Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 22:31:26 GMT
He's the most secular thinker on Youtube (decades ahead of his time, sadly), with a small (11K subscribers, about 1-3k views per video) but dedicated band of followers. Also, if you heard him hold forth on other issues such as economics, racism, religion, Donald Trump, sexual assault and so on without knowing about his views on antinatalism, then you'd likely rate him as a very perspicacious, humourous and intelligent man. By watching his videos, you would see the direction that the atheism movement will inevitably shift towards in the next couple of decades. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 25, 2018 22:39:14 GMT
tpfkar He's the most secular thinker on Youtube (decades ahead of his time, sadly), with a small (11K subscribers, about 1-3k views per video) but dedicated band of followers. Also, if you heard him hold forth on other issues such as economics, racism, religion, Donald Trump, sexual assault and so on without knowing about his views on antinatalism, then you'd likely rate him as a very perspicacious, humourous and intelligent man. By watching his videos, you would see the direction that the atheism movement will inevitably shift towards in the next couple of decades. ErJen has a few messiahs he likes to post as well. 
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 22:42:01 GMT
tpfkar He's the most secular thinker on Youtube (decades ahead of his time, sadly), with a small (11K subscribers, about 1-3k views per video) but dedicated band of followers. Also, if you heard him hold forth on other issues such as economics, racism, religion, Donald Trump, sexual assault and so on without knowing about his views on antinatalism, then you'd likely rate him as a very perspicacious, humourous and intelligent man. By watching his videos, you would see the direction that the atheism movement will inevitably shift towards in the next couple of decades. ErJen has a few messiahs he likes to post as well.
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.Inmendham does not make any scientifically dubious claims. There's no scientific claims that he makes in his antinatalism videos that you would take issue with; you simply don't like the fact that he doesn't read some kind of mystical higher meaning into the (scientifically indisputable) facts of reality that he adduces towards his antinatalistic philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 25, 2018 22:48:35 GMT
tpfkar Inmendham does not make any scientifically dubious claims. There's no scientific claims that he makes in his antinatalism videos that you would take issue with; you simply don't like the fact that he doesn't read some kind of mystical higher meaning into the (scientifically indisputable) facts of reality that he adduces towards his antinatalistic philosophy. I don't know what you're talking about, I love ranting spittle-leaking glassy-eyed cranks and demented "suicidal" psychopaths who love living. Spice o' life! I guess he's also got a Great Objective to base his Cult of Ghastly Perfection upon. 
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 23:20:33 GMT
tpfkar Inmendham does not make any scientifically dubious claims. There's no scientific claims that he makes in his antinatalism videos that you would take issue with; you simply don't like the fact that he doesn't read some kind of mystical higher meaning into the (scientifically indisputable) facts of reality that he adduces towards his antinatalistic philosophy. I don't know what you're talking about, I love ranting spittle-leaking glassy-eyed cranks and demented "suicidal" psychopaths who love living. Spice o' life! I guess he's also got a Great Objective to base his Cult of Ghastly Perfection upon.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.He didn't 'rant' or 'leak spittle' in that video that I last posted. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 25, 2018 23:27:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2018 23:33:13 GMT
The part I was referencing was literally 2 minutes and 15 seconds long. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 25, 2018 23:42:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 0:04:28 GMT
The guest was making a point about people who are temporarily depressed and should perhaps not be in the position to be assisted to die. Inmendham made the point that, if they got to the point where they were starting to question whether life was worth living, this might in fact be their window of rational thinking (evidence that life wasn't worth living) rather than insanity, and that it wouldn't necessarily be the most logical thing to do to get them "re-addicted" to whatever it was they were attached to in life. He is saying that the state of desiring death may be more rational than the state of dependency or having attachments to life, and therefore it is not necessarily appropriate to deem as "therapy" anything that tries to break them out of the mindset of desiring death. This echoes my thinking that I've set forth. I don't believe that all mental illness is made up (certain afflictions such as paranoid schizophrenia are clearly the hallmarks of a disordered brain), but I do think that depression could be misdiagnosed as a mental illness (there is evidence that it is often brought on in reaction to life events and that the idea of a chemical imbalance may be a myth) and a lot of what passes for "therapy" may in fact be something more akin to re-education into the narratives that society finds to be acceptable and appropriately life affirming. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 26, 2018 0:23:21 GMT
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. And I admitted no such thing, as irrelevant as it is. You said: "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." That was in response to my analogies about how marijuana and homosexuality had been demonized/illegalized by the media, teachers, and/or law. So by that you weren't admitting the media, teachers, and/or law demonized/illegalized some things not based on expert consensuses? The relevance is in showing why you shouldn't just assume media, teachers and the law are promulgating an expert consensus. You have to establish that that promulgated expert consensus is "nonsense", No, you have to establish a what the expert consensus is to begin with. I never said that it was nonsense, I challenged that you could prove what it is at all Certainly none of it in any way means that the expert-promulgated info is based on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" Considering I never said it was to begin with... Again, you're confusing/mixing up arguments. I said YOUR arguments were based on "moral outrage." "Puritanism" was in a post about American attitudes towards sex, in general; "xenophobia" was about parents attitudes towards protecting kids, in general. I never mentioned them when it came to expert opinions. The only thing I ever said against expert opinions was that we had to guard against sampling bias. ...you were arguing that a consent regime that sanctioned adults having sex with children if the child just articulated that the assented wouldn't subject countless children to rape by adults. Never argued any such thing. You're just flat-out lying here, and I dare you to quote me saying that. All I ever argued was that the consent criteria wasn't advocating for adult-child sex. The reason why was explained by 80% of the forum to you. And I'm sure your book review pick from the younglovechan guy was "random", but the random one I plugged in came up nada. There were a few I couldn't find, but most that I searched were found. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll just look them all up and post the links. Like I said, many are behind paywalls, so unless you want to pay to read them it won't do much good. 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?So now you're dismissing this study and the review from that emeritus professor (I guess neither the researcher or professor are... professionals?) in deference to the phantom "what the professionals promulgate" that you still haven't posted. It's not my job to chase your Hail Marys It's your job to prove what the expert consensus is, since you claimed to know. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2018 0:23:25 GMT
tpfkar The guest was making a point about people who are temporarily depressed and should perhaps not be in the position to be assisted to die. Inmendham made the point that, if they got to the point where they were starting to question whether life was worth living, this might in fact be their window of rational thinking (evidence that life wasn't worth living) rather than insanity, and that it wouldn't necessarily be the most logical thing to do to get them "re-addicted" to whatever it was they were attached to in life. He is saying that the state of desiring death may be more rational than the state of dependency or having attachments to life, and therefore it is not necessarily appropriate to deem as "therapy" anything that tries to break them out of the mindset of desiring death. This echoes my thinking that I've set forth. I don't believe that all mental illness is made up (certain afflictions such as paranoid schizophrenia are clearly the hallmarks of a disordered brain), but I do think that depression could be misdiagnosed as a mental illness (there is evidence that it is often brought on in reaction to life events and that the idea of a chemical imbalance may be a myth) and a lot of what passes for "therapy" may in fact be something more akin to re-education into the narratives that society finds to be acceptable and appropriately life affirming. "Addicted to life".  You guys and your nutspeak. The key point being if they're too mentally encumbered to manage the trivial suspension of continuously-required vitals and be out in moments and gone in minutes, then they're too mentally encumbered to be put down. Or just haven't actually decided. But in any case, any time they're being treated they should be helped to thrive, and certainly not callously booted over the cliff at the altar of the Cult of Morbid Death for All.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 0:33:31 GMT
tpfkar The guest was making a point about people who are temporarily depressed and should perhaps not be in the position to be assisted to die. Inmendham made the point that, if they got to the point where they were starting to question whether life was worth living, this might in fact be their window of rational thinking (evidence that life wasn't worth living) rather than insanity, and that it wouldn't necessarily be the most logical thing to do to get them "re-addicted" to whatever it was they were attached to in life. He is saying that the state of desiring death may be more rational than the state of dependency or having attachments to life, and therefore it is not necessarily appropriate to deem as "therapy" anything that tries to break them out of the mindset of desiring death. This echoes my thinking that I've set forth. I don't believe that all mental illness is made up (certain afflictions such as paranoid schizophrenia are clearly the hallmarks of a disordered brain), but I do think that depression could be misdiagnosed as a mental illness (there is evidence that it is often brought on in reaction to life events and that the idea of a chemical imbalance may be a myth) and a lot of what passes for "therapy" may in fact be something more akin to re-education into the narratives that society finds to be acceptable and appropriately life affirming. "Addicted to life". You guys and your nutspeak. The key point being if they're too mentally encumbered to manage the trivial suspension of continuously-required vitals and be out in moments and gone in minutes, then they're too mentally encumbered to be put down. Or just haven't actually decided. But in any case, any time they're being treated they should be helped to thrive, and certainly not callously booted over the cliff at the altar of the Cult of Morbid Death for All.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.That's merely an assertion that you're making, for which you've never produced one speck of evidence (to counter the voluminous evidence that I have provided which shows the contrary). And if the patient (assuming basic physical capability) is merely supplied with the medication and has the option of whether or not to take it, then they're not being 'booted over the cliff'; they are in full control of what is happening. And I've stated that I would be willing to make some concession towards the idea of 'treating' them, but you wouldn't be prepared to brook any compromise even if the patient had a history of refractive mental health/thoughtcrime issues spanning decades. Even severely mentally ill people are capable of figuring out suicide. There just aren't any foolproof methods that are readily available and don't involve a lot of pain, or making a gruesome public spectacle (although even those aren't foolproof). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2018 0:49:50 GMT
tpfkar "Addicted to life". You guys and your nutspeak. The key point being if they're too mentally encumbered to manage the trivial suspension of continuously-required vitals and be out in moments and gone in minutes, then they're too mentally encumbered to be put down. Or just haven't actually decided. But in any case, any time they're being treated they should be helped to thrive, and certainly not callously booted over the cliff at the altar of the Cult of Morbid Death for All.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.That's merely an assertion that you're making, for which you've never produced one speck of evidence (to counter the voluminous evidence that I have provided which shows the contrary). And if the patient (assuming basic physical capability) is merely supplied with the medication and has the option of whether or not to take it, then they're not being 'booted over the cliff'; they are in full control of what is happening. And I've stated that I would be willing to make some concession towards the idea of 'treating' them, but you wouldn't be prepared to brook any compromise even if the patient had a history of refractive mental health/thoughtcrime issues spanning decades. Even severely mentally ill people are capable of figuring out suicide. There just aren't any foolproof methods that are readily available and don't involve a lot of pain, or making a gruesome public spectacle (although even those aren't foolproof). Countless have done it, over and over and over. And you've shown nothing but bellyaching.  Giving the mentally ill lethal poisons is callously booting them over the cliff. Not to mention the great imprudence of supplying such lethality to psychopaths who wish to abuse all women and murder countless. And who "compromises" with the murderously insane? And any mentally competent individual can go through the also trivial steps to assure doctors that they're good to be released. But all that is morbid red herrings from you, as you just want the poison on tap. And like in other things, I can't help your utter ignorance of your utter ignorance and inability tot research anything that leads to anything other than lethality on demand. 
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 1:06:48 GMT
tpfkar That's merely an assertion that you're making, for which you've never produced one speck of evidence (to counter the voluminous evidence that I have provided which shows the contrary). And if the patient (assuming basic physical capability) is merely supplied with the medication and has the option of whether or not to take it, then they're not being 'booted over the cliff'; they are in full control of what is happening. And I've stated that I would be willing to make some concession towards the idea of 'treating' them, but you wouldn't be prepared to brook any compromise even if the patient had a history of refractive mental health/thoughtcrime issues spanning decades. Even severely mentally ill people are capable of figuring out suicide. There just aren't any foolproof methods that are readily available and don't involve a lot of pain, or making a gruesome public spectacle (although even those aren't foolproof). Countless have done it, over and over and over. And you've shown nothing but bellyaching. Giving the mentally ill lethal poisons is callously booting them over the cliff. Not to mention the great imprudence of supplying such lethality to psychopaths who wish to abuse all women and murder countless. And who "compromises" with the murderously insane? And any mentally competent individual can go through the also trivial steps to assure doctors that they're good to be released. But all that is morbid red herrings from you, as you just want the poison on tap. And like in other things, I can't help your utter ignorance of your utter ignorance and inability tot research anything that leads to anything other than lethality on demand.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
However many "countless" is, it's a small fraction of the number of those who have made serious attempts and failed. The poison can be mandated to be administered in a clinical setting only, rather than prescribed for home use, so I don't see how "psychopaths" would be an issue, even if it were possible to somehow administer Nembutal to an unconsenting party without them being able to detect the bitter and repulsive taste. If pain free and foolproof suicide were easy, then it would be practically impossible to prevent everyone from knowing about it because some famous philosopher or great thinker would have committed suicide using that method and it would be public knowledge. There would be almost no demand for assisted suicide laws if any person of any means or any living situation could be dead within 5 minutes of making the choice. It is never 'callous' to provide someone with an option that they've asked for, and given them the right (with no pressure) to exercise that option. All of the opposition to it is based on people wanting to impose their own philosophy of what life means onto others who may not share it; most of these people never having had any personal experience of the suffering that is causing the person to desire death, yet still insisting that the suffering isn't sufficient to warrant giving that person the choice. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2018 1:21:50 GMT
tpfkar Countless have done it, over and over and over. And you've shown nothing but bellyaching. Giving the mentally ill lethal poisons is callously booting them over the cliff. Not to mention the great imprudence of supplying such lethality to psychopaths who wish to abuse all women and murder countless. And who "compromises" with the murderously insane? And any mentally competent individual can go through the also trivial steps to assure doctors that they're good to be released. But all that is morbid red herrings from you, as you just want the poison on tap. And like in other things, I can't help your utter ignorance of your utter ignorance and inability tot research anything that leads to anything other than lethality on demand.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
However many "countless" is, it's a small fraction of the number of those who have made serious attempts and failed. The poison can be mandated to be administered in a clinical setting only, rather than prescribed for home use, so I don't see how "psychopaths" would be an issue, even if it were possible to somehow administer Nembutal to an unconsenting party without them being able to detect the bitter and repulsive taste. If pain free and foolproof suicide were easy, then it would be practically impossible to prevent everyone from knowing about it because some famous philosopher or great thinker would have committed suicide using that method and it would be public knowledge. There would be almost no demand for assisted suicide laws if any person of any means or any living situation could be dead within 5 minutes of making the choice. It is never 'callous' to provide someone with an option that they've asked for, and given them the right (with no pressure) to exercise that option. All of the opposition to it is based on people wanting to impose their own philosophy of what life means onto others who may not share it; most of these people never having had any personal experience of the suffering that is causing the person to desire death, yet still insisting that the suffering isn't sufficient to warrant giving that person the choice. And those "failing" are those that had not actually decided, were distraught, acting rashly, mentally incompetent, etc., exactly those needing treatment to thrive, or as you and your youtube cranks like to call "brainwashing". Docs shouldn't be putting down (administering! ) the mentally ill, even looong before killing them while they're scratching and fighting against it. And I'm very comforted by your "confidence" in the nonmaskability of the lethal poisons. ::crazytalk:: And your worship of "pain", is deranged, so you talking about "pain free" is pure hilarity. And of course it's callous and even murderous to take such advantage of people not in their right minds. A person always has a choice re themselves; just don't be mental and get people concerned for you, or after that, calm down and get out from under watch, if you actually do have any control over your faculties. In any case what people don't have the choice to do is harm the mentally ill, be it sexually cannibalizing or killing or whatever.
Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2018 3:15:19 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.  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. 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 said: "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." That was in response to my analogies about how marijuana and homosexuality had been demonized/illegalized by the media, teachers, and/or law. So by that you weren't admitting the media, teachers, and/or law demonized/illegalized some things not based on expert consensuses? The relevance is in showing why you shouldn't just assume media, teachers and the law are promulgating an expert consensus. That's a logical statement pointing out the utter irrelevance of that particular Hail Mary of yours. I made no comment re that specific situation because there was absolutely no call to, given it's utter immateriality. It's irrelevant as you have no evidence that any such thing applies in your advocacy of adult-kid sex other than your incompetent attempts to undermine prohibitions. 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  , their "Puritanism", their "xenophobia" , or whatever other hopeful arse-pull you wish to field to have adult-kid sex be sanctioned. No, you have to establish a what the expert consensus is to begin with. I never said that it was nonsense, I challenged that you could prove what it is at all Of course, no, advocates for the overturn of adult-child sex prohibitions have to establish that what's promulgated from the professionals is distinct from the "expert consensus", and based variously on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever other asspulls you fling at the wall. The expert consensus in fact is what is promulgated from the experts via teachers, doctors, in textbooks, the law, etc. 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. 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. Considering I never said it was to begin with... Again, you're confusing/mixing up arguments. I said YOUR arguments were based on "moral outrage." "Puritanism" was in a post about American attitudes towards sex, in general; "xenophobia" was about parents attitudes towards protecting kids, in general. I never mentioned them when it came to expert opinions. The only thing I ever said against expert opinions was that we had to guard against sampling bias. Sure, you said me, "people", whatever, as one of your many jabbered irrelevant arse-pulls in your denial - that a specific consent regime that only requires that a child articulate that they want to with an adult to sanction that specific adult raping the child - would open up / subject countless children to being sexed up by adults. And the experts, professionals, etc., are all just sitting back conspiratorially watching the horror of misinformation! You and Erj. ::smhl:: But of course, "it's just the Puritans holding me down" won't get you guys anywhere. 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? 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. Never argued any such thing. You're just flat-out lying here, and I dare you to quote me saying that. All I ever argued was that the consent criteria wasn't advocating for adult-child sex. The reason why was explained by 80% of the forum to you. And believe me, I know about your dishonesty and cliquing and clanning and ego-blowing and arse-kissing and board-begging.  And I'm sure your book review pick from the younglovechan guy was "random", but the random one I plugged in came up nada. There were a few I couldn't find, but most that I searched were found. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll just look them all up and post the links. Like I said, many are behind paywalls, so unless you want to pay to read them it won't do much good. I'm sure that's just how it went. ::thumbsup:: And be sure you note where the conclusions of your and younglovechan's links are accepted by the mainstream experts/professionals. And how neutral-to-positive to you (and I guess you're saying to these "studies" you've been basing your advocacy on, while never having read them , according to you) == some percentage self-reporting it. 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.So now you're dismissing this study and the review from that emeritus professor (I guess neither the researcher or professor are... professionals?) in deference to the phantom "what the professionals promulgate" that you still haven't posted. Right, no "professor emeritus" ever had study conclusions categorically rejected by the mainstream consensus, and no "professor emeritus's are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpots, creationists, etc. All simply your frantic advocate time-wasting, as it's all irrelevant hopeful nonsense until there is a consensus among the mainstream experts/professionals. 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.It's your job to prove what the expert consensus is, since you claimed to know. Not even a little bit. The baseline is the experts promulgating their consensus, and if you want to taint them or anybody with cowardice, or "moral outrage","Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever made-up hopeful nonsense in your advocacy then you have to establish it through them. Until then like Erj is burdened with being woke with Nibirumasonwalmart, you and younglovechan are sadly doomed to just be ahead of your adult-child sexytime time.  Then there was some more obvious about how you can't negate continuous advocacy with flaccid tacked-on denials and how your disability with empathy and your wild hopeful arse-flings render you utterly unqualified in spouting on about "human emotion". And or course, any day  IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/threadIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/threadIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 3:39:47 GMT
tpfkar However many "countless" is, it's a small fraction of the number of those who have made serious attempts and failed. The poison can be mandated to be administered in a clinical setting only, rather than prescribed for home use, so I don't see how "psychopaths" would be an issue, even if it were possible to somehow administer Nembutal to an unconsenting party without them being able to detect the bitter and repulsive taste. If pain free and foolproof suicide were easy, then it would be practically impossible to prevent everyone from knowing about it because some famous philosopher or great thinker would have committed suicide using that method and it would be public knowledge. There would be almost no demand for assisted suicide laws if any person of any means or any living situation could be dead within 5 minutes of making the choice. It is never 'callous' to provide someone with an option that they've asked for, and given them the right (with no pressure) to exercise that option. All of the opposition to it is based on people wanting to impose their own philosophy of what life means onto others who may not share it; most of these people never having had any personal experience of the suffering that is causing the person to desire death, yet still insisting that the suffering isn't sufficient to warrant giving that person the choice. And those "failing" are those that had not actually decided, were distraught, acting rashly, mentally incompetent, etc., exactly those needing treatment to thrive, or as you and your youtube cranks like to call "brainwashing". Docs shouldn't be putting down (administering! ) the mentally ill, even looong before killing them while they're scratching and fighting against it. And I'm very comforted by your "confidence" in the nonmaskability of the lethal poisons. ::crazytalk:: And your worship of "pain", is deranged, so you talking about "pain free" is pure hilarity. And of course it's callous and even murderous to take such advantage of people not in their right minds. A person always has a choice re themselves; just don't be mental and get people concerned for you, or after that, calm down and get out from under watch, if you actually do have any control over your faculties. In any case what people don't have the choice to do is harm the mentally ill, be it sexually cannibalizing or killing or whatever.
Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).Again, this is merely an assertion that you're making without any kind of evidence to support it. Nobody shoots their face off or jumps in front of a train only to have their legs cut off but survive when they haven't actually decided that they want to die, or are just doing a 'cry for help'. If the 'mentally ill' have the physical capability to consume the medicine, then there is no call for a doctor to 'put them down' or hold them down. Even the one example that you typically use does not demonstrate that the patient is fighting against being killed, as opposed to what her reaction would be if the syringe contained flu vaccine. Nobody is wanting to 'take advantage' of the mentally ill by acceding to what they have chosen for themselves; and the point of right to die laws is not to help sadistic doctors get their jollies off by killing patients in their care; it's to enable people to have control over when they die. In order for that to happen, it cannot be illegal for someone to help them with procuring whatever it is that they require. Also, you haven't described anything about the 'harm' that someone experiences when their request is being respected, much less how inanimate matter can be 'harmed' by the fact that your religion has been blasphemed against any more than my chair is being harmed by having me sitting on it and never getting to experience the joys of watching a beautiful sunset on the beach. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2018 3:57:16 GMT
tpfkar This way for the adult-child sex advocacy nonsense. ➡And those "failing" are those that had not actually decided, were distraught, acting rashly, mentally incompetent, etc., exactly those needing treatment to thrive, or as you and your youtube cranks like to call "brainwashing". Docs shouldn't be putting down (administering! ) the mentally ill, even looong before killing them while they're scratching and fighting against it. And I'm very comforted by your "confidence" in the nonmaskability of the lethal poisons. ::crazytalk:: And your worship of "pain", is deranged, so you talking about "pain free" is pure hilarity. And of course it's callous and even murderous to take such advantage of people not in their right minds. A person always has a choice re themselves; just don't be mental and get people concerned for you, or after that, calm down and get out from under watch, if you actually do have any control over your faculties. In any case what people don't have the choice to do is harm the mentally ill, be it sexually cannibalizing or killing or whatever.
Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).Again, this is merely an assertion that you're making without any kind of evidence to support it. Nobody shoots their face off or jumps in front of a train only to have their legs cut off but survive when they haven't actually decided that they want to die, or are just doing a 'cry for help'. If the 'mentally ill' have the physical capability to consume the medicine, then there is no call for a doctor to 'put them down' or hold them down. Even the one example that you typically use does not demonstrate that the patient is fighting against being killed, as opposed to what her reaction would be if the syringe contained flu vaccine. Nobody is wanting to 'take advantage' of the mentally ill by acceding to what they have chosen for themselves; and the point of right to die laws is not to help sadistic doctors get their jollies off by killing patients in their care; it's to enable people to have control over when they die. In order for that to happen, it cannot be illegal for someone to help them with procuring whatever it is that they require. Also, you haven't described anything about the 'harm' that someone experiences when their request is being respected, much less how inanimate matter can be 'harmed' by the fact that your religion has been blasphemed against any more than my chair is being harmed by having me sitting on it and never getting to experience the joys of watching a beautiful sunset on the beach. Nope, it's all over the news frequently enough. And anybody who shoots their face off or jumps in front of a train is mentally incompetent/disturbed or distraught beyond all rationality. And the doc giving poison is putting them down, much like feeding a cat or a massively intoxicated person antifreeze. And you already sanctioned that lady who scratched and fought against being put down being killed anyway, regardless of your syringe rationalizations. They can ask for death in their mental incapacity, but they can't back out!  And you're wanting to take advantage of them to advance your Death Perfection Cult agenda, of course. Grisly political fodder. Good thing we treat the mentally ill to help them thrive instead of putting them down, or sterilizing them or nuking them or whatever. And I'm not concerned with your rabidly psychopathic "no harm once dead" derangement that we've covered 100 times at this stage. Or your religious concerns that you babble on with about inanimate matter and future people, but not what people actually want.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****" |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 29, 2018 3:14:52 GMT
tpfkar RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.You said: "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." That was in response to my analogies about how marijuana and homosexuality had been demonized/illegalized by the media, teachers, and/or law. So by that you weren't admitting the media, teachers, and/or law demonized/illegalized some things not based on expert consensuses? The relevance is in showing why you shouldn't just assume media, teachers and the law are promulgating an expert consensus. It's irrelevant as you have no evidence that any such thing applies in your advocacy of adult-kid sex other than your incompetent attempts to undermine prohibitions. It's entirely relevant. If a source can promulgate "misguided/sensationalized" lies/misinformation, but can also promulgate expert consensuses, and you're claiming they're promulgating the latter, then the burden is on you to show that's what they're doing. No, you have to establish a what the expert consensus is to begin with. I never said that it was nonsense, I challenged that you could prove what it is at all Of course, no... Of course, yes. You made the claim. Burden is yours to prove it. The expert consensus in fact is what is promulgated from the experts via teachers, doctors, in textbooks, the law, etc. PROVE IT. Congrats for posting links that support what I said. You do realize that 4-year-olds are a small sub-set of all children, yes? And believe me, I know about your transparent, whin-baby, Erj-conspiracy excuses why 80% of the forum was against you. And be sure you note where the conclusions of your and younglovechan's links are accepted by the mainstream experts/professionals. How would I do that? You're setting up ridiculous hurdles that nobody could jump over. The fact that they've been published in peer-review journals already means that other experts have reviewed them and found them worth publishing. That's what peer-review is. Do you think all peer review studies, after getting published, are then passed around to all experts in the field and a vote is taken and tabulated on how many accept them? So now you're dismissing this study and the review from that emeritus professor (I guess neither the researcher or professor are... professionals?) in deference to the phantom "what the professionals promulgate" that you still haven't posted. Right, no "professor emeritus" ever had study conclusions categorically rejected by the mainstream consensus, and no "professor emeritus's are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpots, creationists, etc. Yes, SOME emeritus professor has had their conclusions rejected, some are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpot creationists; but where's your evidence THIS one is? See how that SOME thing works? When I point out that SOMEtimes the media/law/teachers promulgate nonsense, you reject it and demand evidence that on THIS subject they are; but when you point out that SOMEtimes emeritus professors are all ^ those things, for some reason you think that's different. The baseline is the experts promulgating their consensus... Which is what? And remember to prove it. Here's another study for your perusal: Constantine, Larry L."Child Sexuality: Recent Developments and Implications for Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy," International Journal of Medicine and Law, No. 2, pp. 55-67, 1983.And in case you want to pull another ad hominem, here's the author's bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_ConstantineHere's another book length study on the subject that won the Los Angeles Times Book Award. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 29, 2018 5:00:38 GMT
tpfkar RED == what you clipped out. Well, a some of it anyway.You said: "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." That was in response to my analogies about how marijuana and homosexuality had been demonized/illegalized by the media, teachers, and/or law. So by that you weren't admitting the media, teachers, and/or law demonized/illegalized some things not based on expert consensuses? The relevance is in showing why you shouldn't just assume media, teachers and the law are promulgating an expert consensus.
It's irrelevant as you have no evidence that any such thing applies in your advocacy of adult-kid sex other than your incompetent attempts to undermine prohibitions. It's entirely relevant. If a source can promulgate "misguided/sensationalized" lies/misinformation, but can also promulgate expert consensuses, and you're claiming they're promulgating the latter, then the burden is on you to show that's what they're doing. It's another of your many utterly irrelevant "mightbe"s that you arse-pulled in your advocacy of adult-kid sex. It's you guys wanting the kids available for adult banging that have to overturn the kid-bits cart. 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 , their "Puritanism", their "xenophobia" , or whatever other hopeful arse-pull you wish to field to have adult-kid sex be sanctioned. No, you have to establish a what the expert consensus is to begin with. I never said that it was nonsense, I challenged that you could prove what it is at all Of course, no, advocates for the overturn of adult-child sex prohibitions have to establish that what's promulgated from the professionals is distinct from the "expert consensus", and based variously on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever other asspulls you fling at the wall. Of course, yes. You made the claim. Burden is yours to prove it. Of course, no, the claim was made in response to your ass-fling of "moral outrage" et al., and is of course the baseline. And regardless, of course, no, you guys wanting the kids available to adults for sex have to make the case that what's promulgated from the professionals is distinct from the "expert consensus", and based variously on "moral outrage", "Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever other asspulls you fling at the wall. The expert consensus in fact is what is promulgated from the experts via teachers, doctors, in textbooks, the law, etc. PROVE IT. Alas for you and younglovechan, no, it is the baseline. You guys have to do the work to get the toddlers' knickers dropped. And do a whole lot better than "moral outrage!" and "Puritans!" and "xenophobes!" and lions! and tigers! and bears! (npi!), and dead links to studies you said yourself you read none of before arguing vociferously for the "pro-to-neutral" of the adult-child lovin', with "pro-to-neutral" being some percentage self-reporting it, at least according to the book review you posted. 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. Considering I never said it was to begin with... Again, you're confusing/mixing up arguments. I said YOUR arguments were based on "moral outrage." "Puritanism" was in a post about American attitudes towards sex, in general; "xenophobia" was about parents attitudes towards protecting kids, in general. I never mentioned them when it came to expert opinions. The only thing I ever said against expert opinions was that we had to guard against sampling bias.
But of course, "it's just the Puritans holding me down" won't get you guys anywhere.
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 ::laugh:  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? 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. Never argued any such thing. You're just flat-out lying here, and I dare you to quote me saying that. All I ever argued was that the consent criteria wasn't advocating for adult-child sex. The reason why was explained by 80% of the forum to you. Congrats for posting links that support what I said. You do realize that 4-year-olds are a small sub-set of all children, yes? I'll just let people read what's in the links and your further blustered jabber nonsense advocacy. IMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=vastIMDB2.freeforums.net/thread/42182/ot-child-robots?q=bulkAnd believe me, I know about your transparent, whin-baby, Erj-conspiracy excuses why 80% of the forum was against you. I do know you like to work the dishonesty and cliquing and clanning and ego-blowing and arse-kissing and board-begging! You & younglovechan will get past the "Puritan" "xenophobes" and coward professionals to get the kids open for sex, I just know you will! At about the same time Erj shows nibirumasonswalmart rocketing down. There were a few I couldn't find, but most that I searched were found. Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll just look them all up and post the links. Like I said, many are behind paywalls, so unless you want to pay to read them it won't do much good. And be sure you note where the conclusions of your and younglovechan's links are accepted by the mainstream experts/professionals. And how neutral-to-positive to you (and I guess you're saying to these "studies" you've been basing your advocacy on, while never having read them , according to you) == some percentage self-reporting it. How would I do that? You're setting up ridiculous hurdles that nobody could jump over. The fact that they've been published in peer-review journals already means that other experts have reviewed them and found them worth publishing. That's what peer-review is. Do you think all peer review studies, after getting published, are then passed around to all experts in the field and a vote is taken and tabulated on how many accept them?  Ahh, the "ridiculous hurdles" for you to get into the kids drawers. That the professionals in the field think that adults banging the kids is "pro-to-neutral", but they're just cowards, "morally outrage"ed, "xenophobes" , or whatever next arse-pull you fling? And pervy face icons aren't going to get you in any quicker.  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.So now you're dismissing this study and the review from that emeritus professor (I guess neither the researcher or professor are... professionals?) in deference to the phantom "what the professionals promulgate" that you still haven't posted. Right, no "professor emeritus" ever had study conclusions categorically rejected by the mainstream consensus, and no "professor emeritus's are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpots, creationists, etc. All simply your frantic advocate time-wasting, as it's all irrelevant hopeful nonsense until there is a consensus among the mainstream experts/professionals.Yes, SOME emeritus professor has had their conclusions rejected, some are unscrupulous, notoriety-seeking, crackpot creationists; but where's your evidence THIS one is? See how that SOME thing works? When I point out that SOMEtimes the media/law/teachers promulgate nonsense, you reject it and demand evidence that on THIS subject they are; but when you point out that SOMEtimes emeritus professors are all ^ those things, for some reason you think that's different. And many many just got it wrong. And I don't need to worry about THIS book review you published, that you noted repeatedly when you fielded youbglovechan's un-linked text list that you'd read NONE of. And in any case, utterly irrelevant except to those who'll fling any absurdity to get the kids available for sex to adults, until there's a consensus among the experts in the field - which they'll promulgate through other professionals, textbooks, teachers, media, laws, etc., of which we peeps will all be exposed (npi!) to from that distribution. Until then, it's just the wild hopes of the ever-conspiratorial jabbering adult-kid sex advocates. 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.It's your job to prove what the expert consensus is, since you claimed to know. Not even a little bit. The baseline is the experts promulgating their consensus, and if you want to taint them or anybody with cowardice, or "moral outrage","Puritanism", "xenophobia" , or whatever made-up hopeful nonsense in your advocacy then you have to establish it through them. Until then like Erj is burdened with being woke with Nibirumasonwalmart, you and younglovechan are sadly doomed to just be ahead of your adult-child sexytime time. Then there was some more obvious about how you can't negate continuous advocacy with flaccid tacked-on denials and how your disability with empathy and your wild hopeful arse-flings render you utterly unqualified in spouting on about "human emotion". And or course, any day IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/695598/threadIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/710299/threadIMDB2.freeforums.net/post/693442/thread
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.Which is what? And remember to prove it. Here's another study for your perusal: Constantine, Larry L."Child Sexuality: Recent Developments and Implications for Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy," International Journal of Medicine and Law, No. 2, pp. 55-67, 1983.And in case you want to pull another ad hominem, here's the author's bio: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_ConstantineHere's another book length study on the subject that won the Los Angeles Times Book Award. Nah, you remember to suck it. And what do you think this article from 1983 by a guy that ended up doing software engineering and an Amazon book ad say about adult-kid (as in prepubescent, toddlers, etc.) sex? And what do you think they say about a consent criteria that only requires a child to articulate want to an adult in order for that adult to have "sex" with the child? Keep digging for the kid knickers keys, I say! And be sure to read them ::hardeeharrharr:: and post what you think they say about adults banging toddlers and other prepubescents and be sure to show that the conclusions you "see" have been accepted into the mainstream consensus. You and younglovechan will get there, I know you believe you will!
Eva Yojimbo: If you're raised in an environment where Jews are considered inferior, then it's very easy to just blindly accept that without ever questioning it. I mean, did YOU do any research into what the experts thought about pedophilia before arguing in these threads? I know I didn't. |
|
I wouldn't know, I was going by his rant in front of his house you posted previously. But I'll wager he does it at least figuratively in near all he does.
Although you did say it summed up your attitude, so wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! 
You guys and your nutspeak.
And you're wanting to take advantage of them to advance your Death Perfection Cult agenda, of course. Grisly political fodder. Good thing we treat the mentally ill to help them thrive instead of putting them down, or sterilizing them or nuking them or whatever. And I'm not concerned with your rabidly psychopathic "no harm once dead" derangement that we've covered 100 times at this stage. Or your religious concerns that you babble on with about inanimate matter and future people, but not what people actually want. 
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. 