' + proboards.escape_html(r.items[0].snippet.title) + '

^tpfkar

Apr 22, 2018 2:55:50 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

All you're doing it is reiterating that you rejected it based on nothing. Those "things have been wrong in the past" were examples of similar positions formed because of those things. Marijuana may not be harmless, but it was demonized, illegalized, and its effects lied about or grossly exaggerated, while far more harmful substances--cigarettes, alcohol--were ignored. No shit pot isn't child rape; nobody suggested otherwise; pot was only used to combat your "promulgated via law, teachers, and media," as if those institutions only promulgate expert opinions rather than nonsense.

I understand that you in your advocacy want to sweep away both the obvious and the thoroughly promulgated expert consensus that children need to be able to mature unmolested by predator adults. And regardless of how hard you want to try to equate, neither marijuana use by adults (not children of course) nor homosexual relations between consenting adults (as you stabbed at before) are analogous to adults preying on children. I guess next in your senseless advocacy you can also decry the "moral outrage" against businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and the Tuskegee experiments.

And what is the "nonsense" that you propose is promulgated by those institutions re adults having sex with kids and their sexual ways as young as 2?

Wow, epic reading comprehension fail.

1. I've asked you repeatedly to post this "promulgated expert consensus" and you haven't; I never said nor suggested anything about "sweeping it away."

2. I never equated marijuana use nor homosexuality to pedophilia. Marijuana was an example of the law, media, teachers spreading lies; Homosexuality was an example of people using Puritanical moral outrage instead of facts and rational arguments; it was in relation to the arguments about both.

There's no point in continuing to discuss this with you if you repeatedly fail to understand what I'm saying and instead just straw man my points.

Nope, none of that's advocacy of pedophilia. Not that I'm surprised you think it is since 80% of the forum couldn't teach you what "advocacy" means/doesn't mean. Not to mention that I made my own arguments against pedophilia and had said repeatedly I didn't support Eddie's "consent only" approach. Children being sexual is a matter of fact and not an advocacy of anything. Puritanism/Xenophobia are two possible reasons why the social morals on the subject are what they are; again, saying that isn't advocating that the social morals should be otherwise.

It all hopeful voluminous bullsh!t-based advocacy, laughingly transparently so.

Even going so far as to say that lay people should consider the mythical "good" of kids being sexed up by adult predators and the "bias" of the experts, based on research you yourself said you'd done not a whit of, even if an armchair advocate had any chance in such an endeavor in any case. And children having glands and playing with themselves in no way remotely suggests that they should be molested by adults. And variously crying the vacuous persecuted "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and the utterly fatuous made-up "xenophobia" in an argument on the great damage vs. not and the "good" of adult-child sex is advocacy regardless of how many nonsensical disclaimers you also toss in.

More voluminous reading comprehension fail.

I'm not advocating anything so I have nothing to provide evidence for. You're the one who claimed your opinion was based on the "promulgated expert consensus" that you've never posted. What makes you think you can just claim that without providing any evidence for it?

It is the well-documented firmly-established standard that the pedophiles have to try to overturn (good luck!), not the other way around.

It's so well-documented and established and so thoroughly promulgated that you can't show it? Most curious. The rest of this is just Arlon's "Statu Quo" argument.

In any context, but dramatically underscored in a discussion as to whether "consent" criteria that only require that a child articulate that they want to have sex with an adult predator in order for that adult to be sanctioned to rape the child, various transparent begs to - it's just "moral outrage", it's just "Puritanism", it's just the wholly made-up "xenophobia", a system of "consent" that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex wouldn't subject countless young children to sex with predator adults, talking about how sexual children as young as 2 are in defense of adult-kid sex, pretending that lay people should or even could overrule established thoroughly robust expert consensus by conducting their own

, when you yourself caw that you've done none of it, even if you were remotely qualified - all of that is advocacy that can't be brushed away with frankly absurd tacked-on denials.

Is this supposed to be English?

You can keep saying it's advocacy all you want, but the entire forum realizes you don't know what the word means.

Everything I've seen needs rearranging
And for anyone who thinks it's strange
Then you should be the first to want to make this change
And for everyone who thinks that life is just a game
Do you like the part you're playing?
-- Love (Arthur Lee) - "You Set the Scene"

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... Apr 23, 2018 3:23:51 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Apr 23, 2018 3:23:51 GMT

^tpfkar

Apr 23, 2018 1:51:28 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

I understand that you in your advocacy want to sweep away both the obvious and the thoroughly promulgated expert consensus that children need to be able to mature unmolested by predator adults. And regardless of how hard you want to try to equate, neither marijuana use by adults (not children of course) nor homosexual relations between consenting adults (as you stabbed at before) are analogous to adults preying on children. I guess next in your senseless advocacy you can also decry the "moral outrage" against businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and the Tuskegee experiments.

And what is the "nonsense" that you propose is promulgated by those institutions re adults having sex with kids and their sexual ways as young as 2?

Wow, epic reading comprehension fail.

1. I've asked you repeatedly to post this "promulgated expert consensus" and you haven't; I never said nor suggested anything about "sweeping it away."

2. I never equated marijuana use nor homosexuality to pedophilia. Marijuana was an example of the law, media, teachers spreading lies; Homosexuality was an example of people using Puritanical moral outrage instead of facts and rational arguments; it was in relation to the arguments about both.

There's no point in continuing to discuss this with you if you repeatedly fail to understand what I'm saying and instead just straw man my points.

Wow, ironic hypocritical obtusery cognitive function fail.

You've repeatedly noted it yourself and said variously that it was "biased" and "nonsense". Just because you say that professionals who publish in the media, inform the law, doctors, etc, are just "morally outraged" biased individuals, "Puritans", and "xenophobes" who just don't understand the draw of those juicy juicy sexual kids (as young as 2!) doesn't yield that they're all ignorant monsters who ignored the experts and that the experts ignored themselves, regardless of how badly you want it.

You most certainly inaptly and ineptly analogized; just because some things are found to be sensationalized and misguided does not yield that everything or in fact any particular utterly unlike thing is. As noted, you can next go on about the "moral outrage" and "lies" at the aversion to businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and to the Tuskegee experiments. And adults raping kids is of course predatory universes different from adults smoking pot and consenting adults choosing to be intimate with each other.

And I don't doubt you'll scurry away again as you did multiple times previously
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread
there's even another one I'll have to look up

And it'll come back up every time your go there or proffer similar psychopathies like waxing stupid about how advocating force-sterilizing all women, force-terminating all pregnancies, nuking the world, and more - and not - are just "value differences" and perverse ironies about how you and don't go back and forth about them any more as you "got a life".

It all hopeful voluminous bullsh!t-based advocacy, laughingly transparently so.

Even going so far as to say that lay people should consider the mythical "good" of kids being sexed up by adult predators and the "bias" of the experts, based on research you yourself said you'd done not a whit of, even if an armchair advocate had any chance in such an endeavor in any case. And children having glands and playing with themselves in no way remotely suggests that they should be molested by adults. And variously crying the vacuous persecuted "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and the utterly fatuous made-up "xenophobia" in an argument on the great damage vs. not and the "good" of adult-child sex is advocacy regardless of how many nonsensical disclaimers you also toss in.

More voluminous reading comprehension fail.

Squeeeeeeel!

About as good as your "thanks for confirming" vacuity.

It is the well-documented firmly-established standard that the pedophiles have to try to overturn (good luck!), not the other way around.

It's so well-documented and established and so thoroughly promulgated that you can't show it? Most curious. The rest of this is just Arlon's "Statu Quo" argument.

Just because you badly want it gone doesn't mean you can hopeful jabber it away. Or where are all these experts hiding advocating the good of dropping the kids drawers and adults sexing them up? In those "studies" you said you hadn't read, in all that research you said you'd done nothing of? As if an inflamed delusional armchair amateur or any other even cognitively unimpaired nonprofessional should or even could Erj-up the "biased" experts.

Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.

In any context, but dramatically underscored in a discussion as to whether "consent" criteria that only require that a child articulate that they want to have sex with an adult predator in order for that adult to be sanctioned to rape the child, various transparent begs to - it's just "moral outrage", it's just "Puritanism", it's just the wholly made-up "xenophobia", a system of "consent" that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex wouldn't subject countless young children to sex with predator adults, talking about how sexual children as young as 2 are in defense of adult-kid sex, pretending that lay people should or even could overrule established thoroughly robust expert consensus by conducting their own

, when you yourself caw that you've done none of it, even if you were remotely qualified - all of that is advocacy that can't be brushed away with frankly absurd tacked-on denials.

Eva Yojimbo: Well, the "conceivable way it could be worth it" is if the experts were wrong, and there are always conceivable ways that experts could be wrong. I'll give you one obvious way in which experts come to be wrong: their own experiences biases them. By that I mean experts in certain fields, like psychology, would only end up seeing people that were damaged by pedophile experiences; they wouldn't necessarily see those who weren't damaged or who considered their experiences positive.

Is this supposed to be English?

You can keep saying it's advocacy all you want, but the entire forum realizes you don't know what the word means.

Squeeeeeeel! Which part overwhelmed your beautiful "reading comprehension"?

I know you really do "believe" an utterly dishonest poll of a group of people you conned or who don't care and whose asses you regularly kiss and who all think I'm too "mean" and include numerous other pedophiles, people who want to destroy the earth, force-sterilize all women, force-terminate all pregnancies against the mothers' wills, and just in general have hate-ons, means anything at all, other than your complete indeptitude and utter dishonesty.

And I don't know what the silly thing shows as I didn't vote in it.

And I'll just keep laughing heartily at your hilariously hopeful inept foot riddlin'. (Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth &amp; Closed Eyes

"People must research, although I haven't, against the biased experts that don't exist and haven't promulgated a consensus, to consider the good of adult-kid sex - see these studies that I haven't read. But wait, I actually believe adult-kid sex is wrong, just everybody thinks it's wrong for the wrong reasons! It's just their "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and "xenophobia", because that came out of my ass and I say so, and because of marijuana and homosexuality, and I think it's wrong because...well I guess big adult d!cks _might_ be a problem, I'm not sure... and anyway everybody must research because there's no information, wait it's there but it's biased nonsense, again see marijuana and gay stuff, and anyway lay people can and should overturn the experts, just make sure you get a youtube channel and talk to ErJen! It's wrong to go with the freakin' obvious and well-established by the experts that adult-kid sex is horrifically abusive and only the dream of pedofiles, but wait!, I mean, what am I saying, it's wrong! But everybody who knows it's wrong is still wrong. Seriously. Reading comprehension. Word."

Eva Yojimbo: I'm not sure why you think prepubescent sex would reduce a child's chances of making it to the point of successfully raising offspring of their own...

Last Edit: Apr 23, 2018 3:43:25 GMT by cupcakes

Deleted
Deleted Member

@Deleted
Posts: 0

If you could be a God... Apr 23, 2018 16:37:25 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2018 16:37:25 GMT

cupcakes

Which part overwhelmed your beautiful "reading comprehension"?

Yes, it's everyone else who has poor reading comprehension and not the fact that your paragraphs are higglety pigglety and borderline incomprehensible. Just as you're the only one who has access to a bespoke version of the site which flashes up at the top of the screen who else is browsing, whereas everyone else who uses the forum would have to scroll all the way to the bottom in order to get the same information.

Last Edit: Apr 23, 2018 16:38:31 GMT by Deleted

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... Apr 23, 2018 17:17:52 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Apr 23, 2018 17:17:52 GMT

^tpfkar

Apr 23, 2018 16:37:25 GMT @miccee said:

cupcakes

Which part overwhelmed your beautiful "reading comprehension"?

Yes, it's everyone else who has poor reading comprehension and not the fact that your paragraphs are higglety pigglety and borderline incomprehensible. Just as you're the only one who has access to a bespoke version of the site which flashes up at the top of the screen who else is browsing, whereas everyone else who uses the forum would have to scroll all the way to the bottom in order to get the same information.

My, such "higglety pigglety and borderline" "contumely". (Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

I do know you stuck sows do like to squeal about anything you can scratch for to try to divert attention away from your psychopathic advocacies.

And as I said, I'm quite happy, nay ecstatic with your utter ignorance of your own uproarious utter ignorance of the basics of the world. And of course your intrinsic trait of asserting any utter stupidity that plops out of your Ada-quality "brain". Carlton dance

You going to be ok, mic?

Eva Yojimbo
Elite Member

@evayojimbo
Posts: 5,981

If you could be a God... Apr 24, 2018 1:49:18 GMT

Quote

Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 24, 2018 1:49:18 GMT

^tpfkar

Apr 23, 2018 1:51:28 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Wow, epic reading comprehension fail.

1. I've asked you repeatedly to post this "promulgated expert consensus" and you haven't; I never said nor suggested anything about "sweeping it away."

2. I never equated marijuana use nor homosexuality to pedophilia. Marijuana was an example of the law, media, teachers spreading lies; Homosexuality was an example of people using Puritanical moral outrage instead of facts and rational arguments; it was in relation to the arguments about both.

There's no point in continuing to discuss this with you if you repeatedly fail to understand what I'm saying and instead just straw man my points.

You've repeatedly noted it yourself and said variously that it was "biased" and "nonsense". Just because you say that professionals who publish in the media, inform the law, doctors, etc, are just "morally outraged" biased individuals, "Puritans", and "xenophobes" who just don't understand the draw of those juicy juicy sexual kids (as young as 2!) doesn't yield that they're all ignorant monsters who ignored the experts and that the experts ignored themselves, regardless of how badly you want it.

The "bias" was regarding a hypothetical sampling problem. The "nonsense" was about the demonizing of pot. Never said any professionals are "morally outraged, puritan, xenophobes;" that was about you ("moral outrage") and your average person. That's all just your lack of reading comprehension and/or lies.

You most certainly inaptly and ineptly analogized; just because some things are found to be sensationalized and misguided does not yield that everything or in fact any particular utterly unlike thing is. As noted, you can next go on about the "moral outrage" and "lies" at the aversion to businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and to the Tuskegee experiments. And adults raping kids is of course predatory universes different from adults smoking pot and consenting adults choosing to be intimate with each other.

Whattaya know? You finally got something right! I absolutely agree with your first sentence: so how do you tell the things that ARE sensationalized/misguided from the things that AREN'T? Well, you got it right a long time ago: you look at expert studies/consensuses. You don't rely on the media, teachers, and law; you rely on EXPERTS. So, for the billionth time, where are the expert consensuses?

I have no idea why you're bringing up businesses refusing services based on sexual orientation or the Tuskegee experiments for... I don't see any relation to what we're discussing.

And I don't doubt you'll scurry away again as you did multiple times previously
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread
there's even another one I'll have to look up

Dude, I'm not going to keep track of multiple threads of your non-stop stupid on the same damn subject. If you want me to respond to something, post it here. And if your posts keep getting longer and longer I'm going to drop it again. I'm wasting enough time on your inanity as it is.

It's so well-documented and established and so thoroughly promulgated that you can't show it? Most curious. The rest of this is just Arlon's "Statu Quo" argument.

Just because you badly want it gone doesn't mean you can hopeful jabber it away. Or where are all these experts hiding advocating the good of dropping the kids drawers and adults sexing them up?

How can I "jabber anything away" when you haven't "jabbered anything here?" You keep claiming they exist, but have failed spectacularly to post them. I already gave you a list of neutral to positive studies done on pedophilia. Which of those did you bother reading? From the few there I've bothered to Google they were all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You do realize that a tiny fraction of all peer-reviewed studies get publicized, yes?

And to reiterate, since I seem to have to spell everything out for you: posting that link doesn't mean I support the conclusions of those studies. Posting that link doesn't mean I'm dismissing studies that say there was harm done, or suggesting that such studies don't exist. Posting that link ONLY MEANS THAT THERE ARE STUDIES DONE BY EXPERTS THAT POSIT NEUTRAL-TO-POSITIVE CASES OF PEDOPHILIA and that's ALL it does. You trying to claim me posting it means any more than that would be a case of your bad reading comprehension and/or lying.

And I might add: that even if you are to ever post an "expert consensus" saying it's bad, that in no way proves that people's (including your) opinion was based on those studies. It's entirely possible that the expert consensus is that pedophilia is harmful, and that people's opinions about it are NOT formed because of that expert consensus. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. The notion that most people's moral opinions in general are formed because expert consensuses is rather laughable to begin with.

Ignoring the rest for the sake of sanity.

Everything I've seen needs rearranging
And for anyone who thinks it's strange
Then you should be the first to want to make this change
And for everyone who thinks that life is just a game
Do you like the part you're playing?
-- Love (Arthur Lee) - "You Set the Scene"

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... Apr 24, 2018 3:13:49 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Apr 24, 2018 3:13:49 GMT

^tpfkar

Apr 24, 2018 1:49:18 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

Wow, ironic hypocritical obtusery cognitive function fail.

You've repeatedly noted it yourself and said variously that it was "biased" and "nonsense". Just because you say that professionals who publish in the media, inform the law, doctors, etc, are just "morally outraged" biased individuals, "Puritans", and "xenophobes" who just don't understand the draw of those juicy juicy sexual kids (as young as 2!) doesn't yield that they're all ignorant monsters who ignored the experts and that the experts ignored themselves, regardless of how badly you want it.

The "bias" was regarding a hypothetical sampling problem. The "nonsense" was about the demonizing of pot. Never said any professionals are "morally outraged, puritan, xenophobes;" that was about you ("moral outrage") and your average person. That's all just your lack of reading comprehension and/or lies.

Which all just again shows that you've been and keep shatting Hail Mary irrelevant nonsense in your advocacy as none of that hypothetical nattering has anything to do with the great harm of adult-child sex as promulgated from experts via professionals, media, law, etc., except for your hopes to undermine it. And right, if

you're not saying/suggesting/weaseling that the information promulgated by professionals concerning the great harm of adults sexually abusing children is "nonsense" but only that the utterly un-analogous marijuana is, then your advocacy line is even more demented than it even has thus far appeared. That's just both your incapacity and your desire to promote the idea of adult-child sex.

You most certainly inaptly and ineptly analogized; just because some things are found to be sensationalized and misguided does not yield that everything or in fact any particular utterly unlike thing is. As noted, you can next go on about the "moral outrage" and "lies" at the aversion to businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and to the Tuskegee experiments. And adults raping kids is of course predatory universes different from adults smoking pot and consenting adults choosing to be intimate with each other.

Whattaya know? You finally got something right! I absolutely agree with your first sentence: so how do you tell the things that ARE sensationalized/misguided from the things that AREN'T? Well, you got it right a long time ago: you look at expert studies/consensuses. You don't rely on the media, teachers, and law; you rely on EXPERTS. So, for the billionth time, where are the expert consensuses?

What's promulgated via the media, via teachers, doctors, the law IS the expert consensus. Or again, are the experts also just so "morally outraged", "Puritan" and "xenophobic"

that they'll sit on your adult/child-sex-prevents-cancer bombshell and let the textbooks, schools, doctors, teachers, law, etc., promulgate "nonsense"? Your overturn plan is brilliant!

I have no idea why you're bringing up businesses refusing services based on sexual orientation or the Tuskegee experiments for... I don't see any relation to what we're discussing.

For all the "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and "xenophobia"

that underlies peoples aversion to them, of course.

And I don't doubt you'll scurry away again as you did multiple times previously
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/thread
IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread
there's even another one I'll have to look up

And it'll come back up every time your go there or proffer similar psychopathies like waxing stupid about how advocating force-sterilizing all women, force-terminating all pregnancies, nuking the world, and more - and not - are just "value differences" and perverse ironies about how you and don't go back and forth about them any more as you "got a life".

Dude, I'm not going to keep track of multiple threads of your non-stop stupid on the same damn subject. If you want me to respond to something, post it here. And if your posts keep getting longer and longer I'm going to drop it again. I'm wasting enough time on your inanity as it is.

Of course you want to shield your eyes from where you couldn't bluster bullsh!t through it any more and faded away. Anybody can click those links and see just at what point you vaporized.

Just because you badly want it gone doesn't mean you can hopeful jabber it away. Or where are all these experts hiding advocating the good of dropping the kids drawers and adults sexing them up?

How can I "jabber anything away" when you haven't "jabbered anything here?" You keep claiming they exist, but have failed spectacularly to post them. I already gave you a list of neutral to positive studies done on pedophilia. Which of those did you bother reading? From the few there I've bothered to Google they were all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You do realize that a tiny fraction of all peer-reviewed studies get publicized, yes?

Sure, why don't you pick some of those studies listed by "younglovechan" on reddit, in which there are no actual links, and highlight the conclusions and the basis (victim self-reporting

) of pro-to-neutral both in the "study" and acceptance of said conclusions by mainstream experts/professionals. Or lay out your amateur armchair analysis for overriding the pros to bring on the toddler-lovin'. Or maybe you and ErJen can use those who-knows-whats to form a youngloveyoutubechan/nibirumasons channel.

And you rattle stupid about "not advocating".

Can't make up this mental sh!t.

And to reiterate, since I seem to have to spell everything out for you: posting that link doesn't mean I support the conclusions of those studies. Posting that link doesn't mean I'm dismissing studies that say there was harm done, or suggesting that such studies don't exist. Posting that link ONLY MEANS THAT THERE ARE STUDIES DONE BY EXPERTS THAT POSIT NEUTRAL-TO-POSITIVE CASES OF PEDOPHILIA and that's ALL it does. You trying to claim me posting it means any more than that would be a case of your bad reading comprehension and/or lying.

Right, you're linking text "younglovechan" posted on reddit, of supposed studies that you've said you'd read none of, that are supposed to show the "pro-to-neutral" of adults banging kids, in an argument about whether a particular "consent" regime that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex with any particular adult in order to sanction that adult raping the child, -but- you're not advocating anything.

I do know what the jury would find in this case.

And I might add: that even if you are to ever post an "expert consensus" saying it's bad, that in no way proves that people's (including your) opinion was based on those studies. It's entirely possible that the expert consensus is that pedophilia is harmful, and that people's opinions about it are NOT formed because of that expert consensus. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. The notion that most people's moral opinions in general are formed because expert consensuses is rather laughable to begin with.

Sounds like you're 90% there! Got it covered coming and coming!

And it's entirely possible that you just have missing swaths of normal-people brain matter and really don't want the kids to be what's for dinner. No laughable matter.

More voluminous reading comprehension fail.

Squeeeeeeel!

About as good as your "thanks for confirming" vacuity.

It's so well-documented and established and so thoroughly promulgated that you can't show it? Most curious. The rest of this is just Arlon's "Statu Quo" argument.

Just because you badly want it gone doesn't mean you can hopeful jabber it away. Or where are all these experts hiding advocating the good of dropping the kids drawers and adults sexing them up? In those "studies" you said you hadn't read, in all that research you said you'd done nothing of? As if an inflamed delusional armchair amateur or any other even cognitively unimpaired nonprofessional should or even could Erj-up the "biased" experts.

Is this supposed to be English?

You can keep saying it's advocacy all you want, but the entire forum realizes you don't know what the word means.

Squeeeeeeel! Which part overwhelmed your beautiful "reading comprehension"?

I know you really do "believe" an utterly dishonest poll of a group of people you conned or who don't care and whose asses you regularly kiss and who all think I'm too "mean" and include numerous other pedophiles, people who want to destroy the earth, force-sterilize all women, force-terminate all pregnancies against the mothers' wills, and just in general have hate-ons, means anything at all, other than your complete indeptitude and utter dishonesty.

And I don't know what the silly thing shows as I didn't vote in it.

And I'll just keep laughing heartily at your hilariously hopeful inept foot riddlin'. (Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes

"People must research, although I haven't, against the biased experts that don't exist and haven't promulgated a consensus, to consider the good of adult-kid sex - see these studies that I haven't read. But wait, I actually believe adult-kid sex is wrong, just everybody thinks it's wrong for the wrong reasons! It's just their "moral outrage", "Puritanism", and "xenophobia", because that came out of my ass and I say so, and because of marijuana and homosexuality, and I think it's wrong because...well I guess big adult d!cks _might_ be a problem, I'm not sure... and anyway everybody must research because there's no information, wait it's there but it's biased nonsense, again see marijuana and gay stuff, and anyway lay people can and should overturn the experts, just make sure you get a youtube channel and talk to ErJen! It's wrong to go with the freakin' obvious and well-established by the experts that adult-kid sex is horrifically abusive and only the dream of pedofiles, but wait!, I mean, what am I saying, it's wrong! But everybody who knows it's wrong is still wrong. Seriously. Reading comprehension. Word."

Eva Yojimbo: I'm not sure why you think prepubescent sex would reduce a child's chances of making it to the point of successfully raising offspring of their own...

Ignoring the rest for the sake of sanity.

Are psychopaths considered sane?

Eva Yojimbo: And what "facts already established by experts" are you referring to? What would you say in response to someone posting a list of pro-to-neutral studies of pedophilia like THESE? Now, I haven't read any of them, and neither have you; but I'm also guessing that you (like myself) have done zero actual research into the subject in general. All you're doing is basing this on your gut reactions and social mores, reactions and mores that history has taught us are remarkably unreliable.

Last Edit: Apr 24, 2018 3:51:50 GMT by cupcakes

Eva Yojimbo
Elite Member

@evayojimbo
Posts: 5,981

If you could be a God... Apr 25, 2018 5:53:48 GMT

Quote

Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 25, 2018 5:53:48 GMT

^tpfkar

Apr 24, 2018 1:49:18 GMT Eva Yojimbo said:

The "bias" was regarding a hypothetical sampling problem. The "nonsense" was about the demonizing of pot. Never said any professionals are "morally outraged, puritan, xenophobes;" that was about you ("moral outrage") and your average person. That's all just your lack of reading comprehension and/or lies.

Which all just again shows that...

...you were wrong in claiming what it was about. I'm sorry for you inability to follow arguments/points and your tendency to get the mixed up with different argument/points.

Whattaya know? You finally got something right! I absolutely agree with your first sentence: so how do you tell the things that ARE sensationalized/misguided from the things that AREN'T? Well, you got it right a long time ago: you look at expert studies/consensuses. You don't rely on the media, teachers, and law; you rely on EXPERTS. So, for the billionth time, where are the expert consensuses?

What's promulgated via the media, via teachers, doctors, the law IS the expert consensus.

Prove it. Remember, you already admitted that the media, teachers, law, etc. can promulgate nonsense. So prove what they're promulgating is an expert consensus and not nonsense.

Or again, are the experts also just so "morally outraged", "Puritan" and "xenophobic"

that they'll sit on your adult/child-sex-prevents-cancer bombshell and let the textbooks, schools, doctors, teachers, law, etc., promulgate "nonsense"?

I think you have a very warped view of how "experts" and "expert consensuses" actually operate. There are a lot of scientific fields and a lot of experts and different kinds of experts within those fields researching all kinds of different things. There are thousands of studies published in a myriad of peer-reviewed journals. Only a tiny percentage of them gets any media attention. Only a small percentage are replicated in other studies. Many of them aren't read much at all. It's not as if all experts subscribe to all these journals and read every study. You don't always get "polls" done of every expert in the fields to see what they think. Most fields are filled with disagreements ranging from large, seemingly irreconcilable differences; to small disputes about details. There's rarely a single study that proves anything for certain.

The point is that the business of science and research is messy and rarely as black and white as you're trying to make it out to be. You claim to have expert consensuses; I want to see them. There could be a variety of reasons why neutral-to-positive studies on pedophilia haven't been "promulgated," ranging from stuff as simple and benign to "not many read them and/or bothered to follow up on them" to as complex as "researchers didn't want to risk their reputations by arguing in public for unpopular conclusions." Again, I'm not pretending or claiming to know. You're the one claiming there's an expert consensus. I want to see it. That's all.

Sure, why don't you pick some of those studies listed by "younglovechan" on reddit, in which there are no actual links, and highlight the conclusions and the basis (victim self-reporting

) of pro-to-neutral both in the "study" and acceptance of said conclusions by mainstream experts/professionals.

1. You don't need links. Copy/past titles/authors/journal into Google and look them up. What sucks is that many of them are behind paywalls.

2. Why would I show "acceptance of said conclusions by mainstream experts/professionals." How would I do that? What the hell even is that? What scientific journals are "mainstream?" Which are "fringe?" Is American Journal of Orthopsychiatry a "mainstream" or "fringe" publication?

OK, fine, but I picked one at relative random. Here's a book length study on the subject. It was published by Rutledge University, and it has positive reviews from (according to Amazon): The Journal of Sex Research, Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health, Contemporary Psychology, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dean of School of Social Work, Florida State University, and (not from Amazon) Emeritus Professor of Social Work at West Virginia University, and Ralph Underwager, Institute for Psychological Therapies. The latter two discuss some of the findings HERE.

Now, unless you think the Emeritus Professor of Social Work at West Virginia University is a pedophile, what do you make of his conclusions?

Right, you're linking text "younglovechan" posted on reddit, of supposed studies

Dude, they're not "supposed studies." Are you also so internet illiterate that you don't know how to copy/paste stuff into Google and look them up?

...that you've said you'd read none of, that are supposed to show the "pro-to-neutral" of adults banging kids, in an argument about whether a particular "consent" regime that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex with any particular adult in order to sanction that adult raping the child, -but- you're not advocating anything.

Correct. And I've explicitly advocated against the consent criteria as well, and I argued why in a post I previously linked to.

And it's entirely possible that you just have missing swaths of normal-people brain matter...

Given how normal people brain matter are riddled with biases that, among other things, regularly base their opinions on emotions rather than facts and reason, I take that as a compliment.

Everything I've seen needs rearranging
And for anyone who thinks it's strange
Then you should be the first to want to make this change
And for everyone who thinks that life is just a game
Do you like the part you're playing?
-- Love (Arthur Lee) - "You Set the Scene"

cupcakes
Elite Member

@cupcakes
Posts: 5,158

If you could be a God... Apr 25, 2018 7:58:25 GMT

Quote

Post by cupcakes on Apr 25, 2018 7:58:25 GMT

^tpfkar

RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.

Which all just again shows that you've been and keep shatting Hail Mary irrelevant nonsense in your advocacy as none of that hypothetical nattering has anything to do with the great harm of adult-child sex as promulgated from experts via professionals, media, law, etc., except for your hopes to undermine it. And right,

if you're not saying/suggesting/weaseling that the information promulgated by professionals concerning the great harm of adults sexually abusing children is "nonsense" but only that the utterly un-analogous marijuana is, then your advocacy line is even more demented than it even has thus far appeared. That's just both your incapacity and your desire to promote the idea of adult-child sex.

...you were wrong in claiming what it was about. I'm sorry for you inability to follow arguments/points and your tendency to get the mixed up with different argument/points.

And I'm not sorry for your reddit advocate / 4chan teen style of vacuity. It's a blast to see the desperation splatter! Carlton dance

What's promulgated via the media, via teachers, doctors, the law IS the expert consensus.

Prove it. Remember, you already admitted that the media, teachers, law, etc. can promulgate nonsense. So prove what they're promulgating is an expert consensus and not nonsense.

Suck it. And I admitted no such thing, as irrelevant as it is. You asserted it like it had some bearing on the expert consensus promulgated on the harm of adults raping kids. You have to establish that that promulgated expert consensus is "nonsense", due to their "moral outrage", much like that directed at businesses refusing service based on sexual orientation and the Tuskegee experiments (Apple) Face With Stuck-Out Tongue & Winking Eye

(Apple) Face With Stuck-Out Tongue & Winking Eye

, their "Puritanism", their "xenophobia"

, or whatever other hopeful arse-pull you wish to field to have adult-kid sex be sanctioned.

Or again, are the experts also just so "morally outraged", "Puritan" and "xenophobic"

that they'll sit on your adult/child-sex-prevents-cancer bombshell and let the textbooks, schools, doctors, teachers, law, etc., promulgate "nonsense"? Your overturn plan is brilliant!

I think you have a very warped view of how "experts" and "expert consensuses" actually operate. There are a lot of scientific fields and a lot of experts and different kinds of experts within those fields researching all kinds of different things. There are thousands of studies published in a myriad of peer-reviewed journals. Only a tiny percentage of them gets any media attention. Only a small percentage are replicated in other studies. Many of them aren't read much at all. It's not as if all experts subscribe to all these journals and read every study. You don't always get "polls" done of every expert in the fields to see what they think. Most fields are filled with disagreements ranging from large, seemingly irreconcilable differences; to small disputes about details. There's rarely a single study that proves anything for certain.

The point is that the business of science and research is messy and rarely as black and white as you're trying to make it out to be. You claim to have expert consensuses; I want to see them. There could be a variety of reasons why neutral-to-positive studies on pedophilia haven't been "promulgated," ranging from stuff as simple and benign to "not many read them and/or bothered to follow up on them" to as complex as "researchers didn't want to risk their reputations by arguing in public for unpopular conclusions." Again, I'm not pretending or claiming to know. You're the one claiming there's an expert consensus. I want to see it. That's all.

I know you're just as usual pulling whatever you like right out of your backside. You really seem to think all this chatter about what theoretically could happen means anything at all. Certainly none of it in any way means that the expert-promulgated info is based on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia"

other than in your case of sheer want. You can crap "butmight"s all day long, but you and Erj will just be laughed at with your Nibiru/Mason-style conspiracy nutcasery, although after interacting with ErJen one probably doesn't feel the need to scrub off the nasty.

Sure, why don't you pick some of those studies listed by "younglovechan" on reddit, in which there are no actual links, and highlight the conclusions and the basis (victim self-reporting

) of pro-to-neutral both in the "study" and acceptance of said conclusions by mainstream experts/professionals. Or lay out your amateur armchair analysis for overriding the pros to bring on the toddler-lovin'. Or maybe you and ErJen can use those who-knows-whats to form a youngloveyoutubechan/nibirumasons channel.

And you rattle stupid about "not advocating".

Can't make up this mental sh!t.

1. You don't need links. Copy/past titles/authors/journal into Google and look them up. What sucks is that many of them are behind paywalls.

2. Why would I show "acceptance of said conclusions by mainstream experts/professionals." How would I do that? What the hell even is that? What scientific journals are "mainstream?" Which are "fringe?" Is American Journal of Orthopsychiatry a "mainstream" or "fringe" publication?

OK, fine, but I picked one at relative random. Here's a book length study on the subject. It was published by Rutledge University, and it has positive reviews from (according to Amazon): The Journal of Sex Research, Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health, Contemporary Psychology, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dean of School of Social Work, Florida State University, and (not from Amazon) Emeritus Professor of Social Work at West Virginia University, and Ralph Underwager, Institute for Psychological Therapies. The latter two discuss some of the findings HERE.

Now, unless you think the Emeritus Professor of Social Work at West Virginia University is a pedophile, what do you make of his conclusions?

I know you don't need links, as you've said multiple times you read none of it before or even while you were arguing that a consent regime that sanctioned adults having sex with children if the child just articulated that they assented wouldn't subject countless children to rape by adults. And I'm sure your book review pick from the younglovechan guy was "random", but the random one I plugged in came up nada.

I have no idea about this particular professor emeritus or this particular study, but how could you or any other amateur crackpot stack it against what the professionals promulgate? And I do love "Kilpatrick's plea to give truth a chance will probably fall on deaf ears", how conspiratorial.

As well as the idea that "self-reporting" would be the measure. You can pick "book review"s

all day long, but until there's a expert consensus/professional change it's all your hopeful fapping nonsense.

Right, you're linking text "younglovechan" posted on reddit, of supposed studies that you've said you'd read none of, that are supposed to show the "pro-to-neutral" of adults banging kids, in an argument about whether a particular "consent" regime that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex with any particular adult in order to sanction that adult raping the child, -but- you're not advocating anything.

I do know what the jury would find in this case.

Dude, they're not "supposed studies." Are you also so internet illiterate that you don't know how to copy/paste stuff into Google and look them up?

It's not my job to chase your Hail Marys, and since the best you could come up with was a book review scrambled up at this late date, me cutting and pasting any more dead ends would make my stupidity approach your own.

Right, you're linking text "younglovechan" posted on reddit, of supposed studies that you've said you'd read none of, that are supposed to show the "pro-to-neutral" of adults banging kids, in an argument about whether a particular "consent" regime that only requires that a child articulate that they want sex with any particular adult in order to sanction that adult raping the child, -but- you're not advocating anything.

I do know what the jury would find in this case.

Correct. And I've explicitly advocated against the consent criteria as well, and I argued why in a post I previously linked to.

Correct that that is self-contradictory nonsense. Explicit persistent voluminous advocacy is not overturned by "well, maybe there are manual parts issues" and the like.

What you "argued against" on the consent regime was that it would subject countless children to adult-child "sex".