Re: Second Thoughts

A well-considered post, though I, of course, disagree on several levels.

think that the thing which will always block our acceptance, are our core values. The notion that minors can consent to sexual activity has become anathema to the general public. And as long as we stand up for their rights, we will get knocked by the antis.

I couldn't disagree more. There are a couple of problems with this statement, the first one being the position that the public will never accept our POV is a given. It isn't--far from it. In fact, I see signs everywhere that the tide is turning. Wolfy has accumulated a great deal of personal experience to that end, and I think if we all undertook the same sort of networking that he's doing, we'd all pretty much find the same thing.

Bottom line: most people either support us or are indifferent to us. The problem comes from other people not wanting to have doubt cast on their own interaction with children, and (I believe) the majority of antis aren't opposed to us because of our attractions per se but because they fear the reality that their own children are sexual beings, which might invite them to take a second look at their children themselves. IOW, they fear themselves more than they fear us--we are the scapegoats because we're an outward reminder of their insecurities concerning their children.

I think there are a few things that can be done to win the antis over on this account. We should agree that incest is likely harmful and condemn it while embracing our own orientation and the fact that our logic sound and our ethics are superior to those of many/most antis. Beyond that, we should grow some balls and let people know where we stand. I think that is the clearest formula for success--we have only to impliment it.

Is there any groupthink going on here? Perhaps. GC initially seemed rather militant to me in its stance. Those who don't allow for any age-based distinctions, except where their AOAs are concerned, seem to have the upper hand; and are always swift to frame the debate so that any dissent makes you a non-choice anti.

There is certainly a difference between a true anti and a non-choice ped, and ultimately I see most non-contacters not as antis but as people struggling with their own issues of guilt and an unwillingness to challenge the status quo. With the exception of the blatantly moralist position (which is not in the realm of logic), I've never yet seen a non-contact argument that couldn't be refuted logically, and since most non-contacters are fairly intelligent people, I tend to assume that their position isn't based on logic but on their own moral judgment.

I can at least respect this if the person admits outright that that's what it is, as you did. What I take issue with is when people try to mask their moral opinions as logic, as Lux did repeatedly. It is dishonest and casts much doubt on the character of the person making that argument--such people tend to be hypocrites, as we later found out was the case with Lux. And if your smart, you start to question whether such people have an ulterior agenda here, as, I believe, Lux did.

I question Furbydad for a similar reason--his posts are so outrageous and single-minded in their subject matter that its obvious to me they are the product of someone with an agenda. It may be that the agenda is simply to titillate the posters here, or to vent taboo thoughts and feelings as a means of exorcising them so Furb can go on about his life. The latter is probably the case here, but when there is so clearly an agenda, it isn't much of a leap to start examining the possibility of a much more insidious agenda. As long as we remain such easy prey for the media and gov't, it will behoove us to remain vigilant against such possibilities.

But a closer inspection reveals us to be a more diverse lot than that.

Yes, I agree.

Those who hate us will hate is for the substance of our struggle. And when they wish to tarnish us they will quote us out of context, or barring that, link us to whatever expression will be most misunderstood.

You're right, but again, we should not make it easy for them, and that's exactly what Furb does. It's one thing to make posts that are taken out of context or twisted around--those can then be countered and only serve to demonstrate the obvious bias of the media. However, its another think to make nothing but prurient posts with no context and no intention of contributing to the CL debate. (To Furb's credit, his latest post does at least contribute to the current ongoing debate, but I think only because he is smack dab in the center of it.)

My point is, we may not be making much headway at this time by presenting only our best side (though I personally think we are), but Furb certainly isn't helping any. If the moral argument is really the only argument the antis have to stand on, then we best serve our own interests by demonstrating that we are at least as moral as they are, and the vast majority of us certainly are.

Lux was slammed much harder than anyone in the current controversy. And he stuck mostly to the ethics and politics end of the debate. The argument that he should be banned for giving the antis ammo has a very familiar ring to it. But the antis will always have ammo so long as we stand for something they fear and deny.

And for good reason--Lux was a Class A hypocrite and was probably only saying what he said in an attempt to salvage some of the "damage" he'd done as an active ped, so to speak. I do recall saying he had an alternate agenda, but I don't think I (nor anyone else) ever called for him to be banned. Yes, I did call for Furb to be banned, though I have reconsidered that. But that won't stop me from speaking my mind and calling him on his nonsense.

Methinks that even if GC were to deny its pedoness, and focus on kid's rights, it would still have detractors. But how far are we willing to go to mollify them?

Of course! Every argument under the sun has detractors. But the idea is to eliminate as many of them as you can, either by stumping them or winning them over to your side. (Of course, if you ask jd, he'll say that nuking them is also a viable option, LOL.)

But everything in life is about balance, or should be. This is one of the few areas where Western philosophers and Eastern philosophers reached some similar conclusions--Aristotle's Golden Mean roughly corresponds to Buddha's Middle Way and to Taoism in general, and every major belief system has some regard for the Golden Rule (or Kant's categorical imperitave, if you prefer). Likewise, every single scientific law in some way points out that there is an inescapable balance in the universe.

That said, there is a time and place for blatant pedo erotica, but this isn't it. We have far too much work to do and too few people willing to do it. For those of us doing the work, however, we appreciate some minimum level of support from those who aren't, and part of that, as I see it, is an expectation that the people here can be relied upon to demonstrate exactly how decent and ethical we are as a group when we point out the board to those we are attempting to win over.

Silver Wolfe should be able to put up the link to GC without any problem like the one he encountered. Had they quoted some other post, it would most likely have been out of context and we could've easily shown that and gotten the link reinstated. As it is, we cannot currently do that.

So the answer to your question is, as far as it takes to make sure that people can safely link to GC without having blatant examples of erotica that can be thrown up in our faces. It really isn't that much to ask for a little context and a little discretion, and I will continue to do so as long as I'm active in this community.