|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 20:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 20:26:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 20:34:57 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:The families have the option to maim or kill the offender. Correct If "one" was not advocating that, then "one" would not advocate such a system, but one in which "maiming and killing" was not an option for the families. Incorrect. "One" could still advocate the system if they felt the value in the offended's choice outweighed the (perhaps negative--it would depend on the person) consequence of having that option. They could even advocate against the option, either legally or informally (as in just advocating that people not choose that option).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 20:36:31 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You can't take the context of "choice for the mother" that is innate, no matter how much you desire to deceive. I took it out when I originally phrased the question to you, and I even explicitly asked if taking it out was misrepresenting the position and you said it wasn't. For once in your life, own up to the consequences of your own statements.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 20:38:01 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:Normal people don't need obvious context spelled out for them in a series of line items. You knew I was not taking an antinatalist / serial killer stand. If you aren't capable of adult communication you might wish to avoid it. Some things just are, sorry. There are "knowns" that any reasonable adult would be aware going into any discussion. 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? [/a] Ok, let's start with stipulating that the mother is the one in which, prior to an optional abortion, the fetus exists Aj_June: 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 19, 2017 20:47:35 GMT
tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said:You knew I was not taking an antinatalist / serial killer stand. I didn't figure you were antinatalist, which is why your "of course if you're pro-choice you're advocating for killing fetuses" didn't make any sense. I even tried to point that distinction out to you HERE when I said: "Thinking a woman's right to choose is more valuable than the life of a fetus doesn't mean you don't think the fetus life has zero value or that you actually support or would advocate for killing it. You could say that many antinatalists would advocate for the killing of fetuses, but not most who are pro-choice." Your response to that wasn't to understand the distinction, but to double-down with: "I've valued ending pregnancies up to a certain stage over forcing women to carry all pregnancies to term," so AGAIN you left out that what was being advocated was "the woman's right to choose." When I phrased the question the SECOND time to you, I even asked explicitly if leaving out the woman's right to choose was misrepresenting the position, and you said no. I really don't know what to say here anymore beyond you simply don't know how to use words to express what precisely you mean, and you place the onus on everyone else to read your mind even when your words seem unambiguously clear.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 21:01:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 21:03:33 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. tpfkar Eva Yojimbo said: It is given that in this system that a mass of families will choose to maim and/or kill offenders Yes, and one advocating that system (ie, advocating the victim's choice) may advocate the option, advocate against the option, or may neither advocate for or against it. I swear I don't know why this distinction is so difficult for you to make.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 19, 2017 21:26:01 GMT
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. I vaguely remember that. It may have been the first time that I encountered rabbit stuck in the "loop" you mentioned, but I don't think I participated in it so I don't remember the particular details of what it was about. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I seriously wonder if rabbit has some kind of autism spectrum disorder. He seems to have a real disability when it comes to both communicating and understanding what's being communicated, especially when discussions get beyond the most basic, superficial level. Of course, autism isn't anything to be made fun of, but it would explain a lot. I'm no psychologist, but either he is the most dedicated troll ever, or has some form of problem. Look at his posting history and see how many times he responds to my threads. He did the same thing on the old board. I refused to engage with him for about two months and he still compulsively responded to my threads or posts.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 19, 2017 21:28:07 GMT
I'm no psychologist, but either he is the most dedicated troll ever, or has some form of problem. Look at his posting history and see how many times he responds to my threads. He did the same thing on the old board. I refused to engage with him for about two months and he still compulsively responded to my threads or posts.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 19, 2017 21:41:11 GMT
I vaguely remember that. It may have been the first time that I encountered rabbit stuck in the "loop" you mentioned, but I don't think I participated in it so I don't remember the particular details of what it was about. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I seriously wonder if rabbit has some kind of autism spectrum disorder. He seems to have a real disability when it comes to both communicating and understanding what's being communicated, especially when discussions get beyond the most basic, superficial level. Of course, autism isn't anything to be made fun of, but it would explain a lot. I'm no psychologist, but either he is the most dedicated troll ever, or has some form of problem. Look at his posting history and see how many times he responds to my threads. He did the same thing on the old board. I refused to engage with him for about two months and he still compulsively responded to my threads or posts. I'm no psychologist either, but I think most can agree that there's definitely something "off" about him.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 23:22:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 19, 2017 23:26:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 0:24:58 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:I'm pretty sure I just didn't care about your further distracting bilge. We were supposedly doing this as an analogous exercise to match the "choice to have sex with 4 year-olds", so choice was built into it. And there is no "leaving out" of "the woman's right to choose" from pro-choice, in any case. It is part of the definition and normal people in good faith discussions don't try to monkey with it. I wasn't not getting the distinction, you're just not getting that there is no "leaving out" of "pro choice" just because it is not explicitly spelled out. In any case, speaking of communication issues: Many antinatalists who are not pro-choice would advocate the killing, but most pro-choice antinatalists would not? Many antinatalists* would advocate the killing, but most of all* pro-choice, would not? **(whether "pro-choice", "pro-life", or "pro-assassination" ) **(whether antinatalist, natalist, or neutral) Cumbersomely ambiguous "most". I think we've found the problem, your ability to communicate. Here's another communication issue - "Here's a quick lesson for you" is where your screeds get dismissed. I can only guess either that's not how that went or I was blowing off more of your continuous stream of epithets and irrelevancies. Leaving it out of a statement still does not make it go away. I really do know what to say, and that's when a conversation reaches such a state as you take it "Here's a quick lesson for you" (as a tamer example) it is already a sh!tfest, and you're just looking to for set up and not the relevant discussion. I was interested in following the topic at hand and you produced a garbled example that was not analogous even when corrected without the assumption of mother's choice. "But of course, that the "pro-choice", including me, are advocating the killing of fetuses", is true. What heat, partisan or otherwise, that people overlay cannot change the truth of it. The fetuses killed just happen to be so at the behest of their mother. And as I noted in your gambit thread, of course around the radioactive climate of the abortion debate, you'll get objections, like "sounds like". So I clarified to state it explicitly at the top of the thread so that it could advance, days ago now. But you're more interested in "hits" and insults than in honestly drilling down on the core issue, so you set up purposefully deceptive boondoggles like this one. 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? Rejecting out of hand the idea of adults having sex with 4 year-olds is simply moral outrage much like the puritanical/emotional outrage against homosexuality. Aj_June: 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 20, 2017 2:51:54 GMT
I vaguely remember that. It may have been the first time that I encountered rabbit stuck in the "loop" you mentioned, but I don't think I participated in it so I don't remember the particular details of what it was about. I mentioned it in the other thread, but I seriously wonder if rabbit has some kind of autism spectrum disorder. He seems to have a real disability when it comes to both communicating and understanding what's being communicated, especially when discussions get beyond the most basic, superficial level. Of course, autism isn't anything to be made fun of, but it would explain a lot. I'm no psychologist, but either he is the most dedicated troll ever, or has some form of problem. Look at his posting history and see how many times he responds to my threads. He did the same thing on the old board. I refused to engage with him for about two months and he still compulsively responded to my threads or posts. Not a psychologist as well, but my take is that he's not dumb in general, but something is creating major blind spots in his objectivity. Whatever physical conditions might be in play, the pattern of behavior seems to be that he so compulsively and stubbornly refuses to admit he could have made an error binds him into a spiraling cycle of cognitive disconnection. I've seen him make some insightful comments. I think he craves recognition and respect (as do we all), and I think he could do a great service to himself if he could step back and question himself, and simply admit he made a mistake (as do many). And grow and learn in the process, and even earn the respect of those he interacts with. It brings to mind some politicians that will probably never do so.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 3:16:48 GMT
tpfkar general313 said:I admire your positioning. Some of your insights are spot on, some less so, at least according to my delusions. But at least you're not engaging in the unseemly humorous activity of the two above you. And I'm not saying you agree with my contention of their silly, just that it is my contention. And I make many more than "a mistake". Can't admit one that I don't evaluate as so, though. I wouldn't mind you investigating with me any mistake of mine you'd agree to. No reason it couldn't end in either accommodation or agreement to disagree. You'd have to be able to be able to segregate any ongoing irritation I cause you from my ongoing sh!tfest. What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 20, 2017 5:19:05 GMT
I'm no psychologist, but either he is the most dedicated troll ever, or has some form of problem. Look at his posting history and see how many times he responds to my threads. He did the same thing on the old board. I refused to engage with him for about two months and he still compulsively responded to my threads or posts. Not a psychologist as well, but my take is that he's not dumb in general, but something is creating major blind spots in his objectivity. Whatever physical conditions might be in play, the pattern of behavior seems to be that he so compulsively and stubbornly refuses to admit he could have made an error binds him into a spiraling cycle of cognitive disconnection. I've seen him make some insightful comments. I think he craves recognition and respect (as do we all), and I think he could do a great service to himself if he could step back and question himself, and simply admit he made a mistake (as do many). And grow and learn in the process, and even earn the respect of those he interacts with. It brings to mind some politicians that will probably never do so. I basically agree with your assessment here, but look at AJ's post here that seems to definitively prove that Rabbit lied. Rabbit's response was basically to say that everyone should just assume his statements were qualified with an "or" because he had qualified them with an "or" back on the old IMDb and doesn't have to qualify them every time. I don't know what to call that. Either rabbit is outright lying and thus has absolutely no integrity, or he's telling the truth and it would indicate some kind of real psychological problem--the notion that we should all assume his posts mean something completely differently from what the words actually mean is just... well, what is it? The weird thing is that I'm fine with Rabbit and I think Rabbit is fine in general about... I don't know, 95% of the time. But in that 5% of the time where he's wrong, or makes a mistake, it's like something snaps in his brain that is 100% resistant to admitting it and learning from it, and the crazy that results from that drags him down to Blade/Ada/Erjen-levels of idiocies. I mean... geez, you have this entire thread of people telling him he's wrong, explaining why he's wrong, making the identical arguments I made in the other thread, and he absolutely refuses to recognize it and learn from it. Instead, he's taken to calling me dishonest because I left "mother's choice" out of the poll statement, and there's two points to that: 1. Rephrasing the OP statement to "Pro-Choicers Advocate for the Mother's Right to Choose to Kill their Unborn Baby" is a tautology, and being a tautology was obviously something that nobody (including myself) would dispute. 2. It's not the way I phrased the question to him originally. Not only that, but I originally phrased the question to him like this: "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?" So when I originally asked rabbit the question, I intentionally left "the mother's choice" out and specifically asked him if leaving the mother's choice out was dishonest. Rabbit responded with a seemingly unambiguous: "Of course Person A advocates the termination of pregnancies, and it is 'misrepresentation' only in the Arlonsphere." So how in the world could my "leaving the mother's choice out" of THIS OP be "dishonest" when I left it out in the question I asked him, asked him if leaving it out was dishonest, and he said it wasn't? The only answer I can come up with is that when rabbit answered my question the first time he didn't realize the consequences of what it meant. It only dawned on him once I started this thread and everyone started piling on. So in order to save face he tried to accuse me of "dishonesty" even when it's crystal clear that by his own admission the way I phrased it wasn't dishonest. I can only chalk up his behavior here as either symptomatic of some autism spectrum disorder or simply morally reprehensible. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 5:35:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 12:58:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 20, 2017 13:06:51 GMT
|
|