@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

It's a very basic concept that isn't being used pedophilia. If you don't have this concept, you have to accept the Orwellian newspeak idea that in California, 17 year olds can't consent.

I think everyone understands that age of consent laws are arbitrary and when the law says someone can legally consent does not necessarily correlate to when someone actually has enough agency to consent. Age of consent various from state to state and from country to country, and everyone knows this does not mean that teenagers in Alabama are ready for sex earlier than teenagers in California. This is no less true of age restrictions on everything else, from driving to enlisting to signing a loan.

Inventing a concept like "scientific consent" just sounds suspiciously like an attempt to punt. Even if you and I agree that five-year-olds cannot meaningfully consent and most 17-year-olds can, if you reject age-constricted consent and you just want go on vibes, the door is open, yes, for someone to argue that a five-year-old has enough awareness and agency to consent. (If you think this is absurd, enjoy some Piers Anthony).

Yes, I know what prepubescent means.

My point is not that being thirsty for a barely-legal anime character makes someone a pedophile, my point is that splitting hairs over the exact age (or technical age, hence the thousand-year-old dragon meme) and secondary sex characteristics of a character clearly drawn to be childlike fits a certain archetype.

Misuzu Kamio is not prepubescent.

No idea who this is (other than a Google search telling me she's some kind of reincarnated moe light novel character) but that's some real "She's actually a thousand-year-old dragon" energy.

Being scientifically able to consent means you can understand what is going on and make an informed decision.

Look, I don't love @FtttG's call-out (@FtttG: Argue with the OP directly if you take issue with his statements, do not play the "Reminder: OP is a bad person!" game). But you aren't exactly beating the rap here. "Scientific consent" seems to be something you made up, in the way that people who want to make up terms to justify something that would otherwise be hard to justify will do. It has no legal (or scientific) basis. "Can understand what is going on and make an informed decision" rests entirely on how we define "understand" and "informed," and having unfortunately seen some interviews with actual pedophiles, they will absolutely argue that 5-year-olds can understand and consent to sexual relations. 12-year-olds certainly think they can understand and consent to sexual relations. So if your definition of consent rests on the expressed internal mental state of a child, you are going to be defending the premise that essentially anyone who's verbal can consent.

So look, I am not going to ding you for riding your hobby horse, as annoying as it is. But this entire post is nothing but reposting what some X-personality says. I don't know who Thuletide is or why we should care what he thinks. Is he noteworthy, famous, is there some reason why his thoughts about banging teenagers are interesting? When someone posts a Happening from Twitter that has CW significance and is making the rounds, we'll usually allow a thread about it (we prefer the OP at least frame it with some context and some thoughts of their own), but not only did you not do the latter, but this is literally just "Here is some dude on the Internet with hot takes I agree with."

If you want to write an effort post with your thoughts on the gynocracy preventing older men from accessing nubile fertile young females carefully selected for their evolutionary fitness, go ahead and write that post, but if you just want to repost the resentful yammerings of randos, I will point you to Leave the rest of the Internet at the door:

In keeping with the rules above regarding "low-effort" and "weak-man" comments, and our goal to produce more light than heat, we ask that you refrain from posting bare links to culture-war-related discussions held outside of this sub. If you are going to link to another platform we ask that you please put in the work to contextualize the post and explain why it is relevant to readers of this community.

IOW, "random person said something on twitter" by itself is not really worth of a top-level post.

I think you (and apparently a lot of OPOL devotees) are overthinking it.

The research does generally support OPOL theory, in terms of being the most effective way to raise bilingual children. But it is not the only way. The idea that "Mom speaks to the kids in English, Dad speaks to the kids in Russian" is well and good, but it doesn't mean that if Mom and Dad talk to each other in English in front of the kids that you've ruined their bilingual education.

I don't know how strong the evidence is for "cognitive benefits" of multilingualism (though I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to believe it) but I do know a lot of kids grow up regretting that their parents never taught them their native language.

I see what you're doing here.

Normally, I don't love this kind of thing and I'd even chide you for not "speaking clearly," but I have to admit this is well done. I am not even certain you aren't sincere.

The list of people you bait like this and then proceed to disingenuously JAQ at before declaring you're blocking them continues to grow. This entire thread seems to be little more than an attempt to bait people and "win" a fight that exists in your own head.

You've been warned before about this kind of engagement. It is not productive discourse. You can have opinions, you can have arguments, but you cannot come here just because you want to satisfy some kind of "I totally got you, sucker!" argument fetish.

Banned for two days this time. Ban lengths will increase if you do not amend your mode of interaction.

Ya know, Ken White, of Popehat fame, just posted a lengthy, whiny screed about how ridiculous it is that Bluesky(!), of all places, gave him a timeout for saying someone should kill Elon Musk.

Must have been shocking to him that even Bluesky balks at calls for murder of your political enemies (when your enemies are, after all, objectively evil people who need to die to prevent more evil).

The Motte is not Bluesky. However, we still tend to draw the line at explicit calls for assassination. And no doubt if someone called for assassinating Elon Musk here, it would get lots of reports and downvotes.

We give people a long leash-- you can even Kulak-post about how violence is good, actually-- but specifically saying "kill these people" is getting pretty close to the sort of thing that could get Zorba served with a warrant, or whatever they do in Europe.

Don't do this.

Why is Pride and Prejudice, essentially Victorian era chick lit,

I will not suffer such Austen slander!

First, Austen was Regency era. A generation before the Victorians, and there are some pretty significant differences (like the freedom with which Austen's heroines go unaccompanied to parties or go on walks with men without escorts and such, something Victorian ladies basically were not allowed to do).

Second, today Austen's novels are mostly considered "chick lit" and generally filmed as romances, but in her time, they were widely read by both sexes and considered comedies of manners with insightful descriptions of human fallibility, not female wish-fulfillment ("chick lit") despite the fact they generally ended in a good-hearted but poor woman marrying up.

I think it takes hundreds of hours, but those hours are themselves easy, unlike math.

The ease with which children learn languages is exaggerated, but yes, it's easier to learn languages when you are young. It is not "easy." The "passive language-absorbing sponge" theory is not true.

The thing about the Muslim countries I refer to is that they don't learn as much about Martin Luther King Jr., the American Revolution, or the reproductive cycle of flowering plants in elementary school

I think you would be dismayed to learn what kids in Muslim countries do spend much of their school hours learning. And while I can guess what you think of Martin Luther King, Jr., I would be dismayed (am dismayed) at American students not being taught about the American Revolution or the reproductive cycle of flowering plants.

There is a trade off but imo a foreign language is a skill and knowing factoids about history, American or Algerian, is not.

Understanding history and being able to relate it to the world we live in is definitely a cognitive skill.

Kids should actually know something about the history of their country and the world. A population ignorant of history and science but which can speak a couple of languages is not a recipe for success.

Very few 90 IQ students are learning French, Modern Standard Arabic, and classical Arabic. "An Arabic dialect" is their native language. MSA is a formal version they learn in grammar class and use nowhere else, and classical Arabic they only get from the Quran and most don't understand it any better than the average English speaker can follow King James Bible English. A version of French is learned by Arabs in North Africa but usually just enough to kind of get by.

You have an extremely exaggerated idea of how easy it is to become multilingual. And teaching elementary students a useless dead language to satisfy some classicism fetish would be a complete waste of time. They can learn Ancient Greek in college if they have an interest in it (but then you'd probably mock them for studying useless humanities).

No.

The only one singing "I Dreamed a Dream" is you.

Shrug We don't care that you're "fed up" that we mod the way we always have (the principal has been clearly explained, many times- good posters are allowed to have the occasional bad day), but if you really want to insist we treat you the way we'd treat a new user, fine, next time you go off, maybe I will.

Normality is busy tying laces.

The calculus of harm has gone to bed

Godammit, dude.

I didn't mod you because I disagreed with you. You have a history of low effort sarcasm and you got reported for that, and I still doubt you literally believe the things you said in your initial post, because that is a pattern with you. Everything that followed has been without my mod hat. Whether you now admit that your OP was ridiculous hyperbole, or you are going to stick to the "Iran has wrecked the US and Israeli militaries and this is being hidden from the people" narrative.

I cannot and will not give you a precise guideline as to when I or another mod will step in because people are going at each other. First, because that gets pretty close to "Tell me how I can attack someone I don't like without being modded," which we get sometimes. Second, because you are right that moderation cannot be 100% consistent all the time. I try to be consistent and principled but I'm sure looking at every single time one poster criticized another, you could find discrepancies regarding when I did or did not put on the mod hat.

General rule of thumb: if someone is grinding your gears and your post is all about how they grind your gears, it's probably not a necessary contribution. And if two people are in a slapfight because they annoy one another, we are likely to step in and say "Knock it off," and no, I'm not going to try to measure which of them typed more mean words.

A few things:

First, this "affirmative action for minority posters" thing is taking on the character of a Motte urban legend. Being a lefty or Jewish or black or a woman doesn't give you extra latitude to break the rules. We are sometimes slower to act on people who are being reported a lot for having unpopular views, because frankly there is hardly any active poster here (with only a few exceptions) who, if everything they said was getting reported, wouldn't end up having some comments cross the line and the mods getting a sense that this person is a Problem.

Second, @HereAndGone2 has been modded and temp banned, many times, and she is aware that her previous record does not get erased when she creates a new account.

Third, yes, I scolded her and @TitaniumButterfly both because they were both getting unnecessarily personal. I am telling you the same thing. The fact that some poster really grinds your gears does not mean you should take the opportunity to write screeds about how much they annoy you.

I don’t mean to be a jerk

Well, it's hard to think of a more polite way to describe what you're doing here. While your numbers and anecdotes keep changing, you still have not provided any credible evidence for all US bases in the Middle East being glassed (even if your definition of "glassed" turns out to be "took some damage"), an aircraft carrier being totaled, and the IAF being wiped out.

You claimed the following:

Burgerland and Israel got their assess kicked

The “laundry fire” on the Gerald R. Ford was so bad that there are now serious concerns the ship will never sail again.

Basically every American base in the Middle East has been glassed.

The final kicker was when most of IAF got unexpectedly blown up on the runway a few days ago.

You are now claiming that a base "has been hit by so many missiles it's basically rubble."

Even assuming that last claim is true (notwithstanding your refusal to provide evidence beyond vibes for anything you have claimed), you are absolutely motte-and-baileying. One wrecked base (which probably does not exist) turning into "all American bases in the Middle East glassed, the IAF destroyed, the Gerald Ford totaled" is not "slightly hyperbolic."

You might disagree on the degree.

Yes.

The degree of difference between "The US and Israeli militaries have taken more damage than is being reported" and "The US and Israeli militaries have been all but wiped out" is.... significant.

Aircraft carriers totaled, the entire IAF destroyed on the runway, multiple US military bases "glassed" (was this meant to imply that Iran literally nuked them, or was it just hyperbole?)... that is rather different than "Some missiles did more damage than they are admitting."

You claimed the first, then fell back to the latter when pressed.

Rarely has a more textbook case of Motte-and-Bailey been displayed here on the Motte.

Those claims are rather different from your OP.

If you genuinely believe what you are saying, no, the rules don't require you to cite sources for your belief that the moon is made of cheese, or lizard people are running the world (though it is reasonable for people to ask for sources). However, I remain skeptical that you were being sincere in your claims that US military bases have been glassed and the IAF has been destroyed on the runway.

Okay, if you're genuinely claiming that every American base in the Middle East has been "glassed" and most of the IAF has been destroyed, do you have some evidence? Those are extraordinary claims.

Speak plainly. Whatever you're doing here, the humor (if that's what it is) is not landing and posting ridiculous statements to see who bites looks like trolling.

I'm not thrilled by the exchange between @HereAndGone2 and @TitaniumButterfly. Y'all are both being petty ***** who make me want to say "Get a room."

But you, in the short time since you created this alt, have made it clear you created it just to harass people you don't like, no doubt from lingering grudges established with previous alts.

We don't generally slap down new accounts when they appear, but when it's trivially obvious that it's someone spinning up an alt to unleash their id, we are not actually obliged to put up with you.

Go away.