Laughter is the best medicine, my friend

Laughable, sure, because anyone who disagrees with you cannot be taken seriously, right? How snide you are, Dissident.

Are you seriously trying to say that the anti-contact MAAs do not trot out the exact same emotionalistic, highly mainstream diatribes over and over again whenever they debate us?

The only ones I know of at GC who post regularly are myself and kea, and I know I tend to avoid these kinds of discussions. I do sometimes repeat myself, but only because I'm responding to someone else's repeated mantra. But I decided to stay away from this a few years ago, because it starts to sound like: "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" It's completely pointless and infantile. kea is a better debater than I am and I haven't seen him repeating himself much. I also don't see kea or myself getting emotional. Yes, I used to, but I am a different person now. Still, we're all human and subject to failure. But I only see the emotionalism coming from the other side. To some degree you're entitled to that; I just don't think it helps your cause much. In any case, even if we are occasionally guilty of this, you're arguing the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right]two wrongs make a right fallacy[/url] here. The point of whether they are 'highly mainstream' is irrelevant; it's a red herring. Whether a position is mainstream or alternative, that has no bearing on it's truth.

Do they not always use the exact same assumptions and the exact same anti-scientific dogma over and over again?

In a word: no. This is an absurd generalization. I certainly do not use anti-scientific data, and in fact at DU I have repeatedly used data that might be described as 'pro' to make many of the same points you and others here do. I have won over a convert to my position who was quite 'anti' to begin with and whom I now consider a close friend. He is part scientific/medical community and is hardly an emotionalistic fool. He is currently reading all of the data available to him; he has even read the Rind Report and has agreed with me that it was a valid study and undeserving of the censure it received.

Is the constantly made statement that it's perfectly okay to legally censure innocent people to insure that all the guilty ones never go free not a mantra?

Not to me, it's not. And I doubt for kea either. Censure is merely officially condemning or reprimanding something. Since I do not condemn or reprimand those who engage in loving and mutual sexual contact with a child, it does not apply to me. I do think such acts should remain illegal, but I think government should recognize the difference between these cases and something else should be done with those who do not force a child or cause harm to her. I do not yet know what that should be, but I certainly do not think throwing them in jail and putting them on an SO registry is the answer. In fact, if these were the only types of sexual contacts between adults and children, or even the majority, then I would have no problem with legalizing it. But that is not the case--not even close. This is because most contact is situational abusers, and it will always be that way. We're never going to be a big percentage of the population. Even gays exaggerate their numbers--they are no more than 1% to 3% of the population. I can't see how we would be much higher than that, even if you estimate boy and girl lovers separately and equate their numbers to the gays, that gives us 2% to 6%. I'm reasonably certain that's a high estimate for primary/exclusive MAPs, and anyone else can be satisfied with adult lovers.

I think you are just upset that there are not outspoken anti-contact MAAs on this forum, as when they do challenge us, they are frequently beaten back by scientifically verifiable arguments that are often new to the mainstream.

I'm not upset at all. I don't mind that I'm a minority here. Hell, as a pedophile, a man with a physical disability and a liberal agnostic living in a region that is almost entirely conservative and staunchly Christian, I'm quite used to being a minority, thank you very much. I don't mind that you're all passionate about your cause. I think that's wonderful. It isn't the passion or even necessarily the cause that I find fault with. It's the way you're going about it and the elitism and provincial mindset that seems to be so prevalent here. I want to change it because I love this place and I don't want to see it become wholly corrupted by internal politics. The atmosphere here is toxic to anyone who doesn't share your worldview, and that may very well be most MAPs out there. I wonder how many potential allies/posters we have frightened away because they felt the same way I do?

Give me one original form of non-dogmatic argumentation from the anti-contact people and if you actually succeed in doing that, then you can maybe justify your frequent accusation of "cultish" behavior and thought-terminating cliches against the pro-choicers who actually care about our emancipation and the emancipation of the younger people we love.

Original isn't the point; persuasive and honest is. In any case, it wouldn't matter. You and many others already have your minds made up and will use semantics tricks to make yourselves think you're always right so you can avoid cognitive dissonance. You're not always right, but you're right often enough to fool most people here into thinking you guys have all the answers. There's little point in banging our heads against that particular wall. And again, you're making the 'two wrongs makes a right fallacy.' It may be true that the great majority of antis are dogmatic and unwilling to accept anything that supports your position. I'll agree that many of them are. But that certainly does not describe me or kea, no matter how convenient it may be for you to try to paint us that way. But it doesn't matter, because it doesn't make you or your methodology for conveying your position any more right.

Providing empirically acquired scientific and statistical information over and over again is not a sign of cultish or dogmatic behavior, because it's provable, it's factual, and it's based on reason and logic rather than emotion and moralism. It would seem to me that based upon a solid analysis, the anti-contact MAAs are more cultish and dogmatic by far than the pro-choicers are.

I didn't say it was. This is a straw man. That wasn't what I was talking about and you know it. And for the last time, two wrongs DON'T make you right.