Alden Bunag arrest for engaging in typical socialist behavior, is this political persecution?

[anylolone]

Utterly reasonable argument with no bad faith what so ever...

This is in no way projection...

Silly conservatives, they don't understand that CP rhymes with carrying water to the CCP.
It's just part of social democrat culture.

The nazi jew known as "Libs of TikTok" on the subject:

Hawaii teacher arrested after reportedly having sex with a 13-year-old student during lunch breaks. The teacher allegedly recorded it and sent it to another teacher. pic.twitter.com/Q3Ve3iTg4E— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 17, 2022

It's starting to get too old for SDs...

Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex”

See kids, conservatives and traditionalists weren't the only ones who fell into the "slippery slope" fallacy, they only fell for it because social democrats first fell for it with the intent of lubing the slope (and your kids), now you understand why they so easily turned on cis gay men, straight black men, or passing trangenders as the "cis-het white men" of their communities.

[normalice]

in my opinion when someone accuses someone else of pedophillia with no basis they should get the prison sentence that pedophiles are usually given. That would put an end to this far right disinformation campaign real quick.

[anylolone]

Like in this case? It's endearing how you want pedophiles free and the snitches in jail.

Well, there was a basis, besides the MAP normalization discourse, of course.

There's always a basis here, that's the fun thing.

Right now, if we were to bet, we would only make fractions of a penny on the dollar, and finding someone willing to lose so much money running the bet is very hard.

Good to see you, by the way, I thought you got caught, lol!

[normalice]

Like i said, the accusation of pedophilia with no basis. This is the opposite of what you said, which is the accusation of pedophilia with basis, but I suppose no one is famous for crediting far right ultra maga with exceptional reading comprehension 😅

[anylolone]

Well, as I said, plenty of basis there.

Lots of evidence of noncery in his twitter.
The expression "basic sex ed" is quite a good indicator nowdays.
Every woman who ever talked about "teaching me sex" or having me "teach her sex" was just trying to screw me.
You don't teach sex to kids, you teach basic biology and parasitology, how to have sex is some of the things that disprove the tabula rasa russonian bullshit, it comes pre-programed.

[normalice]

Nope, sorry. That's only qualifies as a basis if you want it to. But there is no basis for having what you want just because it makes you feel better. Go to jail, pedo 😄

[anylolone]

I just gave the basis, denying it won't make it easier for you.

You could try tackling it, but we both know that would be a shot in the foot.

By the way, my position evolved in this subject, not that I ever believed sex should be taught at school, it just never seem to work and this has one of the positions where I naturally held a view demanding the teaching of instrumental knowledge.
But What grew on me was the core of the conservative position, specially through personal experience but also through general statistics and logic in general.

Of course, conservatives can be a bit retarded when making the argument, but that's because they are dealing with the particular people as they should.

[normalice]

Yes, your basis was that it would make you feel better. That's not a real basis. Go to jail.

[anylolone]

That's a huge wicker man you built to not engage with the argument.

Weird is that suddenly you are into dye process, unaware I'm not against it and unaware of how it works.

[normalice]

I dont engage in the argument because you are a brainwashed far right troll. Has nothing to do with wicker men. I am well aware there is bo getting through to you. You are lost a lost cause - addicted to your hate. To reverse your brainwashing would be to dry you out, leaving a husk - which of course you don't want so would fight tooth and nail to avoid being set right. Only careful weaning over the course of decades could land you safely, but I'm not your dad and so don't owe you that sort of time - though clearly your dad/mom didn't think he owed it to you, either, or he might have noticed you were becoming what you are and maybe spent more time with you or something. And so you're on "first sentence" status. I respond to your first sentence and ignore the rest.

[anylolone]

Do you even understand what a wicker man is? Did you get the reference?

Interesting enough you never engage with arguments, everyone seems to be a brainwashed right wing troll to you.

Worst, you quite literally claim the only way for people to believe you to brainwash them, lol!

Gosh, aren't you tired of self reporting?

[normalice]

Not really. And I'm not interested in learning here. Yes, every once in a while an addict might have information that's interesting, but I still have to go through the hassle of treating an addict like a normal person to learn it in that moment, when I could instead just wait for the next opportunity.

[anylolone]

You aren't interested in learning anywhere, or in the merits of anything.

[normalice]

Inaccurate. I learn something new every day. It is part of my job, in fact. But I know enough about addicts to know there is nothing I can do for them. So, I continue to extend you the barest of kindnesses in the form of responding at all, and if you decide you want to stop being an addict I can maybe work with that, but not until then.

[anylolone]

Doesn't seem like you are even capable of learning or interested in it.

Now, as someone who has to learn skill as part of my trade, the first rule of learning is being able to reproduce the skill, faithfully, ideally under pressure and expediently.
You reject internal consistency. How antithetical to learning that's, well, we all can see how obviously it's worst than oil and water.
Immiscible would be the euphemism of the century.

[normalice]

It does, but I don't expect someone brainwashed with far right disinformation to be able to tell.

[anylolone]

It doesn't seem so, but I don't expect someone with zero notion of internal consistency to care.

[normalice]

I assure you it never entered my mind that you cared. You're just here to chase your hate fix.

[anylolone]

Your words are more than enough, mind you.
Your constant derision of internal consistency is more than enough to inform anyone of your state of mind to a sufficient degree.

"I don't need to read your mind, I only need to read your words and extract the simplest, internally consistent most charitable explanation with the least amount of elements."

You seem to forget you project a lot of your internal state with your actions and words, gosh, that's the point of those.

[normalice]

Why thank you. Anything I can do to help!

[anylolone]

Well, can I help you with some self-awareness?

Your words don't paint a pretty picture of your internal state.
I didn't say "your words are gospel", if you contradict yourself certainly lies are contained in them, maybe no obvious truth.
All the jury in amber heard's case did was take her claims and reconcile them in order to damn her.

What I said is "I'm glad to use your own words against you."
You aren't helping me as much as you are harming yourself.
And the source of the harm comes from way before you type, right at the moment when you deny any responsibility to be internally consistent or have any self-awareness.

[normalice]

Oh, no I'm here to help you, actually. But if letting you believe you are helping others is what it takes to wean you off your hate addiction I'm happy to play the role. However, I won't allow you to believe you are "helping" by getting others addicted to hate. But do try to keep your responses limited to one sentence. It has been a few comments so I don't expect an addict would remember so it's probably worth pointing out again that I only read the first sentence.

[anylolone]

Man, you are already addicted to hate, and all manners of heinous things.

Am I helping people by exposing your ilk and your silly tricks? Yeah.
I've done it all my life, first literally in person.

Gosh, most frequently I protected your ilk from your ilk at the request of your ilk.
It's funny how my "hate" turns into love so quickly, and the shame of the realization that it was your hate of being denied all along, and that quickly turns into bouts of shame for you.

[normalice]

I already pointed out that you are addicted to hate. Don't copy me.

[anylolone]

As I told you, it doesn't work like that.

Didn't worked well for heard, remember that.

[normalice]

But it does work like that. When I say something and then you repeat it back to me, that's the definition of copying.

[anylolone]

Not really. I guess you didn't mature past 5yo games.

As I was able to demonstrate by citing heard's case, it doesn't work like that.

[normalice]

Yes really.

[anylolone]

Well, I did demonstrated to you how it works.
Words have meaning, they may feel like magic spells to you but that's because you don't understand them.

I'd suggest you try before you are incapable of doing it.

[normalice]

No you didn't.

[anylolone]

I did demonstrated it very well with the heard case. Again, you go playing games fit only for 6yo kids.
"no you didn't!" lol!

[normalice]

I wasn't discussing the heard case. So no you didn't.

[anylolone]

I was drawing an one to one analogy, a very fitting one.

I wasn't discussing false accusations, but somehow I was able to engage with your dishonest diatribe.

As I said, try to understand the concept of meaning and the meaning of words.
You gonna have to work out that abstraction muscles you never used in your life.

[normalice]

Oh. I guess it has been a while so i probably need to remind you again that I only read your first sentence until you express an earnest desire to overcome your addiction. So that was gibberish.

[anylolone]

Well, clearly you read past it, since you understood I made a reference to a trial, lol!

And yeah, I know you lack reading comprehension and can't handle scrutiny, that's obvious.

Again, learn what meaning is and learn the meaning of words before you try to use them publically.

[normalice]

You made reference to "the heard case" in a first sentence three comments ago. What is it with addicts and their short memories, lol.

[anylolone]

You self admittedly refused to read more than one line and you use the logic even 7yo kids are above of; but congratulations in trying to search for the one comment in which I did, and not commenting on it several trades later.

That's because you read all, but never manages to find anything convincing, so you just try to stall and distract.

[normalice]

I already explained why I don't bother reading beyond the first line. If you really want to know why go find it.

[anylolone]

Well, your explanation lacks any internal consistency, so much you just referenced something past the first line.

Seriously, old man, how many times will we have to teach you this lesson?

[normalice]

Its my rule of thumb for my convenience. I can break it whenever I wish. Of course I didn't here, but I suppose neither of us is making a case for your extraordinary grasp on reality.

[anylolone]

But that's not the worst part, the worst part is the "justification" which is written as if words don't have meanings. I can start quoting you, one sentence at a time, since you don't read two.

[normalice]

I suppose that could be something to tell yourself, sure. I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about, though..

[anylolone]

You argued for a long time that "bodily autonomy" isn't "bodily autonomy" because you a-priori define alone as that not being itself, which means you never know what anyone is talking about, yourself included.

Which is why I told you to attempt to understand the concept of meaning and the meaning of words.

[normalice]

No I didn't.

[anylolone]

Actually you did, as you provided no external source to your definition, you just repeated a section of what you felt didn't fell under it's purview over and over again in contrast to all evidence of the word's meaning. And you didn't even provided a congruent definition of it.

That's a very old tactic of "begging the question" with "defintional plasticity".

[normalice]

Not in real life, sorry.

[anylolone]

Here, you did that here. Now, if you mean "it doesn't mean in real life" actually you provided no reason why your incongruence in any way apply or is arisen from "real life".
Actually you seem to congrue illogical and arbitrary with "real life", but illogical and arbitrary cannot ever conclude anything by definition. Much less exclusively or universally.

Arbitrary can at best prescribe, illogical can only contradict itself.

[normalice]

No I didn't

[anylolone]

Here you did, as in this site.
Here: Why should female bodily autonomy be respected when male body autonomy is not? ↗

then you vanished for obvious reason that you can't make an argument.

[normalice]

That doesn't say what you said it says, though.

[anylolone]

Actually it does. on it's all.
As I said, no reference to anything external, no congruent definition, only arbitrary incongruent claims.
You said "doesn't remove any organ" which literally disproves your own initial take.

[normalice]

No it doesn't

[anylolone]

As I said before "old man, how many times do we have to teach you this lesson?"
lol!

You are way out of your domain doing groceries, it's like I'm watching a 25lb special needs kid being forced to compete seriously with professionals in MMA.

[normalice]

Oh, I guess it has been a while and addicts have short memories. I'll remind you once again that I only read your first sentence, so if said that before and it wasn't in the first line I missed it, sorry. Well, not "sorry" sorry, but more "I'm sure glad I'm not you" sorry.