Re: Tough chum .....6

I think you are rapidly becoming defriended Diss.

Awwww :-( C'mon, mate, if you can say the stuff you do about us, and consider it simply calling it like you see it, and still be considered a friend by me, why not extend me the same courtesy and remain my friend? I'm sowwy if I hit a nerve, but that happens in debate sometimes.

Only temporary Diss, you are, along with qtns2di4 and possibly Dante the ones who don't tend to use abuse that much if at all so will always get replies if it isn't going to take too much time - or I can find a decent reply, which sometimes I'll admit is a struggle, lol. You are perhaps the three people I would like to meet in real life but I doubt that will ever happen.

I choose to debate with those who are capable of reasonable debate and many here can't achieve that level without resorting to abuse of simply restating erroneous views attributed to myself - much as you are doing here. "hate rhetoric disguised as concern for children" - I think you will find the "concern for children" is lacking in many paedophiles.

Because we do not idealize and infantalize children, and see them as something less than a person, akin to a glorified pet that does not need such a degree of "protection" that their personhood is excluded from constitutional considerations, including keeping them bereft of the education & guidance that would enable them to fully facilitate those rights? What you really find lacking in many MAPs is a lack of concern for adhering to the societal conception of children that the West has held so dear for such a--not very long time in history, which is similar to non-Christians being pilloried for refusing to believe in the Christian conception of humanity as mere puppets of God (or 'Ghod,' if one prefers). If those of your ilk were truly concerned about children per se, rather than the preservation of our sacrosanct image of them, you would be more interested in reasoned debate (which you accuse us of not doing) about their civil rights, self-determination, and educational opportunities than the untrammeled support of laws that continue to keep them "in their place" where they are subject to the most common sources of all forms of abuse, including sexual, vis a vis giving certain adults so much power and authority over them; and these adults in question are not typically MAPs, a fact actually admitted by the FBI. Blaming the problem exclusively on adults who are attracted to minors is an oversimplification and a major political red herring (to use an expression my bud Markie is famous for utilizing here).

Still, it is exaggerating to call it 'hate rhetoric', mate. Just more emotive language that you claim the anti's use.

Many of you seem to live in Invert World where good=bad, bad=good etc.

According to your school of thought, that is, since belief rather than actual evidence and transparency of information is how your ilk determines what is "good" or "bad."

'ilk'? ooh, so hurtful. I thought Invert World was good, probably came from reading too much Science Fiction. Inverted World by Christopher Priest - quite good if I recall.

I don't know why I debate here other than in makes me feel better all the time

That, my newest friend, is because you come here not so much to debate as to vent. It's a habit one picks up from spending so much time at the sex abuse survivor boards.

Perhaps, but I think it comes from emotional commitment, an area that has been a problem for much of my life until recently.

- my conscience is perfectly clear on this issue.

Translation: "My mind was indeed perfectly made up before I got here, I am not here to learn anything or to seek alternative opinions, because I couldn't live with myself if I detracted from the mainstream view, or considered non-mainstream ideas on this subject as legitimate food for thought." Yes, we know.

Learning, see later.

They had a lot going for them for changes to occur - not so for paedophilia.

Try going back in time and telling that line to the homosexuals and transgendered & transvestite individuals who lived in an era where the only "info" they saw on these issues were that PSA from the 1950s and that 1967 CBS documentary hosted by Mike Wallace that I linked here a short time ago from YouTube, or movies like Suddenly, Last Summer and Ed Wood's masterpiece Glen or Glenda. Much the same things were said about these no-longer-hated-by-the-mainstream minorities in those good ol' days that is said about MAPs today, and I'm sure you need to convince yourself that these telling parallels mean nothing when it comes to pedophilia.

You'll still have a hard job convincing the majority and those in power of their equivalence - I wouldn't like the task, haha.

You mean not learning (Translation: being indoctrinated) into your way of thinking?

No, mate, I mean not even being willing to listen, empathize, and consider alternative views that are backed up by much scientifically objective evidence that was not conducted by MAPs. It's amazing how you could consider such requests to be a form of attempted indoctrination, yet at no point do you consider a mainstream view that is promulgated as the "truth" not by honest and reasoned debate with the alternate view, but by constant censorship, marginalization, and mindless bashing of the alternate view. No chance of anyone adopting that view as a result of indoctrination, hmm? And does our attraction base truly cause us to overlook the "truth," or perhaps does it maybe cause us to see another perspective that those who lack that attraction base find it very easy--perhaps a bit too easy-to avoid considering? Ya know, sort of like how easy it was a few years ago for the majority of heterosexual citizens in California to vote that homosexuals living in that state shouldn't be allowed to get married, because of how 'sacred' marriage is to heterosexuals and the current power structures in society that the heterosexual majority are beneficiaries of? Cheers for the consensus view given the power of the vote against the principles of the Constitution regarding the protection of minority views!

As you know, or perhaps didn't, I have had no belief in religions from an early age and after a considerable amount of input I have come to my current position regarding paedophilia. Your 'evidence' is simply not persuasive enough to alter my views.

There are many forms of learning and what I am learning here will no doubt be seen elsewhere at some stage - as I've said I probably will be moving on since I do want a life apart from this attraction.

Dude, almost all of us have a life outside of this attraction, as I'm sure you do also. This is just a place we go to interact with others of our minority community. My life is full of many activities, relationships, and projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with my attraction base, and I know for a fact that I am hardly speaking only for myself here. Did you know, for instance, that Dante and I spend lots of time watching movies about super-heroes and interacting with fellow fanboy geeks of that sub-genre of sci-fi? We get plenty of "down time" from our attraction base and our community, as we belong to other communities too.

Doesn't surprise me - fantasy probably helps a great deal for paedophiles too.

I do have a past Diss and fortunately those who know me are friends or neighbours who do not see me as a threat in any way but this is not so for those who do not know me.

And who amongst the 'polite' folks in your 'hood or Non-MAP friends would consider you a 'threat' for having anti views?

They don't know what views I have since I have never discussed anything related to paedophilia with any of them. All they know are my offences. Preumably they know, after a period of time, and by my behaviour and actions and also from my more friendlier neighbour is that I am not some monster.

Is adopting this attitude so wholeheartedly perhaps a way of achieving the trust of your community in your eyes, or as a means of personal catharsis for whatever your past may be? Are you aware that I am "out" as a hebephile to most of my close friends and family in real life, and they are also well aware of my pro-choice views and my lack of shame over my natural attraction base despite the fact that I am fully law-abiding--and they still like and respect me? Just thought you may find that interesting.

It is just finding the truth Diss, that is all. I really couldn't care much how I am viewed by others - perhaps a failing of mine. There is an element of catharsis but it is incidental really.

I have seen the disgust when I have been in a courtroom and the charges were read out. Simple reactions from many who do not have a clue as to my character or what I might or might not have done.

And you think no one here can sympathize and empathize with this?

Course not, I know it is typical.

That none of us have been there and worn that proverbial tee shirt? It's just that the majority here have not adopted that disgust in order to become more acceptable in the eyes of a society which has many cultural beliefs that we do not consider conductive to reality, the truth, or views that go against the established norms--one of these being precisely the fact that people's character is routinely judged by totally arbitrary factors, such as what our attraction base happens to be. Many of us believe this type of bigoted character and capability assessment is similarly projected against younger people in our current society, by these same cultural norms and attitudes, much as it was directed against other minority groups in the not so distant past (e.g., black people, women, homosexuals, various ethnic groups & immigrants, etc.)--and just as Americans often adopt a variation of this attitude towards any human being who does not possess American citizenship.

Which is why I DO sympathise with all paedophiles. I don't hate them.

I do not trust any here at GC since you are all too clannish.

Translation: The majority here do not loathe their own attraction base, do not believe it to be inherently toxic to younger people, and do not buy into the sacrosanct Victorian-derived paradigm of the "child" as conceptualized by our society and written into the legal system--and that irks you to no end since you do not have this in common with the majority here, and I can understand that. If you see this as a reason not to trust us, then so be it, but please keep in mind that the nature of your rhetoric is not exactly going to build trust or rapport with the majority here on your part, mate.

You keep saying I loathe myself or the attraction but I am not into loathing either - just see the attraction differently than most here. Wasteful mainly.

I do have sympathy for all paedophiles but that hasn't stopped me from seeing the harm that many do.

Sorry, dude, but the harm done by the many situational child molesters out there are not typically done by pedophiles, and has nothing directly to do with the phenomenon of adult attraction to minors. This is a known albeit often conveniently overlooked fact.

We have no reliable figures either way.

Children come first - not in the sexual sense dear readers!

Translation: The conception of the "child" as an asexual innocent and necessary subordinate in need of constant "protection" (read: suppression of any aspect of their being that may conflict with this paradigm) comes first, and nothing else, including their safety, since the laws that enforce the above often result in the largest degree of demonstrable abuse of all kinds directed at them. And remember, fellow antis, shouting the "Children come first" banner is a necessarily vague but very effective slogan for pulling at the emotional heartstrings of our uninformed masses who can be encouraged to throw the civil liberties of everyone under the bus and create a police state and surveillance oriented system where all unpopular thoughts and feelings can be quickly discovered and suppressed.
Further translation: Keep emphasizing just the sexual aspect of the MAP attraction base, because that makes them all come off as total perverts who want only one thing from minors, as we need to make sure that the general public never focuses undo interest in the many prominent non-sexual components of the MAP attraction bases, e.g., the emotional, social, and purely aesthetic aspects.

Well, you are fighting a basic instinct here so it will be a long, long road I'm afraid.