This will be one of my last posts in this thread

His point was that the anti-contact and pro-choice distinctions are not real, and the only reason you think he has a valid point is because you, like him, dislike seeing the distinctions mentioned for political reasons. That is disingenous, not valid.

That is completely wrong and therefore a straw man.

I never said that all pro-contactees agreed on absolutely everything, but simply that they agree on the basics; just like not all youth liberationists agree on absolutely everything without exception, but on the basics (which is why groups like NYRA and ASFAR can still work with each other and still consider each other to be allies rather than opponents; the same could not be said for "child advocate" orgs that are protectionist rather than liberationist in their views). Of course there are disagreements about certain details, and there probably are indeed sub-categories of each stance, just as there are sub-categories of Republicans and Democrats. GC has always been predominatly pro-choice, and that is not going to change if we can help it. We need a "green zone" where we can receive support from others who share not only our attraction base, but also our ideology. The reason some of the few anti-contact and agnostic people on this board are unhappy with the "agenda" (as you call it) is because the fact that their views are the dominant views almost everywhere else outside of these pink walls isn't enough for them. You want the pro-contacters to embrace people with your views everywhere imaginable, which is akin to gay rights activists being friendly and supportive of the small number of gays who dislike the idea of their community having the right to marry or co-habitate with a partner and that all gay people should either try to "cure" themselves or remain celibate. The pro-choice faction of the MAA community is the most marginalized, oppressed ideology in our culture, and it's frankly laughable that the relatively small number of anti-contact people in the community (and certain agnostics) believe they are some sort of marginalized group. They can't stand the fact that the MAA community itself has a majority of pro-choicers, much as the popular students at a college cannot stand a single club on the campus that isn't controlled or dominated by the popular people (and since I was once a college student, I noticed this phenomenon very clearly; perhaps I should tell you about it sometime). This is the same sort of situation here. I'm sorry that it irks you and kea that the pro-choice majority within the MAA community defends our little green zone on the Web so strongly, but if we can deal with being greatly in the minority in virtually every single place outside of these pink walls, then I like to think the anti-contact MAAs (and the agnostics) can deal with being in the minority here. GC doesn't have a specific agenda, but it has traditionally been predominantly pro-choice since its inception, and since the pro-choice stance is greatly marginalized outside of this community, you shouldn't expect us to avoid acknowledging the existence of--and challenging, when warrented--the anti-choice few when they attempt to form a prominant presence here. Everyone of every ideology receives support when they ask for it, and I certainly remember everyone--including me--giving you that support when PJ unjustly cost you your job, and during the times you had emotional breakdowns. So you really have nothing valid to whine about.

Again, not true. It isn't the pro-contact position that bothers me (yes, I do disagree with it by and large, but that's fine)--it's the way it is carried out here, the way people seem not to question anything that they like and get absolutely aggressive when anyone here presents an alternate view. It's the way you all seem to be in denial about some very real flaws in your position. The fact that you paint my grievances as whining and do not take them seriously. That smacks of immaturity, or worse.

We are not "setting up" such a system...it's existed since GC was first created. It's not official, but as this forum is predominantly pro-choice, the anti-contact minority (along with the agnostics) need to expect to get challenged when they attack our ideology. As for drumming you out of the movement: in many ways, the anti-contact people are opponents to the pro-choicers, and we see you as Uncle Toms and assimilationists with good reason. We flatly disagree with that ideology, and any anti-choice MAA who enters the movement--particularly in the future when it gains more momentum--are going to be greatly at odds with us, and that will include, in some instances, aligning themselves with the elements in society who are our enemies. There are many anti-contact MAAs who do that, including some who work with PJ and AZU, and some who have worked for Mike Echols in the past, so I think it's extremely justified for the pro-contact people to be wary of the anti-contact MAAs when it comes to politics and activism, as well as with personal info. I don't mind the anti-contact people being here, as I enjoy honing my skills by debating with them when they challenge the pro-choice ideology, and I love exposing their arguments as largely emotionalistic rhetoric that is not scientifically supported or compatible with democratic precepts. But I do like to know who they all are, because I do like making friends here, and I do not want to unwittingly give my personal info to someone who is solidly anti-contact. There are a few anti-contact people here who I am friends with and do trust, such as Sancho, because he doesn't try to oppose the pro-choice ideology in a "loud" manner, he speaks his mind on it, but he doesn't get confrontational with us, he doesn't insult us or younger people, he listens to us when we talk to him, and he accepts the fact that GC is predominantly pro-choice and probably always will be. Never has anyone here failed to offer him support and encouragement when he has needed it. Look to him as an example if you feel you or Leon aren't tolerated here sometimes.

Challenge us with facts and evidence, then, not with angry ad hominem bullshit. That you have to resort to this just shows where your arguments are weak. I don't think you can call me a "loud" anti-contacter either; hell, I tend to avoid the issue for the most part. And I don't get obnoxious about it unless the other person gets obnoxious first. Again, I would suggest that presenting oneself as pro- or anti-contact doesn't mean shit in terms of what they may actually believe. In fact, in my experience the real antis are more apt to present themselves as pros because they want to fit in and be accepted. I know, I know, you think you can tell the real ones from the fakes, right? I guess you're smarter than everyone else, then.

This is one of the dangers I see of GC having a cult mentality, and it was the point I was trying to make about the pro-contacter who you trusted who revealed your identity to me, an anti-contacter. What if he had been a true anti? What if I had? (One or two degrees of separation is all it takes for your info to fall into the wrong person's hands.) Your identity would be on wikisposure right now. You weren't exactly hard to find at the time. I'm not trying to intimidate you or bully you into accepting my view. Do you really think I'm so stupid that I think you would come over to my p.o.v. with such a tactic? Give me some credit. I presented as evidence of how fallible your belief in your fellow pro-contacters really is.

I hate to inform you of this, Lat, but many anti-choice MAAs only want to be accepted by the pro-choicers so that they can serve as fifth columnists in our political movement for emancipation. Is it just my imagination that certain MAAs, like Twilight Sky, is on good terms with AZU and has taken up the self-shaming, assimilationist tactics? Whenever you critique the pro-choicers for having an "us vs. them" mentality, what you are actually saying is, "Do not acknowledge our differences, because it will be harder for us to establish a beachhead among you if do. Accept opponents amongst your number, because if you don't, then you are being intolerant." This is the very tactic that got the Democratic Party infiltrated by the corporatists and "centrists," and this is why that party is now enacting policies that are entirely against progressive principles. It's interesting that you try to use those same political tactics to try and establish a "bipartisan" mentality on GC (to use political parlance). You think all of us are too stupid to understand that this is what you try to do whenever you talk of "tolerance." We tolerate the anti-contact people here perfectly when they ask for support, or when they have something to offer the community with things such as sharing special moments with girls. But when they try to insinuate themselves into the movement of a group that has a diametically opposed socio-political agenda, with a diametrically opposed set of tactics, then that is and should be a whole different story. Your "cultist" insults are not going to convince us to welcome people into our activist movements when they are clearly opposed to most of what we are trying to accomplish, and who align themselves with our opponents.

I don't know Twilight Sky. Again, you display your naivete here. You think there are real Democrats who uphold your beliefs, and then there are these impostors who somehow infiltrated the ranks. This sounds a little too much like the No True Scotsman Fallacy; look it up. The fact is, there is a disparate range of political views in the Democratic party, just as there is here. You believe that most pro-contacters agree on the basics, but I'll bet in reality that's not the case. I'm sure that GC, simply by the nature of what it is (an online community) attracts a certain kind of poster, but if this were a a larger real-world group, it would be just as diverse as the Dem party is. There would be pros who would claim you're untrustworthy because you're not pro enough. Get it? I'm not trying to be insulting with the cult stuff; I'm trying to point out that this worries me because I know he easily it can form into a cult. We are a marginalized group, and that puts us especially at risk.

So telling us that we should "approve" your insistance that we avoid fighting for youth liberation and promise society that we will take a permanent vow of celibacy forever will make us more tolerant and less "cultish" in your eyes?

My point was that you never seem to see or accept the flaws in your position, and there are some big ones.

Once again, the argument that labels are never apt. Guess who this argument benefits?

It doesn't matter who it benefits or doesn't benefit. You can't simply dismiss it because you don't happen to like it being applied to you.

When have the anti-contact MAAs ever presented "sound" evidence against us? We have engaged in debate numerous times with the anti-contact people, and almost everything you argue is based upon emotion, opposed to various scientifically verifiable findings, and very much against the core civil liberties that America is supposed to be founded upon, not to mention extremely ageist and based upon cultural assumptions without asking for evidence to back up the assumptions. And you honestly suggest it's wrong to question the motives of people who use arguments that are mostly based upon emotion, moralism, and cultural beliefs/assumptions over and above scientific empiricism and civil rights?

There is plenty of evidence that you are wrong on a number of counts, and it has nothing to do with emotion. You are right about a lot of things, but where you're wrong, you're wrong in big way. You're setting up another straw man here. I don't think it's wrong to challenge fallacious beliefs, but not every argument you make is right.

If that was the case, then why have certain people who are anti-contact, like Sancho, found peace with the pro-choicers on this board? And many of us have minor disagreements with each other and still co-exist peacefully with each other. We have both mentioned that there are minor disagreements with pro-choicers, and I do agree that there are certain sub-categories of both pro-choicers and anti-choicers, and even one sub-category of pro-choicers who outright disturb me and who I do not consider allies (these pro-contact people are against most aspects of youth liberation accept giving full sexual rights to underagers, and I'm sure you wouldn't like them any more than I do). There is a huge difference between doctrine and dogma, and the anti-contact MAAs mostly operate according to moralizing dogma.

Because Sancho does not attempt to point out your flaws. He discusses other things. In any case, have you given Sancho your personal info? I doubt it. Again, you paint all or most of those who disagree with you as dogmatic and yourselves as right thinkers. This tendency to mischaracterize and misunderstand the motivations of those who disagree with you, and to downplay your own problematic views, is what I'm talking about. Some antis are dogmatic, some are not. Some pros are dogmatic, some are not. People are all different and not every anti thinks you're a horrible person who should be institutionalized or killed. In my experience, very few of them actually think that way, but I think they're as frightened of being found to support us as many MAPs are of being found out. The truly monstrous antis--like those at PJ--exploit this fear to drive a wedge between MAPs like you and I and between MAPs and non-MAP supporters. You're allowing yourself to be manipulated by them when you refuse to accept people like kea into your inner circle just because you don't like his views; you're giving in to fear, or at least you're using that as an excuse to strain out the non-believers. I know enough about you to know you're not a craven coward, Diss. So I think this idea of who you can trust and who you can't breaking down along ideological lines is an obvious ploy by you to sow dissent here. That does not help your cause at all.

I think I know who you mean, and I won't mention his name here either, but I will be mindful of that individual from now on if he ever returns. And if we are referring to the same person (and I think we are), then you will notice that I started expressing some misgivings about him in many ways during his later months here. He used to come off as pro-choice during his early days here, which is why he earned my trust, but later he started displaying some protectionist attitudes and came out against youth liberation when he was drunk in chat one day (and you know how honest people often are when they are inebriated). I think you have just proven how important it is not to trust certain people with your personal information, and you have given much evidence that ideology has a lot to do with it. It's not so much about having an "in" group here, it's about people who are less likely to be opponents, less likely to be emotionally disturbed and constantly having doubts about their attraction base, and less likely to dislike or condemn pro-choicers. You may say you don't care about anyone's real identity, but that doesn't mean I would have trusted you with it. Considering the main characteristics of anti-choice people like yourself and Leon, I think it's hardly a bunch of horseshit--or any kind of shit--to be wary of sharing personal info with such individuals.

I really don't know who you're referring to, so I can't verify it is the same person. It's awfully convenient that this unnamed person is someone you claim aired his "true" views in chat, but until we can agree on who it is, you're just pissing in the wind.

Need I bring up the Eeyore thing again? I won't, but just remember what you once threatened to do. And do you seriously think I should share my personal info with the likes of Leon? Be serious, dude! The only reason I trusted the person in question is because he pretended to be pro-choice, when in actuality he had heavy protectionist leanings, and when he found out I didn't, he became dispirited with me. The point is, he wasn't fully pro-choice. Once again, people who have anti inclinations are often not trustworthy. I am not saying that all pro-choice MAAs are trustworthy, but I do think it's cogent and reasonable to say that they are much more likely to be trustworthy with personal info than many anti-contact/anti-choice MAAs are. Goddess only knows what you will do with my personal info (assuming it's accurate) the next time you have one of your periodic breakdowns and decide pedophilia is evil again. And if you try to suggest you will give out what you believe to be my personal info if I challenge you strongly enough, then feel free to do so, because no one will ever intimidate me into shutting my mouth. Too many good people have left this board in the past out of fear that they would be outed, or after they had been outed. I am out in real life, anyway, so almost no one who knows me will be "shocked" to see that I post on a board like GC, and that includes my girlfriend, who is well aware that I'm a hebephile and pro-choice in ideology, and that I post on a support board for MAAs.

You can, but you of all people should know that saying something and doing it are completely different things. Eeyore backed me into a corner and I lashed out. I deeply regret it, as well as the other threats I made at that time. But I never, ever would've followed through with them. I just wanted the bit of leverage they afforded me to get everyone off my back. I was extremely paranoid and frightened at the time, for good reason. You can rest assured that I'll do nothing with your personal info, regardless of my emotional state. I won't even make empty threats anymore. I'm done with that. If you're going to hold that over my head for the rest of my life, then you never were a good friend to begin with. That's the trouble with you guys: as long as you agree on the sex thing, then you're all buddies. When someone like me changes views, I'm suddenly your enemy. This whole place is a house of cards that would easily fall down if it was ever exposed to the light of day. You guys can continue to live in your fantasy world if you like, but just be aware that of the irony when you call me laughable. I cared about helping to establish this movement as legit. It's one of the reasons I outed myself. Now I don't care about that anymore. You and Hen-Wen and others have effectively alienated me. I can and have done more on my own to further my goals than I ever accomplished here and that's the reality. I'll post media updates and comment on posts unrelated to your "movement," but beyond that I am essentially a lurker here.

Says the guy who refuses to make friends and trust personal info with people who are opponents of mine, who may possibly work with antis either now or in the future for all I know, and who have severe emotional problems that includes periodic breakdowns where they obviously loathe anyone who is pro-choice and feel guilt and shame over their own attraction base. It's interesting to see how you try to convince people to keep their guard down. I'm sorry, Lat, but with a few exceptions, many anti-contact MAAs, based upon past behavior, have rightfully earned their status of untrustworthiness.

Oh, give me a break. You think I would ever work with those dickwads after what they've done to me and my friends? I could just as easily make the same accusation against any of you. Their beliefs have nothing to do with it. You're so full of shit, Dissident. The sad thing is that you don't even realize it. If anything, I'm trying to get you all to keep your guard up! That's why I revealed that someone you trusted dropped your identity into my lap! Geez! ::smacks head::