Re: Ping Qtns, and anyone who's interested (attn.

"I agree that the war is on children more so than on us. But as opposed to with gays and colored's (who were hated for what they truly were--homo's for their sexual preference and colored's for their color), we are not are only hated for what we are but more so for the false assumptions they've attached to us (eg. - that we want to rape, and molest, and kidnap, and stalk, those youngsters we find attractive). That is the difference. "

You really need to learn more about how historical prejudices worked.

When civil society comes around and marginalizes hatred, to the point where all those who presently hate ( fill-in-contemporary-pariah-outgroup ) claim that they wouldn't have been ( sexist-racist-&tc; ) then they describe why their hatred has "reasons," while conveniently editing out the rationales of previous haters. One of the reasons for editing out these rationales ( aside from general historical illiteracy ) is that the illogic never really changes; and it would show-up that their illogic about current outgroups is no different from that which has been discredited in all previous cases.

So, no, they didn't hate a color or a sexual orientation without vilifying them for false assumptions. Among their assumptions were that colored folk have "low impulse control, are oversexed, and morally lax." Gays were "attempting to convert everyone to their sexuality." Both were deemed to be "rapists."

False stereotypes had to be fought in all cases. And most of those stereotypes, "everything is sex to them, they are all rapists, they can't control themselves, none of the partners they desire would willingly consent...." are the same ones we face.

For the children, we should add the old sexism cliché, "constitutionally incapable of taking care of themselves" ( which was also applied to arguments against freeing slaves. )

Old lies never seem to die, just to get transferred to other groups; aided by cultural amnesia about their prior use.

Dante