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 =)
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 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.)
|
