|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 20:13:50 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said:By what basis do you ascribe a firmly-held belief to be a "frame"? Framing the argument is any attempt made at saying "this is what the argument is about." Someone advocating a consent-only approach is arguing that "anyone who can and does consent should be allowed to have sex;" so trying to frame their argument as "4-year-olds should be abused by predators" is just very dishonest because that's not their argument; it's just one consequence of what could happen with a consent-only approach, Where was this asserted? Secondarily, would it be "framing" if that is what an argument was about? Specifically in this case advocacy of many 4 year-olds being subject to adult sex?
"Someone advocating a consent-only approach is arguing that 'anyone who can and does consent should be allowed to have sex;'
1) What if he called it a God-derived right, and the signs from God were the criteria he listed? Or if his criteria were that when the adult hugged the child the child hugged back, that signaled consent. Are you really saying his criteria can't be examined for what they actually assert because of the name/description he assigned to it? 2) Someone who is advocating a consent-only approach may be arguing other things as well. In this case he's also arguing for his specific criteria. "so trying to frame their argument as '4-year-olds should be abused by predators'"
Where was this even remotely done?
"is just very dishonest because that's not their argument"
He also argues that his criteria should be accepted. "Consent-only approach" only broaches the surface of a specific set of criteria, ultimately. We already have a consent-only approach, however it uses age as a proxy. His "consent-only approach" uses his criteria as a proxy. What's changing is the means and those means are what he's proposing. "is just very dishonest"
What is your basis to assert, at the very beginning of a conversation, that this is not a firmly-held, reasoned belief? 1) Previously you asserted to me that all I was doing was "basing this on my gut reactions, mores, and evolution" 2) That I'm "being dishonest", "framing the position"What makes you field one or the other at any given moment? And what tone do you think such assertions set for a conversation, even if they weren't self-contradictory and were remotely true?
and it completely ignores the virtues they see in the freedom/liberty to do what one is capable of and consents to doing.As noted before, why do you keep saying "ignored", when the truth is weighed an determined that none conceivable comes within leagues of the harm? Can you link my words where I did that? I believe I merely answered your questions however you framed them and at no time did I ever in any way imply "without understanding the choice aspect ...". Please post or link my exact words and your basis for making such a contention. Of course I thought and think that the analogy you proposed is wholly inappropriate, and we can explore the various flaws with it after the above is resolved or in another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 21, 2017 21:28:16 GMT
Framing the argument is any attempt made at saying "this is what the argument is about." Someone advocating a consent-only approach is arguing that "anyone who can and does consent should be allowed to have sex;" so trying to frame their argument as "4-year-olds should be abused by predators" is just very dishonest because that's not their argument; it's just one consequence of what could happen with a consent-only approach, Where was this asserted? Secondarily, would it be "framing" if that is what an argument was about? Specifically in this case advocacy of many 4 year-olds being subject to adult sex? The very first post about Eddie in that thread that I responded to was stating he advocated for sex with children as young as 4. When you responded to me essentially agreeing with the initial statement, you seemed to be agreeing with how Eddie's argument was originally framed. Yes, as any attempt at stating what an argument is--whether accurately or inaccurately--is framing it. My whole point what that it was dishonest to frame it as "Eddie advocates 4-year-olds having sex" since that wasn't his argument. BTW, framing an argument shouldn't have a negative connotation as long as it's done accurately. More generally, framing has to do with context, so leaving out the context of the "consent-only approach" originally was also the "framing" that I objected to. "Someone advocating a consent-only approach is arguing that 'anyone who can and does consent should be allowed to have sex;' 1) What if he called it a God-derived right, and the signs from God were the criteria he listed? Or if his criteria were that when the adult hugged the child the child hugged back, that signaled consent. Are you really saying his criteria can't be examined for what they actually assert because of the name/description he assigned to it? 2) Someone who is advocating a consent-only approach may be arguing other things as well. In this case he's also arguing for his specific criteria. 1. Absolutely his criteria can be examined for both what they actually assert and for the consequences that will (likely) happen because of what they assert. This is what I said from the beginning, that any "predators abusing 4-year-olds" happening because of the criteria would be, at best, a consequence of the criteria; but it was the criteria that was being advocated, not the consequences of that criteria. It's absolutely fine to discuss those consequences and decide whether we think they outweigh the virtues; but I didn't like the seeming dishonesty in saying it was the consequences themselves that were being advocated. 2. Correct. The criteria and his "consent-only approach" were basically one and the same. Where was this even remotely done? When AJ first said "Eddie advocated for adult sex with children as young as 4-year-olds." (the post I first responded to, and that you responded to me responding to). He also argues that his criteria should be accepted. "Consent-only approach" only broaches the surface of a specific set of criteria, ultimately. We already have a consent-only approach, however it uses age as a proxy. His "consent-only approach" uses his criteria as a proxy. What's changing is the means and those means are what he's proposing. I agree with all this (though I was using "consent-only" as a way to distinguish it from "age-of-consent," just fyi). Just to compare his approach to what we have now, Eddie's is essentially advocating "anyone can have sex if they can and do consent;" while what we have now says "anyone over 18 can have sex if they can and do consent" (with some extra laws about those under 18 having sex with each other... I think). What is your basis to assert, at the very beginning of a conversation, that this is not a firmly-held, reasoned belief? 1) Previously you asserted to me that all I was doing was "basing this on my gut reactions, mores, and evolution" 2) That I'm "being dishonest", "framing the position" What makes you field one or the other at any given moment? And what tone do you think such assertions set for a conversation, even if they weren't self-contradictory and were remotely true? I'm not sure what the "this" in "this is not a... belief" is referring to, but I don't recall asserting anything of note at the beginning of the conversation other than what practically became my mantra in that thread: "'advocating a consent-only approach to sex' and 'advocating sex with 4-year-olds' are two very different things." 1. You might have to quote me saying that exactly about you; mostly with the gut reactions/mores/evolution I was talking about people in general, and I wasn't even excluding myself. In any case, it would apply to you unless you had thoroughly researched this beforehand. I do think you made a lot of emotion-based arguments in that thread, though; mostly those that were blatantly fallacious (I listed a few in one of these other threads). 2. Well, yeah, because you reiterated the "Eddie advocated 4-year-olds being abused by predators" dozens of times in that thread, and I felt that was precisely what was dishonestly framing the argument. As noted before, why do you keep saying "ignored", when the truth is weighed an determined that none conceivable comes within leagues of the harm? It was certainly never explicitly weighed; you never even mentioned it until I did, which would be the dictionary-definition of "ignoring it." Can you link my words where I did that? I believe I merely answered your questions however you framed them and at no time did I ever in any way imply "without understanding the choice aspect ...". "Without understanding the choice aspect" was why I specifically asked you there if leaving out the "choice" aspect when claiming a Pro-choicer advocates killing unborn babies is a misrepresentation of the position (ie, dishonest). You claimed it wasn't a misrepresentation. That seems like a clear and unambiguous response on your part on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 21, 2017 22:22:06 GMT
Can you link my words where I did that? I believe I merely answered your questions however you framed them and at no time did I ever in any way imply "without understanding the choice aspect ...". "Without understanding the choice aspect" was why I specifically asked you there if leaving out the "choice" aspect when claiming a Pro-choicer advocates killing unborn babies is a misrepresentation of the position (ie, dishonest). You claimed it wasn't a misrepresentation. That seems like a clear and unambiguous response on your part on the matter. 1) It was a garbled example, and that's what I was responding to. 2) After you corrected it, my actual response was: "  Not in a reply to posts about abortion. Seriously dude. " linkAs in there are only two main positions. "Killing unborn babies" is slanted both with "kill" for "terminate" and baby" for "fetus", but still technically true, and that's how I answered initially. And anybody in an abortion conversation (posts about abortion) would know the person would be "Pro-choice", and would know about the mother's decision, as it's its irremovable. But none of my responses suggested that I would ever say, or think fair to say about someone out of the blue - "they advocate killing babies". If Somebody said that I'd think "antinatalist". But as noted colorfully above - Not in a reply to posts about abortion. I was rejecting your entire premise, as I saw no relevant analogy to be had. Do you think we were really talking to or significantly past each other at that point? Are you really going to keep insisting that I would just say "killing babies" without context, explicit or implicit, for pro-choice? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 23, 2017 11:40:14 GMT
1) What if he called it a God-derived right, and the signs from God were the criteria he listed? Or if his criteria were that when the adult hugged the child the child hugged back, that signaled consent. Are you really saying his criteria can't be examined for what they actually assert because of the name/description he assigned to it? 2) Someone who is advocating a consent-only approach may be arguing other things as well. In this case he's also arguing for his specific criteria. 1. Absolutely his criteria can be examined for both what they actually assert and for the consequences that will (likely) happen because of what they assert. This is what I said from the beginning, that any "predators abusing 4-year-olds" happening because of the criteria would be, at best, a consequence of the criteria; but it was the criteria that was being advocated, not the consequences of that criteria. It's absolutely fine to discuss those consequences and decide whether we think they outweigh the virtues; but I didn't like the seeming dishonesty in saying it was the consequences themselves that were being advocated. 2. Correct. The criteria and his "consent-only approach" were basically one and the same. 1. What they intentionally assert. If the "consequence" is a volitional subcomponent of the advocacy, then he advocates that as well. Even if you think that is "incorrect", it remains not "dishonesty", which requires intention to deceive. 2. So "consent-only", deezen's approach, a God-determined approach, and the hug-back approach for consent are all basically one and the same? Both Tennessee in the US and Ras al-Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates are "federated states". Are we limited to the general features of "federated states" in examining the intentions of the framers of each system? Regardless of whether they declare "here's our idea of a federated state". |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 24, 2017 19:08:26 GMT
Where was this even remotely done? When AJ first said "Eddie advocated for adult sex with children as young as 4-year-olds." (the post I first responded to, and that you responded to me responding to). There were a number of posts as we spelled out what we meant. When it started I mentioned his criteria, his previous frequent mentions of the 4 year-old age and his ideas of very light rape punishment, all of which added heft to AJ's idea of Eddie's advocacy. And you yourself noted later that promotion is at least some evidence to be considered. What you and I disagreed on were numerous - including what AJ's statement "seemed to mean" to you, what "a/bulk" meant in this case, how it being a "consent-based" approach was supposed to shield under it's wings what his specific consent-based actual implementation did, and whether someone had to outright pronounce "I advocate *something*" else they didn't advocate it. After the first few posts where we clarified what it meant to us, I used the the language you should well recognize - with the criteria he advocates "opens to", "be subject to", "exposes" and the like. But repeated accusations like "you don't have to misrepresent", "it's not like you have to be dishonest", etc., for an absolutely genuine position usually spell some amount of doom for reasonable conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 26, 2017 20:28:20 GMT
What is your basis to assert, at the very beginning of a conversation, that this is not a firmly-held, reasoned belief? 1) Previously you asserted to me that all I was doing was "basing this on my gut reactions, mores, and evolution" 2) That I'm "being dishonest", "framing the position" What makes you field one or the other at any given moment? And what tone do you think such assertions set for a conversation, even if they weren't self-contradictory and were remotely true? I'm not sure what the "this" in "this is not a... belief" is referring to, but I don't recall asserting anything of note at the beginning of the conversation other than what practically became my mantra in that thread: "'advocating a consent-only approach to sex' and 'advocating sex with 4-year-olds' are two very different things." 1. You might have to quote me saying that exactly about you; mostly with the gut reactions/mores/evolution I was talking about people in general, and I wasn't even excluding myself. In any case, it would apply to you unless you had thoroughly researched this beforehand. I do think you made a lot of emotion-based arguments in that thread, though; mostly those that were blatantly fallacious (I listed a few in one of these other threads). 2. Well, yeah, because you reiterated the "Eddie advocated 4-year-olds being abused by predators" dozens of times in that thread, and I felt that was precisely what was dishonestly framing the argument. Very early in you repeated multiple times "don't have to misrepresent", "dishonest" and the like. Which of course I wasn't doing or being, as at the start we were speaking of AJ's assertion which included historical evidence in addition to the criteria, as well as hashing out what AJ's statement "seemed" or "sounded like" to you. Once strictly referring to the criteria, the assertion was "opens to", "be subject to", "exposes to" and the like. In any case, disagreement != dishonesty, whether or not you don't understand something, but calling it that is definitely a way to quickly scotch a conversation. 1. You say it again here, by again ascribing to "emotion-based" anything that you'd like summarily dismissed. And there is no "thoroughly researched" that can compete in any way with the expert consensus, save that of the actual trained professional, although many a lay crackpot would like to think that there is. In any case, most people learn the consensus either directly or as it is disseminated into the culture by the expert professionals. 2. Simply not true. You keep leaving out the "opens to", "be subject to", "exposes to" when speaking of his criteria, which isn't arguable. As noted before, why do you keep saying "ignored", when the truth is weighed an determined that none conceivable comes within leagues of the harm? It was certainly never explicitly weighed; you never even mentioned it until I did, which would be the dictionary-definition of "ignoring it." You don't need to articulate beyond the fact that no sexual "freedom" comes anywhere near the harms according to the disseminated expert consensus. And not explicitly walking down a list unprompted in a thread in no way speaks to what was or was not "weighed" in a determination. |
|
