Re: But .....

Again, I get the impression that you feel "majority rules" when it comes to aestheticism as much as anything else. Therein may lie the core basis of your disagreements with the majority here.

Not really Diss, I just think it is as likely delusional as many other beliefs.

Although there is a large problem with how paedophilia is perceived there are many who do not hold the established view so it might be best to have some respect for them rather than include them in the unthinking masses.

I fully agree with you on this, lee. Yes, you just read that correctly! Not all Nons are full blown antis, and many people are capable of being reached with a respectful approach. There are also many Nons who are seekers, as they call themselves, and have a genuinely objective desire for gathering knowledge of this subject on their own, without relying on the mainstream media narrative as the basis of their opinion, even if such individuals are presently very leery of making their relative objectivity on this subject openly known. I have met several of these people myself.

There are also many who do have much experience in this subject and who apperently do side with the consensus view.

Is that the same as telling you that you cannot express those views, as long as you do so respectfully and without overt hostility towards the other posters?

Me? hostility? Erm, the mods might like to reiterate to the brain-dead that this is a free forum. Did I ever abuse another poster first?

If they are willing to listen, honestly consider the alternative views, and treat us as human beings despite any misgivings they may have with our feelings, then I do not consider them antis. But if they feel the need to denounce us and our majority view at every turn while clearly never even considering a nod at the alternative, and with lots of energy and vitriol in the process, and spend the majority of their interactions with us doing that, then it's hard to see them as objective seekers, even if they try hard to come off as amiable individuals. Just trying to give you some food for thought and consideration, my newest friend.

Well, we can agree on something as I too would like to see a more understanding approach to this subject but fear that what GC represents is not what will be seen as typifying (sexual) attraction to children so the ball is mostly in your court - unless you think that is not something that is amenable to change!