Yes, you are. People's views should be respected, even if you disagree with them. But since you feel my views are "laughable," then I feel perfectly justified in calling you a hypocrite for balking at my dismissmal of your belief in mystical mumbo-jumbo. If you expect me to believe you have any kind of real faith in science instead of just cherry-picking the stuff that seems to support your positions, then you could start by realizing that there is no legitimate science in the world that backs up your belief in goddesses and magical moon mists or whatever it is you actually believe in, and your contention that this stuff is on par with science is the most laughable of all. At least I have enough intelligence to recognize a crock of shit when I see it.

Kea is not a true anti-contact, but considers himself agnostic, and his posts usually prove it. Leon also posts here regularly, but he gets banned frequently, and he is flagrantly anti-contact. If the anti-contact people are so few on this board, they need to expect their ideology to be challenged by many, just as pro-choicers are challenged by many whenever they discuss their stance on a public talk show, or on a non-MAA forum.

You're missing the point. I'm not asking you not to challenge us. Not only do I expect it, I welcome it, actually, when it is done respectfully and honestly. But that never happens. In truth, it is obvious that even in your most restrained posts, you're barely holding back your resentment. And several here are worse than you. Hen-Wen is a good example. Dragging up past bullshit on my part, which I've fully acknowledged was wrong and apologized for repeatedly, was not only bad form in a formal debate, it's astonishingly obnoxious and an utter distraction from the issues, as it was designed to be. You guys are no more open to really debating this stuff than the antis you despise are; you're just as bad as they are, or nearly so. You don't see it because you're filtering it through your narrow worldview, but it's obvious to everyone else.

So who started the mantra first? The anti-contact view has been repeated ad infinitum all over the media for the past 50 years, over and over again. Yet you continue to think that the anti-contact view should be treated as compelling and "original" to the pro-choicers. We are the ones on the defensive in society, not you. You can't stand the existence of just a few tiny holes in cyberspace where the anti-choice stance isn't dominant.

Again, you're missing the point entirely. It isn't repetition that makes something a mantra; it's the thought-killing words in certain repeated phrases, often loaded with fallacious appeals to emotion, such as "Counselors are all out to fuck you over," "You can't trust an anti-contacter," etc. These aren't scientific claims; these are manipulative phrases used to appeal to the fear here and assure cohesion among your true believers. Yes, there is plenty of that on the other side, more so even than here. I don't disagree with that and never have. But it's irrelevant because, ahem, two wrongs do not make a right. Do you see the difference? I'm making a factual claim that is by definition anti-fallacious. Your group makes claims that are sometimes true (but often not true) with the specific goal of getting people to trust that you guys know what your talking about and no one else really understands you except your fellow pro-contact MAP.

Because he sees the views from both stances, not just the anti-contact. Leon, on the other hand, is a one trick pony in the extreme. It must be cool to have people like him on your side.

I don't know what you're talking about. I have repeatedly taken the pro position as well at DU, although I stop short at arguing for legalization. I agree with you that we need to eliminate the stigma. I don't think it'll ever happen to a degree I would be satisfied with, but I agree that it needs to be done. I have won over people to that position, including a guy who is well-acquainted with the science on this and has been studying it in-depth. I am not entirely closed to the idea of legalizing sexual contact with kids in some situations, as I have said many times, but a) I don't think it should be our priority, b) I don't think the conditions will ever be even close to satisfactory, so I see it largely as a waste of our time, and c) there needs to be a lot more studies done. In terms of Leon, I don't know him that well or have any idea what he believes. I've never, ever spoken to him off the board and have no plans to. In terms of what I do remember about him, I recall finding him completely distasteful. I don't see him as my ally.

That is still supporting state intervention to censure someone who did not commit a violent act against another person. That still goes against core civil liberties, and forcibly separating a child from an adult she may love and trust when he didn't commit an act of demonstrable harm on her "just in case" he did goes against any reasonable conception of civil liberties.

There are plenty of things that are nonviolent that are still illegal for good reason. A child is fundamentally unlike adults in many ways. Even you agree that intercourse, whether the child consents or not, is wrong and should remain illegal, right? Why? Because it can cause harm. Children are not built for sex, at least not with adults. If you can recognize that that rule applies to their bodies, why can't you see that it may also apply to their minds? The mind is a murky thing that isn't completely understood, even with adults. I care enough about kids to understand that it is better to keep them safe from the hordes of selfish assholes, and if that means stopping a few well-meaning MAPs from having access to them, then that's how it'll have to be. I'm willing to say that age of majority should be dropped to 14 across the board. Before that, I'd like to see maturity tests. Beyond that, I cannot buy into the 'all minors should be liberated from all adults' philosophy you support. I find that idea to be woefully naive at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Perhaps forcing them to walk around with a certain letter on their shirt? X number of hours of community service? A day being made a spectacle of in the public square?

No, none of those. I was thinking more along the lines of enforced counseling, monitoring and separating the adult from the child, at least for awhile. When I was 18 and temptation was high, I found that spending a couple months away from the child helped alleviate my sexual feelings for her. It didn't get rid of the love. I still lover her, deeply, and I'd even go so far as to say that I would marry her in a heartbeat even now, even though she's an adult and I'm an exclusive. Even if we could never make the sex work, I would make the marriage work. There was no need for sex to cement my feelings for her, and I was content to rely on fantasies. We all can and must do the same. It's just how it is.

This is where you really defect from scientific validity and indulge yourself in paranoid emotionalism. Most situational abusers live in the home of the child, and are related to them, and have the most direct degree of power and authority over them. They are not usually individuals who have no power over the child, or are not related to them. It will "always be that way"? Obviously, your main failing, and that of other anti-contact MAAs, is that they refuse to deal with the problem where it actually rests, which is in the way the nuclear family unit is currently constructed, and on the fact that young people under a certain age do not have the legal right to leave an environment in which they are unhappy. The civil disempowerment is the direct cause of the greatest degree of abuse that is inflicted upon them. There is no scientific evidence or statistical information that suggests most adults who are not related to children or teens, or who have no direct power over them, engage in abusive behavior with them. That is just paranoid nonsense, and more than a bit of misanthropy. It also justifies the "we have to assume they are guilty just to make sure" mentality that anti-contact people are famous for.

Where have I ever claimed otherwise? Are you suggesting that the nuclear family should be dissolved? Do all your fellow pro-contacters see it the same way? Perhaps we should have pro-nucfams and anti-nucfams, eh? You know, I've even had similar ideas once upon a time, but that will never, ever happen. Ever. This is the biggest pipe dream of all. Nature has designed a system that, for all its flaws, has worked well for millions of years for millions of species. If you think there's any chance in hell that you can convince people that your way is better, well, I just feel sorry for you. Yes, most sitch abusers are in the home (and most of those as stepfathers, not blood fathers--that might, in fact, indicate that the conservatives are at least right that divorce is bad for children and suggests we should strengthen the nuclear family, not weaken it), but the vast majority of parents do not have sex with or molest their kids. Because a small minority do doesn't mean we should rearrange the entire system to suite you. Do you not agree that such arguments just seem suspiciously in favor of given you sexual access to kids? All this talk of child liberation sounds nice, but in reality its an obvious facade for many here to have sex with kids.

Anyway, some of the science supports the pro position, but at least an equal proportion of it does not. Yes, many of these researchers are biased, but it's really stretching the point to say that all of them are. There are unintentional flaws in much of it and that needs to be worked out, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How big our population size is should have no bearing on our right to love as we choose. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee the rights of minorities, and just because it hasn't in the past (as is the case with the gay marriage vote in California) doesn't mean we should justify it not doing so again in the future.

Maybe it shouldn't, but it does and always will. You're being completely unrealistic if you think the world should go out of its way to accommodate us at every turn. It's not going to happen. We are a minority, yes, and share some things in common with women, blacks, gays, etc., but there are also some fundamental differences. Gays are fighting to have sex with each other; the pros are fighting to have sex with kids, and to some degree for kids to have sex with them. When the kids join the fight in large enough numbers to matter, then you will have a point. Until then, it's a pointless endeavor. I agree that kids need to be educated better about their rights, but I don't think that's going to make them leave their parents in droves so they can come have sex with you. You're forgetting one thing: genes. For millions of years genes have programmed kids to be reliant on their parents. That has worked well for them by and large up to this point. It isn't going to change because you think it should.

Lat, the pro-choicers are a minority in this world, a huge minority. We are going to defend our green zone here. I disagree that most MAAs in the world are anti-contact, because the representational sample we get on all MAA boards suggests otherwise, and frankly, I don't care if they are scared away from here because of the predominent pro-choice viewpoint. With few exceptions, such as Sancho, most anti-contact people who have come here in the past were highly emotionally unstable, full of self-loathing, loved to sling insults at the pro-choice majority here, often engaged in deceptive behavior, and frequently picked fights. Whenever they had one of their periodic emotional breakdowns, they would make a post attacking the entire board, calling us all a bunch of "perverts" for daring to be confident about our sexuality. Look at the behavior of most anti-contact people on this board, and then ask yourself why so many of them are "driven off" the board after appearing here. The point is, the pro-choice and anti-choice ideologies are directly opposed. They are not politically compatible with each other any more than liberalism and Nazism are compatible, and you can't get pro-contact and anti-contact MAPs to see each others as "natural" allies anymore than you can expect a liberal and a Nazi to see common ground with each other solely on the basis that both happen to be white men. It's like trying to force a dog and a cat to get along with each other. This board gives support to anyone of any ideology who asks for it, but you need to expect the pro-choice majority here to challenge the anti-choice minority whenever they engage us in political debate. As Henny said elsewhere in this thread, it's ridiculous to expect all ideologies to play nice with each other all of the time, especially when those ideologies happen to be diametically opposed.

Again, straw man. I expect and welcome you to defend your "green zone" (although I feel a need to point out again the cult-like mentality of addressing your grievances with the world in war terminology.) That isn't the problem. The problem is how you go about it. The pro-choice and anti-choice views at their extremes may be diametrically opposed, but there's a huge continuum between them and I'll bet no one here--no one--fits exactly at one extreme or the other. Certainly not you. Ah, the Reductio ad Nazium ⚠️ ↗ argument. I must ask, who are the Nazis in this scenario, the pros or the antis? It's a bullshit distinction to suggest that we are that far apart. The Nazis were abhorrent murdering thugs. It doesn't help your position to go down that road.

Look at it this way: do you think that the rest of the world should be open to debating these issues respectfully in the public forum, or should they be allowed to do as you do, strong-arm and badger you into silence with their numbers and the power they hold? If you say yes, then you're shooting yourself in the foot and effectively agreeing with the concept of 'might makes right.' It you say no, then you're being a hypocrite if you think that type of methodology should apply here but not out there. That may be what they do now, but that's not what they should do, nor is what we should do. It's not right in either case.

And the fact that the scientific data, when objectively researched and compiled (as is the case with the Rind Report, The Case Against Adolescence, and The Trauma Myth, none of which was conducted by MAAs), is on the side of the pro-choicers means absolutely nothing to the assumption and moralism-based stance of the anti-choicers? Accusing pro-choicers of cognitive dissonance is actually a famous anti trope. Nice to see you duplicating it.

Sigh. There are emotional appeals on both sides, and there are valid scientifically-backed claims on both sides. No one has a monopoly on good science here.

I never said I am always right. I simply believe that it's correct to err on the side of freedom and civil liberties rather than erring on "caution" or the "better safe than sorry" mindset that are the stock in trade of the anti-contact moguls.

But you behave as if you are, which is pretty much the same thing. You can believe what you like, but you must still recognize that erring is still erring. That you put the word caution in quotes indicates that you do not believe it's a legitimate defense, which shows how arrogant and dismissive you are of those who disagree with you.

Wrong. I always attempt to do what I believe to be the right thing. Unlike the anti-contact people, I do not attempt to justify doing the wrong thing on purpose (as is the case with making assumptions without evidence) to be in the best interests of anybody at all, let alone society in general.

Uh, I'm getting tired of wading through your sea of straw men. Not all--and I dare say very few--anti-contact people are trying to "justify doing the wrong thing on purpose." They're just as passionate and certain about their views as you are; maybe more so, because they have the majority to back them up. That doesn't make them right, but nor does it indicate they are deliberately going against their own actual beliefs or what they know to be true. This is an absurd generalization. In any case, you were committing that fallacy in the context, even if you weren't completely aware that that's what you were doing. You don't have to be aware that you're doing so to commit a logical error. An error is an error, whether the person committing it recognizes it or not.

You use many of the same assumption-based and statistically deficient arguments that the typical anti-contact poster does. You are hardly a shining star among their number.

Nothing I've said here required statistics, but since you bring it up, I haven't seen you throw any stats in there. Ergo, you must be committing the same assumption-based and statistically deficient arguments that the typical pro-contact poster does. See how stupid that sounds?