Censorship? CPAC axes Milo from speaking

[callipygoustp]

I was and continue to be stunned by conservatives shifting to a pro-Russia platform. Now they are defending pedophilia? WTF is going on in this country.

[Underverse]

I was and continue to be stunned by conservatives shifting to a pro-Russia platform. Now they are defending pedophilia? WTF is going on in this country.

People keep saying that, but I don't really see any of that going on here.

[Torto]

I was and continue to be stunned by conservatives shifting to a pro-Russia platform. Now they are defending pedophilia? WTF is going on in this country.

Just quote where he said all conservatives are pedos and it'll be done with. Oh, you can't? Then shut the fuck up.

Leftists are all cut from the same cloth it seems.

[callipygoustp]

People keep saying that, but I don't really see any of that going on here.

No surprise there.

- - - Updated - - -

Leftists are all cut from the same cloth it seems.

Heh, here I'm a lefty. There I'm a righty! I wish people would make up their minds.

[Underverse]

Making it legal is definitely not going to decrease the amount of grooming. Nothing you say would be a valid justification for this. No matter what, grooming would any increase any amount of that is bad.

You don't have the data to make that claim. I made several points that would cast doubt on this assertion. I think the first thing you should do is demonstrate that 18 year olds can be groomed, and that this grooming results in generally negative outcomes. As far as I know, grooming only works in pre-pubertal individuals, and probably with god biological reason. Teenage rebellion is encoded into our genes, and to be coded in genes there must have been a selective pressure favoring its development.

Along a similar thread, provide evidence that grooming is unilaterally negative. Parents groom their children groom the moment they are born - to act certain ways, to follow certain social conventions. Why is this fundamentally different? Certainly, it can be negative. But is it negative in every case?

[Underverse]

No surprise there.

What does that mean?

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't even think most people are mature enough at 18. Of course it's a case by case basis but you can't realistically evaluate each case.

Again (and because you ignore it the first time I asked) - what is this maturity requirement based on, and where does it come from?

[analmoose]

I honestly don't even think most people are mature enough at 18. Of course it's a case by case basis but you can't realistically evaluate each case.

How much sense does it make to let a 16 year old control a few tons of steel at 100km/h, but still consider them too immature to decide if sex with someone else is OK?

[I Push Buttons]

"My psychology textbook says males evolved to want to bang young healthy looking females since the younger and healthier they were, the more viable their offspring..."

"OMG you're a pedo for reading that psychology textbook!"

- Pretty much every conversation relating to underage relations.

[Skroe]

I was and continue to be stunned by conservatives shifting to a pro-Russia platform. Now they are defending pedophilia? WTF is going on in this country.

These people are not conservatives. They're reactionaries. Although both of the right, they are entirely different.

Real Conservatism is highly intellectual and principled. These stupid kids are poorly educated arsonists. Milo's ascent to fame dovetailed with the whole Gamergate bullshit, that only happened because a bunch of stupid guys on the internet were triggered by the opinions of some feminist dumb cunt.

The world is filled with dumb cunts. Who cares! Well these trollish reactionaries did. A lot. They had some dumb point to prove. Gamergate accomplished nothing and everybody involved in it needed to find a new hobby.

Hopefully with the immolation of Milo's career, it gets a lot of his supporters growing the fuck up.

[Underverse]

It's pretty much the only fucking logical conclusion. Legalizing incest would only cause it to increase. It makes zero sense whatsoever for it to decrease. Why does it have to be an 18 year old? If incest is legal once they're 18, the incentive to groom them from a very young age increases immensely. I'm not sure you actually understand what grooming is.

Seriously. You even suggesting it's not negative shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The part I'm casting doubt on is whether or not it's possible to groom someone post-puberty. If you think it is, then it would have happened in more than one case. Therefore you will be able to provide evidence. That's the first part of my argument.

Secondly, I said that it could be negative, but it doesn't have to be. Sex can also be negative - we call it rape - but it doesn't have to be. See the distinction? Grooming an individual for a particular end can be negative, or it can be positive. It depends on the end. Parents groom their children all the time, mostly so they can become adults that are functional in society. In some cases a parent can groom their child in negative ways, and we call these bad parents, and in some cases we take their children away because they are a danger to them. Tell me now how sexual grooming falls outside of these parameters.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a stupid fucking comparison.

Why? Because you say so? If it is, surely you can provide some supporting arguments.

[Mormolyce]

Leftists are all cut from the same cloth it seems.

Take a rest man, you are clearly running on empty. And tomorrow is a brand new day of embarrassing Trump/alt right fuckups you're going to have to contort logic to defend.

The world is filled with dumb cunts. Who cares! Well these trollish reactionaries did. A lot. They had some dumb point to prove. Gamergate accomplished nothing and everybody involved in it needed to find a new hobby.

I believe it did manage to get a woman who was trying to get Nintendo to stop censoring Japanese games fired.

Yay, a real victory for gamers and people opposed to censorship. But she was a feminist and a woman, so fuck her.

[I Push Buttons]

Why? Because you say so? If it is, surely you can provide some supporting arguments.

Because one is an exercise of simple motor skills and the other is life altering decision making?

Also we do trust "kids" to drive less. Have you seen car insurance rates for young people? Particularly males.

[Underverse]

I'm still confused why you think it has to happen post-puberty? Again, you're showing you no knowing about what grooming is. It starts at a very very young age. We're talking about a very specific type of grooming. Not this vague definition you keep pushing where it includes grooming them to be successful.

I think you're missing my point. You can groom someone starting at 6. But as soon as they hit puberty, they will rebel. And by the time they're 18, I very much doubt that that grooming will be of any use.

This is the definition of grooming:
1.
look after the coat of (a horse, dog, or other animal) by brushing and cleaning it.
"you must be prepared to spend time grooming your dog"
synonyms: curry, brush, comb, clean, rub down
"she groomed her pony"
2.
prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity.
"star pupils who are groomed for higher things"

We can talk just about grooming the context of sexual inhibitions, but understand that this is not a separate process. It's only a separate end.

In terms of grooming in the context of sexual inhibitions, I remain unconvinced that it is unilaterally destructive. Again I assert that it can be destructive under certain circumstances - just like rape. But rape does not constitute all of sex.

At this point I would also like to field another argument which looks at the origin of grooming. Basically all humans in modern cultures are groomed to be ashamed of their sexuality and displays of sexual behavior. Do you not think it's possible that sexual grooming is simply a reversal of shame that pushes social behavior closer towards a biological norm, and further from a cultural norm?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. There is nothing left more to say. You can't argue against false equivalences anymore than pointing out they're false equivalences. That is the argument.

They both demonstrate degrees of trust in decisionmaking. Now it's your turn to tell me how that's not true.

[analmoose]

Because one is an exercise of simple motor skills and the other is life altering decision making?

Also we do trust "kids" to drive less. Have you seen car insurance rates for young people? Particularly males.

Right, so when those teens that are OK to drive go drink, do drugs, drive anyway, fucking up their life ( my cousin died in a car wreck at 16 along with 4 others, because they were all intoxicated and went off the road) that's way better than just getting laid, which really doesn't affect your life at all. Unless pregnancy is involved, in which case your better off because someone who is much older than the other can support the child, whereas if you're both underage the burden is on everyone else.

[Underverse]

Because one is an exercise of simple motor skills and the other is life altering decision making?

Also we do trust "kids" to drive less. Have you seen car insurance rates for young people? Particularly males.

Really? You think driving a car is just 'simple motor skills' I think you're significantly underestimating the number of decisions that are made while driving. To an inexperienced driver, these decisions can indeed be life-altering.

On the other hand, what about sexual interactions is automatically life altering? There are some circumstances in which it can be (pregnancy), but these outcomes are not limited to sexual interactions with large age gaps. In fact, if there is an older, more experienced individual involved, the interaction would probably be less likely to be life-altering.

[Underverse]

Based on what? Your first hand experience at grooming? Typicaly kids will rebel against parents. Grooming someone is meant to specifically avoid that issue.

Fuck dude, if you're using the literal definition of grooming from a dictionary than you really do have no clue what you're talking about.

You look ignorant as fuck.

Maybe if you read my post you wouldn't look like an utter moron for writing this tripe.

Now that that's out of the way, I addressed your concerns in my post. I would suggest you read it, consider the points I've made, and stop falling two steps behind.

[analmoose]

You went from talking about letting them drive to bringing up drugs. We don't legalize drugs for kids. Nice strawman.

Uhh.. it has nothing to do with the legality of doing drugs or drinking, that's beside the point. They were able to drive, given a license legally. The decision was made to do so while intoxicated. Do you not think that if neither possessed a license they would have had the vehicle and been driving while intoxicated? Its not a strawman at all, you're just oblivious.

If that is a decision they were capable of making on their own, why is the decision to have sex worse?

[Skroe]

Yay, a real victory for gamers and people opposed to censorship. But she was a feminist and a woman, so fuck her.

You know what killed me too? The whole thing about the honesty and transparency of video game reviewers. And how some gaming sights are cozy with publishers.

Because that's exactly what video gaming needs. Quality journalism. To tell us what exactly? That Call of Duty 13 is going to be a deeply predictable, relatively unimaginative on-rails shooter that has all the creativity of a Roomba? That World of Warcraft: Legion is a satisfying if tedious grindfest that makes the most of a game 8 years past its prime? That if you bought Star Wars: Battlefront, you probably got ripped off?

BREAKING NEWS! Sonic the Hedgehog games still largely suck and DLC is a rip off!


Gamegate was an idiot where everyone lost perspective and there wasn't an actual search for truth, just everyone tossing molotov cocktails at everyone else. It should have been named Gamerghazi. It would have been more accurate.

[analmoose]

You think if they're fine with breaking the law and drinking and driving they wouldn't be fine with just going ahead and driving illegally anyway without a license? Again, you're talking about them making a decision to something else other than driving. Sorry your cousin made a dumb decision. But we didn't legalize that dumb decision.

You're completely missing the point and no longer worth my time

[Underverse]

I read it. You look ignorant as fuck.

You obviously do not understand what grooming someone sexually as a young child actually entails. It's not like they're teaching them to have a open mind about sex and that it shouldn't be taboo. I'm sure some may simply do just that, which is probably fine but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about raising them specifically for sex. If you think that's healthy then you're fucked up.

You're making unsupported assumptions again (as if you stopped). I wasn't talking about 'teaching kids not to think about sex as being taboo'. I was talking about gaining the trust of a child in order to lower their sexual inhibitions, which I then suggested were groomed to exist in the first place. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Lowering the inhibitions of someone via grooming is not 'raising kids just to have sex with them'. It's like the difference between punching someone, and cutting off their arm.

Gaining someone's trust just to have sex with them is a dick move, but it's not a life-ending tragedy. It doesn't matter how old that person is.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't miss something that's not there.

Oh it's there. And you're missing it.

I think I'm going to call it a night too. I was hoping to debate someone who had a penchant for logic but you're the only thing that rose to the challenge. It's like pulling up a boot from a river. Oh well.