Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 28 2017

8885 dcd6
Reposted fromprivacea privacea viaaperture aperture
7951 1835
Reposted fromtfu tfu viayetzt yetzt

June 27 2017

I was going to write some sarcastic reply, but I think I´ll limit myself to suggest you to compare the economic policies of Allende and Pinochet.

Pease note that the latin american left ≠ the eastern bloc.
Loaded question coming threw: In your opinion, is there a way to criticize one persons act by putting them in relationship with another persons act without comiting a logical fallacy?

Also, I am very confused by your final sentence:
"His (supposedly) deeds do not invalidate his criticism of N-Korea." That´s exactly what I wrote. Do you have the feeling that you don´t understand what I wrote? Should I rephrase?

June 26 2017

Hey naich,

your soup pops up a lot in my feed, especially because of your comments. I must say that I don´t always agree with you, but I often find interesting what you have to say. I wonder if you would like to tell me what´s your stance towards violence. To be more precise: do you think that violence can be justified?

If you have no intrest in discussing it right now, thats fine, obviously.


PS: I just read what I wrote and I feel inexplicably creepy now...
If you gonna be one of those "I caught your logical fallacy, peasant"-people at least do it right.

The whole point of the cartoon is not to invalidate Trump´s statement based on his actions, but to put his statement in relationship to the actions he is suposedly responsible for, in order to show that he is as bad as north corea or somethin. Hence the giant pile of bodys he is standing on.

Tu quoque does not seem aplicable, does it?
7555 2e8d 500

inhalte ...
Reposted fromswissfondue swissfondue
2716 2ee5
Reposted fromfungi fungi viavolldost volldost

June 25 2017

Reposted bypati2k6Hanoi
6575 9e43
Reposted bymonotymoteuszLogHiMaMrCoffeSpecies5618DagarhenUbiksevnvmnaichbardzosmacznyarezTamahlPaseroVirusregcordOhSnapjanuschytruspiotroskislovafafnirscave

June 24 2017

5233 c2ea 500
Reposted frombardzosmaczny bardzosmaczny viawaaaaargh waaaaargh
Wedding´s finest.
0086 e5fe
Reposted fromaunds aunds viasofias sofias

June 23 2017

Reposted fromFlau Flau viaKane1337 Kane1337
Reposted fromcool-carlos cool-carlos viaeyelyn eyelyn
3914 9897
Reposted fromgreensky greensky viavaira vaira
2190 c8a6
Reposted fromsz sz viavaira vaira

June 21 2017

The funny thing is that he doesn´t realize that, apart from some really fringy fringe groups, all whites are usually not blamed for white supremacist´s acts. Which would be the analogy of blaming all muslims for Islamists acts/ of a "moderate muslim" condemning ISIS. Or did I not get the satire right again?
Hey, sorry for the late reply, I have been sort of busy.

I would not know wether power is the dominant factor in pedophiles sexual desires. This is definitively not true for (all of) the conscious ones. I think I must have expressed myself unclearly. I´ll give it another go:
There is a clear disparity of power between children and adults/postpubescent people on many levels (strength, bodyly readyness for intercourse, social power, intelectual and mental capabilities and resources, etc.).  The fact that sexual desires manifest themselves in this context means, that an egalitarian sort of intercourse is imposible outside of the realm of fantasy. Therefore the disparity of power is always very present in such situations. It is the definig moment of it, and therefore also central to the cathexis of the child ("the powerless") as a sexual object. This does not mean that pedophiles may not negate or otherwise supress that fact.

It is similar with the seduction argument you mentioned: Of course you can construe that the behaviour of a child is meant as a (genital) sexual advance. Typical affectionate behaviours of children, like kissing, snuggling and twinking are very common modes of interactions between childrens and their caretakers and other people they trust. They are bonding behaviours. Just like when children "show off" their genitals. Of course they are similar to seductive behaviours - caretakers transfer "seductive" behaviour to children the same way that the child, once it is grown up, will transfer what it learned from it´s caretakers into sexual bonding and seduction situations. Laplanche´s general seduction theory does a great job explaining the interwinedness of both in my opinion. When a helthy child performs such behaviours it is however an invitation to bond, not to establish a genital sexual bond/contact/interaction. This is culturally known, a pedophile might deny this conciously, but when he does so he is completely in denial about all common knowlege about interactions between adults and children.

tl.dr: when a child smooches an adult it is an invitation to him to take care of him, not to have sex, and this is fairly obvious.

"to fulfill their urges and satisfy their conscience, they construct a world wherein children can indeed consent"

couldn´t have put it better =)


June 20 2017

4546 44b3 500
Reposted fromtichga tichga viaaperture aperture
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!