smooth

I have no idea, but it's absolutely absurd in light of the entire post I wrote.
It's symptomatic of what we've discussed in prior threads: namely the logical inconsistency between various talking points of republicans and their inability or unwillingness to engage in self-reflexivity.

I'll deconstruct it:
What is implies to me is that there is no difference between looking at pictures of 17 year olds, 13 year olds, and 8 year olds--they are all morally reprobate.

How this meshes with various ways of engaging with one's sexual fantasies, specifically on this board a point you already raised roachboy, such as, viewing people who pretend or appear to be minors--most blatant examples would be japanese schoolgirl fantasies, "barely legal," teen posts, tease posts (which scrape the line since they don't show nudity--how this doesn't conflict with the prohibition that the thought constitutes the crime, I am unclear on), but all of those types of fantasies are somehow ok when we discuss the particular case of the scout employee.

Then we have the problematic assumption that 17 and 8 year olds do not contain varying levels of ability of consent to sexual activity--even within their own cohorts, let alone across them. And the other interesting premise that none of them look anything like their adult counterparts (also stated in that thread). Now, I've been warned of deletion of my account in response to my arguing that all humans, minors included, ought to be able to make their own, autonomous decisions regarding sexual activity rather than government, so I won't carry that argument out here.

But I will point out the inconsistency of holding this opinion (that 17 and 8 year olds alike are incapable of consent in regards to sexual activity--that all interactions with them are predatory on the face of it) but 5 year old boys can make autonomous political decisions (stated in the shiavo thread in defense of what this parent did--that noone really knows if this boy was conducting himself according to his own political/religious belief system).



The fact that I left the first set of assumptions unquestioned, actually, goes right past NCB.
That is, since I questioned how this type of abuse could be supported in light of the other thread, the implication would be that I was not disputing whether sexual predation is abuse.


Now, when I pull their statements out of the moral domain and evaluate their logical consistency with one another, that seems to be interpreted by conservatives that I can't make moral evaluations--when in fact that charge is more properly laid at their feet. The fact that I refuse to view all of the former as morally reprobate renders me amoral--regardless if it then creates logical inconsistency on my standpoints on other issues (as it does for them). What does that make someone who can't distinguish between any of this?

So, yeah, what is NCB trying to say?
I guess at it's simplest level it implies that a parent can hold the opinion that all minors, regardless of age, are victims when it comes to sexuality, but that all minors, regardless of age, are autonomous decision makers when it comes to politics/religion.

But only parents can understand that; since my post questions it, I must not be a parent.
(I'll still leave that question unanswered since it seems to me to be my own personal life and I refuse to admit it has any bearing on my understanding of the logical inconsistency I've tried to outline in the awkward form of communication we're constrained by here).



lol, you should have told them not to confuse your immorality with amorality!

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman