|
posted by dennisn on December 3rd, 2011 at 10:02PM
I tried to make extra sure to explain my arguments properly.
I began to have a sinking feeling that you were up to no good, though, when you seemed to completely dismiss them, and simply wanted to hear a "yes or no". (In your usual repugnant way -- absolutely disrespectfully, with festering anger and bitterness and resentment and ugliness -- where is your "girlfriend" in all of this, by the way? Does she know you are a repugnant person?)
So, you *completely* ignored the reasoning, spun a few of the extreme points way out of context and sensationalized it all. You showed zero respect for logic and ethics and thinking. You lowered the discussion to the lowest common denominator of popularist mindless salacious crap. You are a disgrace to homo sapien. If anyone gave you a "degree" in any respectable institution of thinking, I strongly advise you to give it back, because you don't deserve it. You have proven yourself a disgrace, both emotionally (by your ugly personality -- it truly has rotten since I last saw you), and intellectually (by your complete mental shutdown/evasion on this topic).
All your atrophied brain could say was that first sentence -- a meaningless mindless ad-hominem waste-of-space. Which, I suppose, one might paraphrase as simply "I disagree." That is the level of your intellectual rigor. Fail!
Regarding your salacious spin #1, even though I asked you explicitly before (I asked you a number of direct questions which you COMPLETELY ignored. This should clearly signal a red flag in your head that something is wrong inside you. Please ask yourself why you're ignoring the arguments.) ... so, even though I explicitly asked you before, maybe repeating might help. Do you, or don't you, think that kids know what is good for them? I acknowledge that they don't know what a good mortgage is, or how much to sell their bitcoins for, but do you think that if something feels good, they will know and acknowledge this? The real question, I feel, is about sex -- is sex a good thing or a bad thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that it is somehow dangerous or hurtful, or in some way bad -- which is why kids can't be allowed to choose it, even though it feels good? Please elaborate your position. You have yet to do so!
Regarding your spin #2, I was extra careful to make sure I explained my reasoning, AND RELUCTANCE on this point as well -- you COMPLETELY ignored that. It's related to your later moronic Nazi-soldier example. I believe there was a violent and mandatory military-draft in Germany at the time, so the soldiers can make the argument that Hitler forced them to kill people. By no means would that make him innocent. Your example is flawed. On the other hand, if the soldiers voluntarily signed up, and voluntarily murdered someone, then yes, only the soldier who committed that particular murder should be put on trial -- not Hitler. Do you disagree? If you disagree, how would YOU determine who was an "enabler"?? Were the scientists who claimed that arians were a super-race, and thus justified in eradicating inferior races enablers??
It's fascinating to see a brainwashed mind in action. You have never bothered to state your opinion. You consistently avoid actual reasoning. You rely on popular opinion and sensationalism. You use populist knee-jerk tactics -- you even said THE P-WORD!! Although, being brainwashed, one shouldn't expect any meaning behind it -- just propagandist sloganry. Do you support pedophilia? You realize it's simply a "-philia" -- it says nothing about whether someone acts on it? Do you not support people being attracted to weird things? You realize you're probably an "ephebophile" right? Perhaps a "teleiophile"? Do you support "homophilia"? Do you support "necrophilia"?
You say my reasoning takes me to an unethical position -- yet you make absolutely zero arguments to back this statement up. As mentioned above, you seem to rely on other people's opinions to derive your ethics. Now that really is disgusting.
Your last off-topic paragraph is somewhat valid -- I never said it was an entirely ethical job. As I mentioned months/years ago, I do feel bad about the evil perpetrated on the victims of "my" thievery. Do you? I'm not sure why you keep bringing this discussion up. Didn't we already, at some point, agree that we're both being oppressed by an evil coercive system? What exactly do we disagree on about this? (I guess we can quibble about how arbitration, and perhaps the god-damned roads will be handled, but what else? Are you changing your mind and now saying that your health-care-buddies are ethically justified in stealing money?)
Look, Dsk, you angered me with your intellectual ineptitude here. You disappointed me with your character -- I know you -- you're not simply being "mildly off-color and sardonic" -- you have some ugly unhealed wound, or something, and as a friend, I'm telling you it's getting out of control. It's not healthy, for either of us. I can pretty confidently say that you are brainwashed, at least in the area of early-sexuality. It's not your fault, of course -- it's the nature of the culture we grew up in -- incredibly negative towards sexuality, and abusively so regarding early-sexuality. This is the reason why you evaded all my questions -- it's probably too awkward or difficult for you to answer them. This is also why you keep appealing to other people to back you up -- to "moi" and to the masses -- but never to your own reasoning. Things are especially difficult with you because you are an incredibly arrogant person -- which is a positive trait when you're right -- but when you're coming from a place of brainwashing, as you are, it can be dangerous. So, please do some introspection, *then* try to do some actual reasoning of your own, hopefully without ad-hominem, and more respectfully. (You realize you have never made a point on this issue, right? You only attempted (pathetically) to ridicule mine.) I am actually curious about what you think.
|
posted by dsk on December 4th, 2011 at 12:56AM
>I began to have a sinking feeling that you were up to no good
I asked questions.
>spun a few of the extreme points way out of context and sensationalized it all.
Oh do tell, what's out of context? You suggested the perpetrators (i.e. those that paid for child rape), as described in the scenarios, should NOT be punished.
AM I WRONG?
IS THIS ASSERTION OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE?
AM I BEING UNFAIR HERE?
You can argue semantics and whether your reasoning implies you think it's "ok" but that's irrelevant because even in the best case, you're at such a repugnant extreme position. AND YOU KNOW IT. Because now you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole. Your forte in argument is red herrings and ambiguity, hence my insistence on direct answers.
Maybe you realize how absolutely insane it all sounds when you write it out in black and white. With direct answers standing right there and not hidden in pages of garbage.
>If anyone gave you a "degree" in any respectable institution of thinking, I strongly advise you to give it back, because you don't deserve it.
I'd suggest the same to you, but ...
>Do you, or don't you, think that kids know what is good for them
Are you out of your mind? Of course an 8 year old cannot make a decision to have sex with a 40 year old. If you don't understand why, I can't explain it to you.
>The real question, I feel, is about sex -- is sex a good thing or a bad thing.
No it's not. That's not the question at all. Not even close. There's a fuckin difference between saying a child has sexual feelings (normal), and saying s/he can consent to sex with a 40 year old (fuckin insane).
>This is also why you keep appealing to other people to back you up
Did you not just post an entire thread devoted to finding someone on an anonymous chat service to agree with you? The appeal is for your benefit. Maybe if you see the horror and disgust in other people (especially significant other), maybe you might pause and consider the possibility that YOU'RE WRONG!
>where is your "girlfriend" in all of this
She likes me. She thinks this is unbelievably funny =)
>You say my reasoning takes me to an unethical position -- yet you make absolutely zero arguments to back this statement up.
If you don't understand why reasoning that leads to believe children can consent to sex with middle-aged adults and paying someone to rape a child should leave the payee punishment-free, is insane, then I cannot help you. I cannot rephrase it in any other way to make it that much clearer. It's like explaining empathy to a sociopath. How would you do it so he understand?
> I do feel bad about the evil perpetrated on the victims of "my" thievery
Oh yes, I do remember this line of reasoning. You can spew venom at anybody who sees nuance in ideology, but you excuse yourself because "you feel bad".
>you're not simply being "mildly off-color and sardonic"
Actually in that case I was. It was supposed to come out funnier than it did. Listen, sometimes a joke falls flat, it happens. I took full blame for it. Your reaction was priceless though.
>Look, Dsk, you angered me with your intellectual ineptitude here.
Look, Dennis, you didn't anger me. It takes time with you. It took me time to train you before. It took forever to explain to you, for example, why nationalization in Cuba was wrong. It took forever - but in the end you got it.
But you do have to understand one thing. You don't have good grasp of logic and reason. You're missing all nuance when it comes viewing the world. What your brain is trying to do is put everything neatly in box, wrap it in a bow, and call it a day. Things are more complicated. A side-effect of this is that you have to sideline your own hypocrisies and inconsistencies - you have to do that else you would not be able to survive. This all results in your deranged and tortured thinking. Fix it.
>and as a friend
Hah. We're not friends. Listening to your insane ravings on being subjugated for years (YEARS!) was/is - urgh, nauseating. The way you embraced playing the victim and culture of victimhood is off-putting. And you decided to become a total dick overnight a few years ago.
Anyway, the difference, friend, between me and everyone else at this moment, is that everyone else will go no further than make fun of you behind your back ("here goes crazy dennis yet again") - but I'll call you on your bullshit (notice nobody else does?). That's a service I will provide for you.
>You are an incredibly arrogant person
You're the third person to tell me that in the last 30 days. There may be some truth to this =)
|
posted by c4r0lyn on December 5th, 2011 at 11:04PM
You have a new girlfriend? Congrats.
B-)
Make it four.
|
|
posted by dennisn on December 4th, 2011 at 9:14AM
The reason why you spun things out of context is because you took one extreme and salacious point out of a general principle of ethics -- which you still haven't taken a position on. The general principle was: "only the person who directly commits a crime is legally guilty." IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE, HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE GUILT OR COMPLICITY?? I also provided extreme examples to expose the absurdity of your implied belief -- would pro-eugenics scientists be considered complicit enablers??
I don't find this position of mine repugnant at all -- I'm actually quite proud of it -- the fact that I can set my personal tastes aside in light of true justice. The real crime and the thing we should be focusing all our attention on is the *actual rape and rapist*! Your hyper-focusing on secondary details is quite disturbing.
So, you'll notice again that, for the question: "Do you, or don't you, think that kids know what is good for them" -- you not only evaded, but you indirectly answered "no", and then you said "I can't explain it to you." So, clearly you are not mature enough or not capable enough to have this discussion.
Regarding the question of sex, so, I guess you're actually saying sex is a good thing? I mean actual sex, not sexual feelings. At what age does it start being a bad thing? 18? 17? 16?... And why exactly does it become bad / dangerous / something to be forbidden? And, if you're so concerned about the inability of the kid to give informed consent (to a benign pleasurable act?? or a malicious hurtful act??), what if they did it under informed adult supervision, and both enjoyed it -- what then??
The reason I asked omegle was actually to expose the repugnant ignorance and reactionism of the general population -- it was intended to show you who your allies were -- ignorant and retarded people.
Your girlfriend thinks that calling random women "whores" is unbelievably funny? Have you ever done it in real life? Have you ever called her that? Why not? (The fact that you still insist you were simply being funny is disturbingly delusional.)
You then proudly repeat how you cannot explain your position. So, let me repeat the scenario, and tell me exactly where the problem is: a child wants to have sex with an adult... the adult reluctantly agrees... they get the parent's permission... there is no pain... both enjoy the experience and have fun... condoms were used, and an environment of respect was had.
I'm not sure what you mean by "nuance" or "things are complicated". My guess is it's Orwell-speak for "accepting evil, because I handwave it's probably necessary, or because I personally don't think it's so bad". (I'm not sure what exactly you mean by me not being able to see the nuances in the world. For example, I am perfectly aware that Statist doctors save lives, and do a lot of good. I never said they were perfectly black and evil. All I say is that the way they get their money is black and evil. Do you disagree?)
The thing that happened a few years ago, was me simply being fed up with ignorant and bad so-called friends not listening to reason, but persistently promoting their illogical evil brainwashings. Do you think it was dickish of me to lash out at them? How long should I have given them, before making a stand? Should I have remained friends with them (people who promote violence and ignorance) for the rest of my life, in the name of tolerance? (You were far less wrong than them, but you still were/are -- your failure to understand my arguments against imaginary property, and against minarchy, for example. So, at least with these two examples, you were promoting very real violence against me. But you still think /I/ was the one being a dick?)
You again casually say I am being hypocritical and inconsistent -- yet provide ZERO reasoning.
(Oh, you also missed a LOT of direct questions that I asked you. Whereas I answer every single one of your questions.)
|
"Your girlfriend thinks that calling random women "whores" is unbelievably funny? Have you ever done it in real life? Have you ever called her that? Why not? (The fact that you still insist you were simply being funny is disturbingly delusional.)"
What? Didn’t you call me that every other time you were irritated? Jesus, kill yourself. You don’t deserve love or respect. Fuck you. Fuck your sister. Fuck your site. Fuck your friends. Fuck all that time I had known you and had happily given you my emotional commitment and love. You need to die because I deeply fucking hate you. Fuck your GirLfRieNdS and all the women you think will fuck your bald dick. I will hate you for the rest of my fucking life. You’re horrible and fucked up and don’t know wtf to do with somebody who loves you. You’re pathetic as fuck!
|
|
posted by dsk on December 8th, 2011 at 7:43PM
>he reason why you spun things out of context
Not out of context. You answered directly.
>I don't find this position of mine repugnant at all -- I'm actually quite proud of it --
I know. Everyone around you does though, and you don't understand why. I can't explain it to you so it makes sense to you.
>Do you, or don't you, think that kids know what is good for them" -- you not only evaded
Evaded? Are you serious? I think you should assume my beliefs on this view are be quite typical. So don't be a retard.
Of course kids don't know what's good for them. If you want to a general statement, this is it. Here's the qualification: Forcing kids to do things is measured by their age, and class of thing we're talking about. So a toddler doesn't know anything at all, practically, and everything is decided for him/her. As they get older, what they cannot decide on diminishes. This is true legally and ethically. When a "kid" hits 16-18, he's essential free to do whatever he wants.
One of the things that is universally agreed upon is that an eight year-old does not have the capacity to decide on "consensual" sex with a 40 year-old. Not by biology (bodies are not ready). Not through any psychological study. And not anecdotally where every case of sex between such a child and a middle-age adult was incredibly traumatic to the child.
You arguing this, makes you look like either a pedophile or in the best case, a fuckin idiot. Don't take my word for it, ask your girlfriend - the one that's closest to you. Does she agree?
I tried to take the best case. I tried to reason that your assumptions are faulty if they lead you to this conclusion.
See how nice I am. I didn't assume you're a pedophile, just a retard.
>what if they did it under informed adult supervision, and both enjoyed it -- what then??
You're an idiot.
>Your girlfriend thinks that calling random women "whores" is unbelievably funny?
Get.over.it. God. You just won't let this go.
I change my mind and rescind any apology given. It was funny. Your girlfriend tried to get into a trivial photo-contest late. You're the gate-keeper of contest entrance and you made the rules, and you're also sleeping with her. I made the humorous connection that she's paying you to skirt the rules by sleeping with you. That was all. Looking back at it, it's funny, because it's so ridiculous. And of course I support our working ladies.
There. Happy? Are you going to shut the fuck about it already? Like Jesus, it was a month ago. I barely remember yesterday.
>All I say is that the way they (doctors) get their money is black and evil. Do you disagree?)
I'll answer this way: "The way they get money is not anymore or less evil than the way a squeegee kid working at car wash with subsidized water makes his money". I can maybe be persuaded that the way they get their money is black and evil, but then I'd be forced to say the same about everyone, and then "evil" becomes meaningless.
Besides that. Here's the nuance.
1) Doctors in Canada are not allowed to get paid by any means other than by the state (i.e. the state writes them a cheque)
2) Doctors in the US are paid through private means. Doctors in the US make, on average, 2-3 times more than doctors in Canada.
So it looks like Doctors in Canada, are actually getting shortchanged. The money they get is roughly half (or even a third) of what the free market would pay them. So even under your definition of evil (where everyone is evil) - it's not quite clear. They're getting paid by the state .. yes.. But they would be making way more under the free market, but they aren't allowed. So they're getting fucked (by any definition of fucked). You on the other hand are getting a sweet deal. Chances are you're propped up by state defined minimum wage.
>You again casually say I am being hypocritical and inconsistent -- yet provide ZERO reasoning.
You purposely moved to the most socialist province in the country, one that not only steals from its own citizens but also steals from the citizens of other provinces to the tune of billions.
You generate funds from state subsidized resources and yet you blame everyone else for your personal subjugation (well, unless they pay meaningless lip-service to your ideology).
Nobody believes what you believe so you arbitrarily pick and choose who you're friends with. Still associate with lots of socialists, dontcha.
You're on Facebook.
Honestly, I can keep going. A major issue is that you're not that intelligent, but you don't know it. I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where one distills an idea to its simplest components, but if a debate opponent still doesn't understand, there isn't much else one can do. I don't know how you fix that Dennis.
|
|
posted by dennisn on December 7th, 2011 at 10:51PM
We're still waiting for you to answer the questions. And, hopefully, to actually state your position on the matter. It was you who re-opened this can of worms, you know. (And re-threaded it on the front page, no less.)
|
|
|
|
