GirlChat #564139


Re: Tough chum .....6

Posted by Dissident on 2012-September-27 21:50:58 EDT, Thursday
In reply to Re: Tough chum ..... posted by lee lette on 2012-September-27 10:37:03 EDT, Thursday

  Views: 2    Likes: 0     

I am sure you can choose who you want to debate with just as I can.

Wait, didn't you used to commonly complain when people here tried to debate you when you spouted your hate rhetoric disguised as concern for children? Didn't you used to do so on the grounds that you felt people here should just read what you say and not counter it, otherwise that constitutes trying to "convert" you in your eyes? Worry not, my newest friend, everyone here knows by this point that your mind on the subject was totally and forever made up before the day you arrived, and that you are not here to learn or discuss anything, but just to politely hit us with Oprah-style anti propaganda and espouse the beauty of totalitarianism while pretending to be liberal. My main purpose in countering you is not in the hope of helping you see a different viewpoint that will open your mind to alternate considerations, but in providing important food for thought to those readers who are legitimately seeking reasoned information on the subject, and who genuinely want to here views that are outside the mainstream, media-approved school of thought.


I see A problem where you perhaps see NO problem and that appears to be the crux of the issue - the 'naturalness' or otherwise of the attraction, the attempts to mash together a 'theory' concerning its origins and all the associated stuff to justify one's own existence even.


Yes, that is the basic crux of the issue--just like it was the crux of the issues that society had in the not-so-distant-past with things like homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, gender dysphoria, hypersexuality, etc., et al. In that not-so-distant-past, those things were also considered abnormalities that had no natural justification, let alone a societal one. Good call, my new friend :-)

For me it seems and a large majority the attraction is conceived in terms of faulty development and I see very little to see it otherwise.

Translation: "For me and a large majority the attraction is conceived in terms of incompatibility with the modern power structures of society which that great majority are beneficiaries of, and we were all raised to find the idea offensive to our emotional sensibilities, and as far as I'm concerned, the majority opinion is always right by default."

I would say exactly what I write here since, although you might have difficulty with this, I am essentially an honest and open person. I usually express myself as I think and feel when it is appropriate and rarely hang back.

Unless it comes to being honest about your intentions for interacting with us, since learning, listening, and open-mindedness are nowhere to be seen. Just saying this openly and honestly, my newest friend.


Can't unfortunately since I do not trust others to not use it against me. That is life chum, since our own personal security tops most things - in my view.


Dude, it's very easy in the current world to be an anti, as I highly doubt even the most liberal people in your neighborhood will have a problem with you spouting the mainstream rhetoric about intergenerational attraction, and those who disagree will mostly likely stay very quiet. When was the last time you read about an anti being a victim of harassment, in contrast to a MAP being subjected to it? Things are only just--just--beginning to change, but is hardly at the point where antis are not still regarded as heroes, even when they are proven liars and incessant fear-mongers, like John Walsh, the chief anti in the USA.

I would never do this to anyone - I realise how the attraction affects people and how often they have little say in the matter. Snowi and I would part company over some of her comments.

Hope for you yet, my newest friend. Perhaps even one day you will part company with those who believe someone who simply looks at pictures and maybe thinks socially unacceptable thoughts while doing so should be thrown in a prison full of murderers, armed robbers, serial killers, and arsonists, and treated as worse than any of them, if anything.

An amicable parting then but I am NOT hostile - I am simply coming from a different place than yourself and most others and there seems little common ground between us.

Your tone isn't hostile, true. But your words and general attitude most certainly is. I think that is what Markie meant, bud.


Dissident


This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses