What are your arguments against pacifier fetish?

[horseman.]

It’s ironic that you’re talking about false equivalence, you’re biased, an inserted dildo is just wearing some plastic as well

An inserted dildo in an adult still isnt equivalent to necrozoophillia.

You bought a dead animal and you can do anything with it, it’s not necrophilia either it’s necrozoophilia. Both are harmless and it’s everything that matters. (Subjectively disgusting imo)

Necrozoophilla isn’t harmless lol, idk how ur even comparing the two

 

[Quetila]

Necrophilia is not harmless it goes against the consent of a human being and their dignity, I could apply the same argument to an animal too, it’s against their dignity and consent.

I said it’s not fucking necrophilia it’s entirely different from a legal standpoint and morally for most people 100%

 

[ICXCLuvr]

If objects associated with children being sexualized increases the chance of child abuse, then we should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes

But they don’t. This is like saying video games can cause you to become more violent.

P2)Affirm the antecedent
C) Conclude with the consequent

Next argument starts with the conclusion

P1) If We should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes and the best way to minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes in this context is through banning @

@ICXCLuvr, then we should ban @

@ICXCLuvr
P2) We should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes (conclusion of argument 1)
P3) the best way to minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes in this context is through banning @

@ICXCLuvr
C) we should ban @

@ICXCLuvr

This is conclusive. @Mods ban this nigger rn

not engaging with the rest of the argument since I don’t even accept the premise

 

[ICXCLuvr]

?

Ur argument failed

 

[milkshake_addict]

its associated with infants its pretty messed up to slap it on a whore

 

[killcry]

Ur argument failed

You were just unable to extrapolate from it. I never said anything about killing you because you like women that have pacifiers in their mouths

 

[ICXCLuvr]

it. I never said anything about killing you because you like women that have pacifiers in their mouths

Didn’t say that

You were just unable to extrapolate from it

You take pride in feeling like ur smarter than everyone but u genuinely just aren’t there yet

 

[Tenres]

But they don’t. This is like saying video games can cause you to become more violent.

not engaging with the rest of the argument since I don’t even accept the premise

Yeah the argument for that is going to be that a sexual association can be transmitted to things that much more commonly exhibit the thing you have the sexual association to, and children more commonly exhibit pacifiers. And so for that statement to be true it just has to be the case that all else equal, having a sexual fetish of a thing that is more commonly exhibited in children increases the chance of developing a fetish involving children.

 

[Quetila]

An inserted dildo in an adult still isnt equivalent to necrozoophillia.

What are you talking about bro My point is that an inserted dildo is equal to wearing a pacifier if it’s just plastic to u

Necrozoophilla isn’t harmless lol, idk how ur even comparing the two

Have you ever fought for the rights of dead chicken or even only thought about it?

 

[ICXCLuvr]

its associated with infants its pretty messed up to slap it on a whore

Messed up to who?

 

[killcry]

Yeah the argument for that is going to be that a sexual association can be transmitted to things that much more commonly exhibit the thing you have the sexual association to, and children more commonly exhibit pacifiers. And so for that statement to be true it just has to be the case that all else equal, having a sexual fetish of a thing that is more commonly exhibited in children increases the chance of developing a fetish involving children.

And everyone intrinsically understands this

 

[milkshake_addict]

Messed up to who?

sensible people

 

[ICXCLuvr]

sensible people

Who is it harming? You just feel like it’s weird

 

[milkshake_addict]

Who is it harming? You just feel like it’s weird

it doesn't matter if it harming someone or not its normalizing a weird fetish that is linked with pedophilia

 

[Tenres]

And everyone intrinsically understands this

Yeah I agree, for most people they should just trust their moral intuitions as there is an evolutionary basis for it. Hence, it at some point was adaptive to feel that way.

Edit: I'm about to leave but to clarify the connection a bit more it would be like this. You are sexually aroused by pacifiers, babies are much more likely to wear pacifiers, you are more likely to be aroused by a baby wearing a pacifier (even in the case it is unrelated to the baby itself), this over time though can easily transform into a generic attraction to babies.

 

[Banana ★ 🍌]

Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's

I don’t think your a pedophile even tough this shit is weird but why don’t you just get off to women with ball gags

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Yeah the argument for that is going to be that a sexual association can be transmitted to things that much more commonly exhibit the thing you have the sexual association to, and children more commonly exhibit pacifiers. And so for that statement to be true it just has to be the case that all else equal, having a sexual fetish of a thing that is more commonly exhibited in children increases the chance of developing a fetish involving children.

Your entire argument lies on the potential of harm rather than looking at the pacifier fetish itself. Just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

I don’t think your a pedophile even tough this shit is weird but why don’t you just get off to women with ball gags

I don’t like seeing women being harmed that much, I tried to get into it but na

 

[wt8zz]

make an ai image of verdams hot mom with a pacifier

 

[muffy]

Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's

it’s fucking weird. only children use pacifiers and to be attracted to an adult doing child like things is more than odd.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

make an ai image of verdams hot mom with a pacifier

Someone already asked me to do this. Na

 

[Tenres]

Your entire argument lies in the potential of harm rather than looking at the pacifier fetish itself. Just a slippery slope fallacy.

Sure, so if you think it's a fallacy demonstrate the error in reasoning. Otherwise I'll just take it that it's fallacy mongering with 0 basis in reality.

The argument just relies on you accepting (a) raising the probability of something bad happen is itself bad, given that it's gratuitous and (b) pacifier fetishes do that

 

[horseman.]

Yeah I agree, for most people they should just trust their moral intuitions as there is an evolutionary basis for it. Hence, it at some point was adaptive to feel that way.

Edit: I'm about to leave but to clarify the connection a bit more it would be like this. You are sexually aroused by pacifiers, babies are much more likely to wear pacifiers, you are more likely to be aroused by a baby wearing a pacifier (even in the case it is unrelated to the baby itself), this over time though can easily transform into a generic attraction to babies.

slippery slope fallacy

 

[ICXCLuvr]

you are more likely to be aroused by a baby wearing a pacifier

I’m not. I developed the fetish when seeing it in someone my age.

 

[Tenres]

slippery slope fallacy

Yeah what's going to be the argument that there's an error in my reasoning? Lol

 

[Tenres]

I’m not. I developed the fetish when seeing it in someone my age.

Wouldn't even matter if you don't have an attraction to pacifiers simpliciter, because what you're doing raises the probability of it, which in turn... Insert the rest of the argument

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Sure, so if you think it's a fallacy demonstrate the error in reasoning. Otherwise I'll just take it that it's fallacy mongering with 0 basis in reality.

The argument just relies on you accepting (a) raising the probability of something bad happen is itself bad, given that it's gratuitous and (b) pacifier fetishes do that

Your argument uses logical leaps and relies on a future harm that hasn’t been proven to exist yet.

The thread question was what was wrong with a pacifier fetish itself, which you can’t provide an answer to, so you just use the slippery slope fallacy.

You can’t develop pedophilia, you are simply born with it and as far as I’m concerned I’m not attracted to anyone younger than me at all

 

[ICXCLuvr]

it’s fucking weird

Read the original post

 

[muffy]

Read the original post

it still 100% does depict a child even if u claim it doesn’t. pacifiers aren’t a normal thing in society outside of children 5 and under. fetishizing a child behavior on adults is a very very concerning thing

 

[Tenres]

Your argument uses logical leaps and relies on a future harm that hasn’t been proven to exist yet.

The thread was question was what was wrong with a pacifier fetish itself, which you can’t provide an answer to, so you just use the slippery slope fallacy.

You can’t develop pedophilia, you are simply born with it and as far as I’m concerned I’m not attracted to anyone younger than me at all
View attachment 5525754

Its been proven by me repeatedly that you are raising the probability of children being abused, so I'll just asked you straight up: do you take it to be the case that raising the probability of children being abused is a bad thing? If you say yes, then your argument is irrelevant. If you don't, then I'd be very curious to what moral philosophy you had that doesn't take it to be bad that your action on average has negative consequences.

It applies to your fetish.

You don't have to be a clinical pedophile to sexually abuse children so that's just a shit argument. Most child sexual abusers are not clinical pedophiles

 

[ICXCLuvr]

it still 100% does depict a child even if u claim it doesn’t. pacifiers aren’t a normal thing in society outside of children 5 and under. fetishizing a child behavior on adults is a very very concerning thing

“Not normal” = weird argument
Is that all you guys can say

 

[muffy]

“Not normal” = weird argument
Is that all you guys can say

it’s worse than not normal dude. it is a seriously concerning thing to be attracted to pacifiers you have a fucked up head.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Its been proven by me repeatedly that you are raising the probability of children being abused, so I'll just asked you straight up:

Where did you do that? Wait so when I play cod am I also raising the probability of someone shooting up a mall?

You don't have to be a clinical pedophile to sexually abuse children so that's just a shit argument. Most child sexual abusers are not clinical pedophiles

These logical leaps and snucked in premises.

 

[Tenres]

Where did you do that? Wait so when I play cod am I also raising the probability of someone shooting up a mall?

View attachment 5525766

The argument I gave that you have failed to respond to. Muhh fallacy but can't demonstrate the error in reasoning.

Also lol,

 

[ICXCLuvr]

The argument I gave that you have failed to respond to. Muhh fallacy but can't demonstrate the error in reasoning.

Where’s the proof that a pacifier fetish can lead to pedophilia? Empirical proof, because when you tried to use reasoning you just snuck in a false premise and took multiple logical leaps.

 

[Tenres]

Where’s the proof that a pacifier fetish can lead to pedophilia? Empirical proof, because when you tried to use reasoning you just snuck in a false premise and took multiple logical leaps.

Both arguments used completely valid inferences rules, there were 0 logical leaps.

Also my original argument didn't even assume the pacifier fetish itself would lead to pedophilia. Although I did give a clear demonstration of how it could.

And yeah I don't take it to be the case that I need empirical proof. I'll need the argument for that

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Both arguments used completely valid inferences rules, there were 0 logical leaps.

Also my original argument didn't even assume the pacifier fetish itself would lead to pedophilia. Although I did give a clear demonstration of how it could.

And yeah I don't take it to be the case that I need empirical proof. I'll need the argument for that

@horseman. idk why they won’t js leave us alone

 

[horseman.]

View attachment 5525795View attachment 5525796
@horseman. idk why they won’t js leave us alone

They’re all just virtue signaling to each other lmao

 

[Nardicus101]

Then wallahi this should be normalized

bro pls change your signature
im tired of scrolling down damn near a whole screen jus to read the next comment

 

[eroticerogi]

H

Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's

Oh my God bruh

 

[filthycurrycel]

Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's

being infantilised and it being sexual

same way a diaper fetish would go, you're very close to being an actual pedophile

attaching sexual worth to stuff used by children mostly

 

[ICXCLuvr]

same way a diaper fetish would go, you're very close to being an actual pedophile

But I’m just not doe

 

[MagicalWaves]

Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's

it does depict children u fucking nimrod its literally a thing used to calm babies down

 

[filthycurrycel]

View attachment 5525805
But I’m just not doe

yeah sexual roleplay involving items used in infancy

being treated as a infant and it being sexual

 

[Tenres]

View attachment 5525795View attachment 5525796
@horseman. idk why they won’t js leave us alone

This wouldn't even disprove my original argument.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

it does depict children u fucking nimrod its literally a thing used to calm babies down

No I mean like ai generated 18+ women with a pacifier, so the person.

yeah sexual roleplay involving items used in infancy

being treated as a infant and it being sexual

not pedophilia and not immoral just “weird”.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

This wouldn't even disprove my original argument.

Ur original argument was just a slippery slope saying “ur leading to children being harmed” when im just not doe

 

[accinr]

might be the worse user on here

best*

 

[Tenres]

Ur original argument was just a slippery slope saying “ur leading to children being harmed” when im just not doe

You still didn't track. But by original argument I mean the two formal ones.

All it says is "objects associated with children being sexualized increases the chance of child abuse" which is completely consistent with ABDL practitioners not being pedophiliac, but creating an environment where pedophiles can infiltrate and use to normalize their own behavior. <-- Which is one of the first things I said. Point is, no amount of AI can defeat the goat (me)

 

[accinr]

jfl at the state of the forum ngl
whole philosophical conundrum over a pacifier
mog activities

False equivalence, you can’t compare necrophiallia to an ai picture of a 18+ lady wearing some plastic