Meh, I'm not replying seriously to this bilious pile of upchuck, at least not today.

I'm sure the truth stated frankly stings you quite a bit. And if you think your constant negative and cynical ramblings that paint your community as a bunch of selfish creeps and youths as a bunch of naive fools are anything above a "bilious pile of upchuck," then you have some serious re-assessing to do.

I presented a serious post about an aspect of this Great Plan for Youth lib you all seem to have, and whenever I come up with a genuine criticism of it (which I do so that we can all be prepared for it--remember, I support the Epstein system too, dickhead), I'm just a sniveling little pessimist intent on destroying your lovely Golden Age of Youth Lib.

No, Markie, it wasn't a serious expression of concern, it was a thinly veiled set of trap questions designed to encourage your community into giving you responses that you could use to "prove" your vile opinion of us, as well as an attack on a basically reasonable proposal by a non-MAP youth libber that you have previously supported in essence. If you truly support it like you claim, then you certainly don't sound like it now, as you appear to be (once again) pointing to your twisted perception of the human species, and your fellow MAPs in particular, to rain bile and venom on any suggestion, no matter how reasonable and compromised, to replace a totalitarian approach with a democratic foundation.

And yes, you are a sniveling little pessimist who likes to see the dark side of humanity as being an insurmountable obstacle to any type of change we want to make for the better, or anything hinting at freedom over prohibition, especially when it comes to giving youth the opportunity to free themselves from the shackles of the status quo as it now exists if they so choose. "But no, we can't do that, because then they would be easy prey for the multitude of selfish, one-track-minded pedophiles and hebephiles out there, who couldn't wait to take full advantage of the new youth emancipation to try and manipulate kids into having sex with them, which they would be helpless to resist being the poor naive little creatures that they are!"

No, you still don't get it.

Neither do you, if you think your insulting and idiotic displays of pessimism actually constitute reason or genuine concern of anybody.

How can I drum this into that pointy little head of yours?

I respectfully request that you keep your hands away from my penis. Thank you.

If we ever get the chance to argue this stuff at a real political forum (you know, outside of our Preaching-to-the-Choir club here),

Your definition of a "real" political forum: A forum where the majority fear and loathe the idea of intergenerational relationships and youths having freedom of choice with their sexuality in general, along with negative assumptions about the character and intentions of most MAPs.

Your definition of a Preaching-to-the-Choir club: A forum where the majority of MAPs dare to hold a pro-choice stance that encourages a generally positive view of themselves as human beings, and of youths as generally competent individuals who can make sound decisions in all areas of life with the right amount of guidance and support from their community, along with a general degree of preferring democratic over totalitarian solutions to problems.

The above is bad form and a "cult mentality" in the eyes of someone who loathes their own attraction base and whose vision of youths is something akin to a fragile glass of crystal.

What will your answer be then? "You guys are just a bunch of cynics and you have to poo-poo everything, you big stupid-heads, waaaah!" I'm trying to get you guys to think about these things from more than just your comfortable little boxes with your narrow eye slits so you aren't blind-sided by these kinds of challenges.

If such is the case, Markie, then why didn't you just say this from the onset? Why didn't you say in your post something like, "I have a concern here, guys. When the time comes that we get to discuss these issues in a political forum outside of these cyber-walls, I think we should expect to be hit by the following accusations and concerns [followed by you stating many examples of such]. I think we should consider all of this." No, you didn't do that. Instead, you presented these cynical concerns as predictions on your part of what would happen if Epstein's testing regimen was implemented, and what you suspect many pedophiles and hebephiles would do if that was to occur. If your intention was to play devil's advocate, then you should have made that abundantly clear.

And what's more, I don't think we will be in such a political forum while the public attitude is as bad as it is now. Again, if you dislike the fact that the majority of people on this board are pro-choice, then go start your own forum where there is an abundance of MAPs who feel precisely about themselves, and their attraction base, and youth competency as you do, and let's see how well such a stewing pot of negativity lasts until most of you convince yourselves to end it all. At least here you have a notion that being a MAP does not have to entail self-hatred or fear and loathing of your own attraction base, or how awful it would be if you were legally allowed to act on it.

But alas, what is abundantly clear to me is that you know I have some relevant points and questions here. Your snarky infantile response is brimming over with your insecurity which is typical of how you reply to challenging views or questions.

Markie, every day on this board I discuss challenging views and questions, and these difficult questions are aimed at getting me to strive for improvement, not self-condemnation disguised as the latter. If I was insecure about myself as a MAP, as you are, I would present "challenges" focusing on the dark side of humanity, with an over-emphasis on our negative traits and the vulnerability of younger people. My response was hardly as snarky or infantile as your constant attacks on your own community that are clearly projections of your inner feelings about yourself and an indoctrinated Victorian view of children that you can't purge your system of.

But the worst part of all of that post (at least of the parts of I bothered to read) is that you insinuate that anyone who might to agree with me that maybe we should give this a little more thought and concern than the current by-the-numbers approach you espouse is stupid. And you think I'm the one insulting the community? That's a dick move, dude. Big time.

I can fully understand how opposing an overtly negative and condemnatory view of my community is a major dick move...from your point of view, anyway.

Our approach is "by-the-numbers," you say? You act as if we never debate the pros and cons of these ideas and proposals. Obviously, you read the posts here very selectively, and you see whatever you want to see when you do read them.

Now, sit tight and let's go over this again: I am challenging people to consider this from all angles because I KNOW they are capable of coming up with good ideas when pressed.

You should be thankful we have the same degree of faith in you, Markie. Surprisingly, my faith in you never wavers despite how often you slap us in the face.

I play Devil's Advocate a lot, yes,

Mmmm-hmmm. Classic rationalization.

though not because I want to see us go down that dark road but rather because I want us to be aware that the dark road exists and we can be easily misled onto it if we get too cocky and get ourselves lost in some mystified Utopian pipe dream of what child lib will be like.

Markie, I have said this numerous times before, but you always ignore it when I do, as you prefer to believe you don't see it at all. But I will say it again, and succinctly, for the benefit of those who will be reading this response non-selectively.

1) We do not expect a youth liberated society to be some type of "Utopia" that will be a golden realm free of all problems and strife. We simply see it as a better alternative than what we have now for all concerned.

2) Youth liberation will not solve all the problems of the world by a long shot. It will not solve all the problems that youths in society will have to face. It will certainly present new challenges to society. But we continue to support it because we believe that freedom is the better alternative to a totalitarian approach, which ultimately hurts everyone in society far more than any benefits it may have.

3) We do not feel that fearing our own nature as MAPs is a healthy or necessary way of dealing with any problems or debacles that may emerge, and we want to keep our concern for youths to a reasonable level, without overcompensating.

4) We do not foresee a youth liberated society to be one free from any problems by a long shot. We understand there may be unanticipated consequences that deserve consideration in the here and now. But we are confident in our ability to handle these things as they arise without having to resort to totalitarian measures.

I know enough about humanity and history to know nothing that big ever works out as planned. Never. Ever. Never has, never will.

Yet the emancipation of black people and women didn't destroy society as many of its opponents predicted. And the challenges it presented for our society made us stronger as a result. What you don't see about human nature is our ability to rise up to such challenges and triumph over any obstacle if we are determined enough. If you focused less single-mindedly on the negative things human behavior was capable of, you would likely realize this.

Even the best ideas (like democracy) has problems and unaccounted for consequences.

Which we have all acknowledged--countless times--yet continue to support over totalitarianism because we believe its problems and consequences are much better to live with than the alternative.

So we should try to figure as many of those possibilities out beforehand, not the least reason of which is that we need to know what the fuck we're talking about when someone comes up and asks us these very questions. Capiche?

Yes, I get it, and perhaps we would have gotten it sooner if you had phrased your devil's advocacy in such a way that it was obvious you were challenging us to think rather than beating us and Epstein over the head?

Bah, why do I bother?

Sometimes I ask the same question in regards to you, Markie. And thankfully, I come up with the same answer that you likely do in regards to me and the rest of us.