Re: Depends on what you mean by 'accepted'

Ah, but we can't pander our arguments to appeal to those who have already shut us out.

I believed in human rights before I was aware that I was a Ped.

Any version of Human Rights which exclude an arbitrary class are necessarily tortured, unjust and inconsistent. Backing up the excluders has always initially sided one with the majority. But there are reasons why the only arguments cited and advanced in civil society are the inclusive ones; and its not just because the majority now conveniently agree on all but Youth-Rights.

You are blindly ignoring the fact that there are degrees of reaction. Shutting us out is one thing; actively pursuing a campaign of violence and genocide against us is quite another, and while it hasn't gotten to that point quite yet, is there anyone here who doubts the potential for the moral panic to reach that level? I suspect a lot of what the future holds for MAPs will depend on the degree to which we are deemed a threat, and pursuing the goal of child liberation strikes me as wholly counterproductive in that regard.

You are right on one point. This doesn't advance a Pedo-agenda. It only advances the entire species.

Well, that makes a nice soundbite, but is it really so, and if it is, at what cost? Perhaps in the far-flung future--long after the last ashes of the pedo-genocide have drifted into the dust--our ideas might gain ground, but would it be on their own merit or because some future society felt guilty? I wonder. I would really like to avoid the pedo-genocide, and in fact I feel I have an obligation to MAPs not to push our luck. You may disagree and you are entitled to, but don't make the mistake of misreading my intentions.

Too many bitter Pedos argue that in order to gain acceptance Gays became defacto Straights. But I see the gay marriage thing as the tail-end of a success story which benefits those who prefer monogamy. It doesn't, and it certainly didn't in the past, require marriage to make gays presentable. In fact, its only the acceptance of single homosexuals which has paved the way for those who want to marry to be working on this.

But we are NOT the gays, no more than the gays were the blacks, and on down the line. We're a completely different minority with a completely different set of conditions and circumstances. The rights of minority groups can only extend so far, and we are riding somewhere in the gray area between homosexuals and serial rapists. Now, don't take that the wrong way. I'm not comparing us across the board to rapists; I'm just pointing out that there are certain groups you cannot extend full rights to without violating the rights of others. Children are indeed a special case unlike adults in some quite fundamental ways. I know the red herring argument that follows: but women are different from blacks, and gays are different from straights, and so on. None of that addresses the reality that children's differences from adults are completely different and we have not settled as a society whether those differences require the specific legal protections. If/when that is settled, it'll be a different story, but it is reckless to pursue that course with so much at stake and so little understood. Nuff said about that.

We will not gain acceptance by trying to create a Pedo-pseudo-Norman-Rockwell image. We will gain acceptance when;

This is a straw man, which is surprising coming from you, Dante. Who is arguing that we must paint ourselves up as ideal human beings? I suggested we not pursue child liberation goals (for now) because A) it would be counterproductive coming from us, and B) it would likely increase the danger to us, and you equated that to painting a pretty picture? Come on.