"So your original statement was caricatured."

No it wasn't.

Are you really so obtuse that you can't comprehend what you wrote?

You still seem to believe that your statements address the content rather than undercut the speaker because the speaker is a Ped.

You have created a template for the Antis. And the sad part is that I could substitute ANY request for legal progress. I chose CP arbitrarily because it is just one of the things you claim a reformist stance on.

But the Anti-template you created addresses itself only to the claim that EVERY argument put forth by a Ped which might concern children must be treated with skepticism and assumed selfish motives. Only a Pedo arguing for MORE punishment and a greater remove from "access" to children can be viewed as sincere. Basically only someone who claims to be a Ped but acts as an Anti is allowed to speak.

Think I was talking about CP?

You will find the template works equally well to defend or promote SO living space restrictions, post sentencing incarceration, restricting Peds from jobs in or around kids......

There's really no stopping the template. The Antis have already tried to claim that everything they do to harass and punish us is done in the name of protecting the children. Your handy little template says that debating this cannot be allowed because Peds are deceptive and lust-clouded in their thinking on these issues.

( Sure, you rhetorically say "some Pedophiles;" but the structure of the argument and the responses you expect make it clear that the only possible reading is "all Pedophiles who would argue that there is less harm," ........... in post-sentence releasing, in allowing CP, in allowing Peds to teach/nurse........... )

Are you really so obtuse as to believe that dismissing Pedophile sincerity and objectivity categorically can then only be applied in the one post you made as one rhetorical flourish?

Or do I need to walk you through this sort of comprehension on a case by case basis by actually bothering to repost your template in full with the substitutions required to dismiss EVERY possible improvement to our lot.

( Will you really reply that I've made a substantive refutation of SOR reform, CP legalization, &tc? )

Oh, and of course you have other lovely templates you've constructed for the Antis with which to dismiss the argument through ad hominem. They come in several flavours; "Peds have no special knowledge," "Parents and Society know better," "Silence tells us that your facts have already been evaluated and rejected."...........

Give you enough rope and you will hang every ally.

The wells you try to poison are connected to the groundwater we all drink from. You might try to argue the contents of the claim. But instead you prefer to malign your opposition by appealing to the myth that Pedophile desires make us lust addled manipulators. When you tell the public that this is who we are, they will see the myth you have chosen to promote in EVERY Pedophile whose asking for a hearing.

If you thought I was talking about CP when I demonstrated the flexibility of your template to dismiss EVERY argument for some modicum of decent treatment, then you truly misread me.

Dante