I don’t believe I have taken your quotes out of context. I took your quotes at face value. You failed to provide the context by stating what you meant. Apart from that, this issue was resolved in a previous post.
ME:I’m being disingenius by asking for a debate on the matter?
YOU: Uh, Yeah. I thought you had removed yourself from this “debate.” Stating now that you actually wanted one even though you said you didn’t is disingenuous regarding your first statement. Look it up.
ANSWER: Whatever. My ongoing presence in this thread was aimed at trying to get people to develop their points without making such blanket observations, or to point out how they came to accept those blanket observations.
ME: I’m arguing semantics by following the definition of words?
YOU: Third. Yep. That’s semantics all right.
ANSWER: No. semantics is arguing about what a word means. I used a word correctly, you used it incorrectly. Correcting incorrect usage of a word is not semantics.
ME: I’m trolling by calling people on misuse of terms and illogical connections?
YOU: Fourth. When you intentionally create them? Yes. When you create a clear implication that as a 25 year old you have sex with 15-16 year olds but pretty much observe the law, you are not only creating a logical connections, you are making a statement. So, yes. It’s trolling. You’re being dishonest, or selective to intitiate a specific response rather than engage in honest discussion.
ANSWER: I did not create a “clear” implication at all. The whole point of my “implication” was to get you to take the bait and jump to conclusions, hopefully demonstrating that you were, in fact, jumping to conclusions about the matter. I stated nothing explicitely EXCEPT that I find mid-late teen girls attractive. YOU did the rest.
ME: I’m misrepresenting myself by not letting people get away with stating assumed truths as universal facts?
YOU: Fifth. You are going to have to be specific. No more generalizations. What assumed truths and what universal facts are you referring to in this instance that you were not letting people get away with?
ANSWER: That pedophiles are molesters; that pedophiles are evil; that the parents are doing this to put thier children through school; that this “obviously” promotes pedophilic activities…blah blah blah. In short, that all the things you felt were true about this situation WERE true about this situation, as well as some other posters. This isn’t church; no one is on the pulpit. Back your shit up or get out.
ME: And since you won’t support yourself by reason here (some things are just inherently wrong; no explanation is necessary)
YOU: Sixth. And you’ll notice that I later did provide explanations. Saying that no explanation is necessary isn’t the same as saying that I am unwilling to provide one. As one so sincerely interested in the accurate use of language, surely you’ll concede that. And as a point of fact, I did later provide explanation. I expect you to recognize that. Go and look for it. If you think it was inadequate, I expect you to address why. Failing that, I expect a retraction.
ANSWER: Yeah, you explained all right. Here is one such explanation: “It is quite possible to sexually molest a child without actually having intercourse, so I think the point is moot. Furthermore, that distinction would cetainly be lost on a child who was repeatedly victimized sexually without ever having actually had intercourse.” Boy, I’ve seen clearer explanations in a geometry book for even simple theorems. All you did was back up a blanket statement with a blanket statement. That is not an explanation. You also said, “I don’t think you can use the ‘it could be worse’ argument to suggest that what actually is happening is ok.” I don’t think you responded correctly to the point being made. No one here, to my knowledge, has implied that just because it could be worse that this is ok. You also said “But having live kids perform on the internet specifically for their sexual gratification is not acceptable, nor legal probably.” Well, why isn’t it acceptable? Backing up statements with statements that need backing up. Tsk Tsk.
There are still more. “That idea is simply: As an adult it is wrong to take sexual advantage of children.” Agreed. How does this statement apply to the current debate? Answer not provided. You could have at least “me too”'d wring or freedom or somebody, for god’s sake, so I could see where you were coming from.
I see nothing else that specifically backs up the claims you made, except for the points that I didn’t ask for because we agreed. By the end of the fifth page the topic had switched entirely to the pissing match we are now in.
ME: Let me give you a hint on ambiguity: when I say, there is no evidence, though that means the situation is ambiguous. You cannot tell truth from fiction. It does not mean: You need to be pretty far from reality and be able to rationalize your fantasies to an astounding extent to be a pedophile, which is presented as a statement of fact. When I say things like: Maybe I’ve got kiddie porn on my computer, that is a statement of ambiguous and indeterminite truth, equivalent to maybe we really have no bodies at all, we only think we do. This is different from something along the lines of, Catering to pedophiles is wretched and inherently dangerous which is also presented as a statement of fact.
YOU: Seventh. No. That is not what ambiguity means. An ambiguous statement is one that can be interpreted more than one way.
ANSWER: When a sentence is preceded by “maybe” there is no truth value that can be assigned to is. That is, it could go either way. Maybe it rained today in Boston, scylla. Can that be interpreted in more than one way? Yes.
Continuing on this point:
All those people could be labelled as pedophiles. If I simply call myself a pedophile, I am communicating poorly by being ambiguous.
Or, in my case, I explicitely mentioned what I meant by being a pedophile after you had jumped to your conclusion. That is, you took one of two possible “truths” inside an ambiguous statement. Again, the fault lies with you for doing so.
And the final point:
ME: This is not a semantic argument where we wonder what we “really” mean when we say ambiguous. If it is, I certainly didn’t start it.
YOU: Eighth. Actually it is, and you did. Immediately above this line is my rebuttal of your “meaning” of the term “ambiguous.” You posted it. Not me. Please get your facts straight.
ANSWER: Certainly I will. You said I wasn’t being ambiguous, but being something else. I clarified the meaning of ambiguity for you. In hindsight, I suppose I “started” the semantic argument on ambiguity to correct your usage.
The non-numbered 9th point:
ME: I called you on presenting opinion as fact without support. End of story.
YOU: Maybe that’s what you did. Beats me. You don’t make too much sense. I’ll take your word for it that that’s what you think your doing. I’m even sure that somewhere in this thread I presented an usupported opinion. I won’t make you look for it. So far though, your examples have sucked.
ANSWER: I hope you have seen why I feel that this is the case.
