonest you said, and I quote, "it is 'misrepresentation' only in the Arlonsphere." So your answer in the other thread was precisely that leaving out the mother's choice wasn't dishonest, and now you're saying that me leaving out the mother's choice is dishonest. How very peculiar. You mean like Bryce asked what your "they" referred to? Not only did you NOT answer him, but after I explained why he was confused we went back-and-forth for how many posts of you not understanding the source of confusion and blaming it all on "not reading the whole sentence." I swear, I should really do another experiment where I post THAT exchange on here and see how many people are initially confused by your pronoun usage. When everyone votes "it's confusing" (just like everyone voted "disagree" on here), I'm sure you'll have some BS about how that poll was also dishonest. Are you out of your furry mind? I quoted you directly saying that it (of course) did. Your first sentence is just a tautology with the second iteration expressing what's elided in the first with slightly different language. I said eventually you'd get to the point of stating tautologies. The reason "pro-choicers" balked at the "purposeful language I primed them with" is the same reason I balked at the language used to describe Eddie's position in the last thread. "Advocating killing unborn babies" = "advocating sex with 4-year-olds," and neither of these things mean "advocating a woman's right to choose" and "advocating a consent-only approach to sex." No, and your preamble to this was a garbled mess. There is nothing in Eddie's criteria (that you were so adamant about addressing) about "predator's choice." Everything in Eddie's criteria is about anyone being able to have sex if they consent, and what the ability to consent and act of consent means. I already explained to you the accurate analogy earlier in the thread: "What [Eddie/Pro-choicer] is advocating is [anyone/mothers] being able to legally choose [to have sex if they can and do consent/to have an abortion], and as a consequence of that right [4-year-olds will be subject to abuse by adults/fetuses will be subject to being aborted]." Now, unless you want to quote anything from Eddie's criteria about predators being able to choose anything, you're just intentionally warping what the criteria (that, again, you were so intent on discussing) actually is. All you're doing is (intentionally, probably) mixing up the criteria (that which is being advocated) with the consequence. When I asked you the second time I put in italics that the mother's choice was left out. Read it and weep.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 19:18:11 GMT
Perusing this thread...which is long and a spawn of other conversations so ultimately a little confusing... But is the main argument that if you support a system that allows certain actions, ultimately you are ok with those actions? The main argument that I was making is this: 1. If you advocate a system you do so because you feel its virtues outweigh its negative consequences. 2. In advocating a system you are not necessarily advocating any of its consequences (advocating people having the right to drink isn't advocating that people drink) 3. It is dishonest for Person A, who is opposed to that system, to claim that Person B, who is for that system, is advocating its consequences, especially when they leave out that Person B is advocating for its virtues. Rabbit disagrees with 2. and 3. This thread was my attempt at allowing the rest of the forum to explain to him why he's wrong. I tried to do it for 28 pages and failed. Nobody here has had any better luck.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 19, 2017 19:24:29 GMT
Perusing this thread...which is long and a spawn of other conversations so ultimately a little confusing... But is the main argument that if you support a system that allows certain actions, ultimately you are ok with those actions? The main argument that I was making is this: 1. If you advocate a system you do so because you feel its virtues outweigh its consequences. 2. In advocating a system you are not necessarily advocating any of its consequences (advocating people having the right to drink isn't advocating that people drink) 3. It is dishonest for Person A, who is opposed to that system, to claim that Person B, who is for that system, is advocating its consequences, especially when they leave out that Person B is advocating for its virtues. Rabbit disagrees with 2. and 3. This thread was my attempt at allowing the rest of the forum to explain to him why he's wrong. I tried to do it for 28 pages and failed. Nobody here has had any better luck. The analogy for 2 doesn't work. You can disagree with drinking while understanding people have a right to do it if they want to. Pro-choicers are not saying "You have the right to have an abortion but I don't agree with abortion". They are saying "you have the right to have an abortion and I agree with your decision to have one in certain circumstances." Rabbit is right about Pro-choicers but as every one can see he can't argue to save his life.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 19:25:41 GMT
|
|