Re: Will girllovers ever be accepted?

This is a red herring argument. pointing out that there were some bullshit reasons used against the liberation of other minorities (not to mention against child lib) does not indicate that there are also some valid reasons to protect children.

In the anti-contact lexicon, the word "protect" is a euphemism for "denial of civil liberties on an arbitrary basis rather than judging upon individual merit and capability 'for their own good,'" which is utterly draconian and out of place in any society that purports to be democratic. There are very good reasons why liberation trumps protectionist policies in a truly free society for all groups of people. The rush to "protect" children has resulted in the current sexual abuse hysteria, the extreme stigmatization of MAAs/MAPs, the widespread denial of the problems that are the major sources of the vast majority of real causes of harm to minors, and the rapid slide of our society towards a police state. Further, if these comparisons were truly nothing more than red herrings like you and other anti-contacter protectionists like to claim, the arguments used to oppress other minorities in the past would bear no similarity whatsoever to the ones currently used to rationalize oppression of youths as opposed to being eerily parallel in many ways.

This is a straw man as well. I certainly do treat children as people, but I also recognize their limitations and distinct differences.

It's not a straw man, because it's perfectly possible to recognize any limitations and differences that children have from adults without denying them their civil liberties and to judge them based upon individual merit rather than on an "across the board" arbitrary basis. Every human being of any group has a wide array of limitations and differences in capability from each other, and no single group of people should be consigned to second or third class citizen status in a true democracy.

I wouldn't attempt to discuss particle physics with someone with an IQ of 60; what would be the point?

The majority of children may not be able to understand the intricacies of particle physics, but guess what? Neither do I! And neither do the great majority of adults, I'd wager. The point is, most children at a reasonable age of cognizance are capable of understanding and contemplating the basic bits of knowledge required to rapidly learn concepts and to directly participate in the democratic process. It's interesting how the protectionists and anti-contact pundits like to ignore the examples of the Sudbury school campuses. Then again, ignoring facts that undermine their ideology is necessary for the anti-contact and protectionist view to have any pretense towards validity. A viewpoint based mostly on emotion rather than logic and reason tends to have that problem.

I don't treat men like they are women. I don't treat men like they are women. I'd probably get my ass kicked around here if I did that. Willfully ignoring the reality of people's differences and limitations is not doing them any favors.

Denying people their civil rights across the board due to their differences and limitations is also certainly not doing them any favors, nor is it doing society at large in favor as is obviously the case in regards to how much society in general is heading towards a police state largely thanks to the perceived "need" to force kids to adhere to towards society's artificially constructed paradigms of what a "child" is supposed to be.

Granted, men and women do have obvious differences. I agree with this. But do most of us, including you, argue that women should be denied their civil rights or judged on an arbitrary basis rather than based upon their individual merits at this point in history? I have no doubt, Lat, that if you lived during the 19th century, you would have been expressing strong reservations against the wisdom of the women's suffrage movement, claiming that women need special "protections" over and above liberation.

You can push that to a degree, but it's different with different people. A blanket liberation of kids is no better than blanket laws to limit them; they're both arbitrary and do not address the fact that some kids need to be protected from themselves and others and some kids can handle themselves well. They are all different. This is why I have long proposes a system in which kids can earn their rights through a system of tests. I think it is the best possible system we could hope for, and the most realistic.

Um, Lat, what do you think Dr. Robert Epstein has proposed? Have you bothered to read his book Teen 2.0 yet? If not, I highly recommend it to you. And have you not heard me and many other pro-choicers frequently saying that kids should be judged based upon their individual merits and capabilities? How often does this have to be said around here for you to "get" it?

However, I will say two other things that should be noted here. One of them is that I believe (as does Dr. Epstein, btw) that there are some rights that kids should be afforded regardless of proven merits, such as the right not to be forced to adhere to one particular religion or political ideology and the right to freedom of speech. Second, please keep this in mind: legal adults are allowed to vote and do any number of things regardless of individual merits and capabilities. Once you reach the Magic Age, you are almost always given the benefit of the doubt in regards to basic competence in doing almost everything unless extenuating circumstances arise (e.g., extreme incapacitation due to alcoholism or severe mental illness). Hence, while I do not believe that the requirement of competency tests is ideal, it is nevertheless a good step in the right direction that will allow many kids to prove their capabilities and possibly provide a good deal of evidence towards further liberation in the future.