|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 16:51:39 GMT
tpfkar No, it isn't. There are no facts about what counts as "bent." Yes it is. There are facts about the proportions that hold them. Learn to read. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)But there's not a fact about what counts as bent. Just what those people consider "bent," but so what?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 16:57:13 GMT
tpfkar Yes it is. There are facts about the proportions that hold them. Learn to read. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)But there's not a fact about what counts as bent. Just what those people consider "bent," but so what? Good that you keep nattering on about something never stated. And I know you bent deviants want it all to be "so what". But the real "so what" is that it's subjective, as it is widely compelled, often with overt force, sometimes of the terminal kind. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 17:03:12 GMT
tpfkar But there's not a fact about what counts as bent. Just what those people consider "bent," but so what? Good that you keep nattering on about something never stated. And I know you bent deviants want it all to be "so what". But the real "so what" is that it's subjective, as it is widely compelled, often with overt force, sometimes of the terminal kind. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.The point, then, is that you're basically using "bent" redundantly. The people who consider x progress consider themselves "with it" for considering x progress. They get their own stamp of approval because they like the things they're giving a stamp of approval to. Or their preferences are their preferences.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:19:16 GMT
tpfkar Good that you keep nattering on about something never stated. And I know you bent deviants want it all to be "so what". But the real "so what" is that it's subjective, as it is widely compelled, often with overt force, sometimes of the terminal kind. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.The point, then, is that you're basically using "bent" redundantly. The people who consider x progress consider themselves "with it" for considering x progress. They get their own stamp of approval because they like the things they're giving a stamp of approval to. Or their preferences are their preferences. Doesn't make your pet advocacies any less bent. And doesn't change the fact that we consider positive evolution to be progress regardless of the crazies who quibble whether a person considers their "flourishing" to be good or the predators who want to natter-pretend that any nasty is up at the same level "morally" as anything else. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 17:36:13 GMT
tpfkar The point, then, is that you're basically using "bent" redundantly. The people who consider x progress consider themselves "with it" for considering x progress. They get their own stamp of approval because they like the things they're giving a stamp of approval to. Or their preferences are their preferences. Doesn't make your pet advocacies any less bent. And doesn't change the fact that we consider positive evolution to be progress regardless of the crazies who quibble whether a person considers their "flourishing" to be good or the predators who want to natter-pretend that any nasty is up at the same level "morally" as anything else. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Which just amounts to "Doesn't change that I (and the people who feel the same as me) only give the stamp of approval to the things I give the stamp of approval to." And yeah, that's certainly the case.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:39:33 GMT
tpfkar Doesn't make your pet advocacies any less bent. And doesn't change the fact that we consider positive evolution to be progress regardless of the crazies who quibble whether a person considers their "flourishing" to be good or the predators who want to natter-pretend that any nasty is up at the same level "morally" as anything else. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.Which just amounts to "Doesn't change that I (and the people who feel the same as me) only give the stamp of approval to the things I give the stamp of approval to." And yeah, that's certainly the case. Yeah, sorry, you'll never get week of community service for rape and kid-diddling and similar accepted by "it's all subjective, dude, your stamps of approval don't work on me!" constant blather. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 17:41:09 GMT
tpfkar Which just amounts to "Doesn't change that I (and the people who feel the same as me) only give the stamp of approval to the things I give the stamp of approval to." And yeah, that's certainly the case. Yeah, sorry, you'll never get week of community service for rape and kid-diddling and similar accepted by "it's all subjective, dude, your stamps of approval don't work on me!" constant blather. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)Why would you think that I'm denying that people have the opinions that they do, with some far more common than others, and they take the actions they do, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:46:13 GMT
tpfkar Yeah, sorry, you'll never get week of community service for rape and kid-diddling and similar accepted by "it's all subjective, dude, your stamps of approval don't work on me!" constant blather. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)Why would you think that I'm denying that people have the opinions that they do, with some far more common than others, and they take the actions they do, etc.? Why would you fart out that I'd think that? What you're trying to do is equalize your predatory dreams with the constant vapid gassing on how it (like all judgements are) is "subjective". Still doesn't cleanse the massive creep-factor. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:05:48 GMT
tpfkar Why would you think that I'm denying that people have the opinions that they do, with some far more common than others, and they take the actions they do, etc.? Why would you fart out that I'd think that? What you're trying to do is equalize your predatory dreams with the constant vapid gassing on how it (like all judgements are) is "subjective". Still doesn't cleanse the massive creep-factor. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.What would I say that you'd think that? Because I'm charitably trying to give your comments about it some significance that they would otherwise not have; they'd otherwise be pointless, irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I'm charitably assuming that you're not typing stuff that's pointless and irrelevant. "Equalize predatory dreams . . ." I have no idea what that would amount to. What is "equalizing" in this context? Re creepiness, I'm a fan of it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:09:34 GMT
tpfkar Why would you fart out that I'd think that? What you're trying to do is equalize your predatory dreams with the constant vapid gassing on how it (like all judgements are) is "subjective". Still doesn't cleanse the massive creep-factor. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.What would I say that you'd think that? Because I'm charitably trying to give your comments about it some significance that they would otherwise not have; they'd otherwise be pointless, irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I'm charitably assuming that you're not typing stuff that's pointless and irrelevant. "Equalize predatory dreams . . ." I have no idea what that would amount to. What is "equalizing" in this context? Re creepiness, I'm a fan of it. Kid-diddling. Easy rape. "They're all just subjective". And no doubt you're a fan. And you should be charitable to yourself and learn something once in a while. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:11:50 GMT
tpfkar What would I say that you'd think that? Because I'm charitably trying to give your comments about it some significance that they would otherwise not have; they'd otherwise be pointless, irrelevant to anything I'm saying. I'm charitably assuming that you're not typing stuff that's pointless and irrelevant. "Equalize predatory dreams . . ." I have no idea what that would amount to. What is "equalizing" in this context? Re creepiness, I'm a fan of it. Kid-diddling. Easy rape. "They're all just subjective". And no doubt you're a fan. And you should be charitable to yourself and learn something once in a while. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.You're not explaining the word "equalizing" though. Equalizing what with what?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:16:01 GMT
tpfkar Kid-diddling. Easy rape. "They're all just subjective". And no doubt you're a fan. And you should be charitable to yourself and learn something once in a while. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.You're not explaining the word "equalizing" though. Equalizing what with what? The fact that all ideas are "subjective" is semantic prattle unless somebody's claiming some kind of philosophical objectivity. And no matter how much you try, your predatory ideas aren't just another set, and in fact get people incarcerated and even killed. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:19:56 GMT
tpfkar You're not explaining the word "equalizing" though. Equalizing what with what? The fact that all ideas are "subjective" is semantic prattle unless somebody's claiming some kind of philosophical objectivity. And no matter how much you try, your predatory ideas aren't just another set, and in fact get people incarcerated and even killed. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)No one has ever said that adult-child sex doesn't get people incarcerated or killed, did they? So would that mean, in your view, that it's "semantic prattle" for you to point that out?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:23:25 GMT
tpfkar The fact that all ideas are "subjective" is semantic prattle unless somebody's claiming some kind of philosophical objectivity. And no matter how much you try, your predatory ideas aren't just another set, and in fact get people incarcerated and even killed. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)No one has ever said that adult-child sex doesn't get people incarcerated or killed, did they? So would that mean, in your view, that it's "semantic prattle" for you to point that out? No, I point out 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you've stated so outright. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 13, 2018 18:25:00 GMT
tpfkar You're not explaining the word "equalizing" though. Equalizing what with what? The fact that all ideas are "subjective" is semantic prattle unless somebody's claiming some kind of philosophical objectivity. And no matter how much you try, your predatory ideas aren't just another set, and in fact get people incarcerated and even killed. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)I think he is just claiming philosophical objectivity though. His stance is that at the end of the day a moral stance is simply a personal choice, at some point you decided that murder was bad. Technically he is correct, and in practical terms you could say that I hold that murder is a great thing, but I simply don't do it because of the consequences. What he is saying though is really just philosophy, as a society we generally agree on certain moral points because they enable society to function properly, so yes while technically he is right, practically in general we all hold the same moral stance on most things.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:25:22 GMT
tpfkar No one has ever said that adult-child sex doesn't get people incarcerated or killed, did they? So would that mean, in your view, that it's "semantic prattle" for you to point that out? No, I point out 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you've stated so outright. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.We know that you do that. That's not the question. If it's semantic prattle just in case no one is claiming otherwise, why isn't it semantic prattle for you to stress something where no one is claiming otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:27:42 GMT
tpfkar No, I point out 1) your constant semantic prates about "that's subjective" when no one's claiming a philosophical objective, 2) why you keep doing it, regardless of whether you've stated so outright. As with everything else, slavery being bad is not a fact. Whether it's good or bad is about the feelings of the person making the assessment. Slavery is good to anyone who feels positively about it. That's not the sort of thing one can be wrong about.We know that you do that. That's not the question. If it's semantic prattle just in case no one is claiming otherwise, why isn't it semantic prattle for you to stress something where no one is claiming otherwise? I'm fond of keeping your reasons for crapping up thread after thread clear. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:31:27 GMT
tpfkar We know that you do that. That's not the question. If it's semantic prattle just in case no one is claiming otherwise, why isn't it semantic prattle for you to stress something where no one is claiming otherwise? I'm fond of keeping your reasons for crapping up thread after thread clear. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.The reasons involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:34:11 GMT
tpfkar I'm fond of keeping your reasons for crapping up thread after thread clear. I have no problem with somebody having sex with a four-year-old as long as the four-year-old can and does consent per the criteria I gave for consent above.The reasons involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise? Sure, I like for the "why" you keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads to be available for anyone reading. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 13, 2018 18:37:12 GMT
tpfkar The reasons involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise? Sure, I like for the "why" you keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads to be available for anyone reading. If somebody has sex with a person who's passed out, without consent beforehand, but doesn't cause any injuries (suppose the victim doesn't even realize what's happened until being informed afterwards, say because somebody took a video of the incident), what do you think the appropriate punishment would be? Probably not more than, say, 40 hours of community service. (And by the way, I'd make community service basically be free labor on public works projects.)How would the reasons that I keep dumping voluminous stupid on threads involve stressing something where no one is claiming otherwise?
|
|