Re: Irony and Understanding

I find it ironic that you were commenting earlier how you aren't being hostile, and then in the same sentence called Dissident "brain dead".

Either you have not read most of the posts between Diss and myself or you too are very capable of misinterpretation since the remark certainly did not refer to Diss and I suspect he knew that it didn't. I do respect Diss and although we will perhaps never agree on some issues I always respect those who show consideration to others whilst debating. I seldom resort to personal insults.

Also funny that your reply/explanation contains much more of Dissident's quotes than your own words.

If I haven't much to say why waffle?

Funnier... your entire point of view is that "the security of the majority comes first". This disintegrates in a split second if it's ever proven that the majority of children are sexual beings and/or if it's proven that the majority of adults (or simply men) are attracted to children.

That is not my position but the opposite - which seems to be yours - is that anyone can claim to be a minority group and expect certain rights. When you have proof for your latter assertions then I might believe this but until then you are just fishing for evidence like most here - what suits you will accept and what doesn't you will reject. There is some evidence for some children to be more sexual than others (for reasons perhaps unknown) and that a significant portion of adults do have an attraction to children but that doesn't mean a majority.

Isn't it interesting? A near unanimous group can be convinced brainwashed to believe in an entirely stupid religion, with foolish prescriptions. You don't think it's possible for a vast majority to be convinced brainwashed that they aren't attracted to a certain form, or to believe certain instances of bigotry are justice? I think you need to learn lessons from history...

If history was somehow amenable to verification I might well look to history but I don't have much "faith" in historical evidence - too many religions seem to rely on this, all of which I see as "inventions". We can speculate but it is difficult to know for sure - until that time machine arrives.

http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078

The essential weakness of any attempt to make predictions based on trends, says Szechi, is the appalling patchiness of historical information. Records can be preserved or destroyed by chance: in 1922, for example, fighting in the Four Courts area of Dublin during the Irish Civil War led to a fire that destroyed the country's entire medieval archive. More generally, says Szechi, knowledge tends to pool around narrow subject areas. We can tell you in great detail what the grain prices were in a few towns in southern England in the Middle Ages, he says. But we can't tell you how most ordinary people lived their lives.