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.
That warmed my heart, dude! As long as you didn't mind being first patted down for weapons possession or hidden spy cams, it would be cool to meet you one day :-)
Still, it is exaggerating to call it 'hate rhetoric', mate. Just more emotive language that you claim the anti's use.
Unfortch, that is not the case, mate. If it supports an idea or opinion based on the "necessity" of treating a certain group of people as being so unworthy of constitutional protections and rights that police state initiatives need to be created within the framework of a free society to either slap them down or "protect" them at the expense of their own personhood, and that their mere thoughts alone when looking at a pic or taking one of themselves is worthy of more jail time than murder in many cases--and these ideas are based entirely on belief and misinformation--then I'm sorry, they qualify as hate speech, regardless of tone. You can't fully take the emotional connotations out of the rhetoric, only the overt degree of its intensity.
'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 know, the truth does hurt sometimes, I'll grant you that. And did Christopher Priest's novel support a world where consensus view was always right, mayhap?
Perhaps, but I think it comes from emotional commitment, an area that has been a problem for much of my life until recently.
Replace that with emotional fixation, and I would fully concur.
You'll still have a hard job convincing the majority and those in power of their equivalence
Of course, because today MAPs are in the political scapegoat hot seat, not the homosexuals any longer, and nor the Jews as they were in Nazi Germany. The credibility of the modern manifestation of scapegoating hatred depends on the denial of such obvious equivalence with now-exonerated scapegoats of the past. And their full exoneration depends, in their eyes, on the denial, too--for purposes of political expediency. You know, sacrifice the lambs so the cows are no longer targeted.
- I wouldn't like the task, haha.
Don't worry, mate, you pick all the easy tasks--save for convincing the majority of us that our natural feelings are inherently toxic to minors, and that lack of shame in our feelings mean we "don't care" about children. Thank you for the offhanded vote of sympathy, though seeing as how we don't get much from you :-)
Doesn't surprise me - fantasy probably helps a great deal for paedophiles too.
Well, in the sense that sci-fi tends to be a subversive genre that allows writers to express politically inconvenient or unpopular opinions and truths by 'disguising' it in an over-the-top fictional setting, then yea :-) The consensus tends to insert its fantasies entirely into the real world by way of claiming fiction is reality.
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.
"My" evidence is based on objective scientific research by Non-MAPs, and extensive studies conducted by the same that didn't use biased sample groups intended to "confirm" a priori assumptions--"yours" is based on emotionally-driven beliefs, more assumptions, and popular cultural conceptions that are often against the showing of evidence (as evinced by your stance on CP, for example). Proven evidence has often failed to convince those who have a powerful emotional need to believe something other than the facts, or have a vested interest in denying them.
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.
And as I said, my good friends know I am not a monster due to my regular behavior despite knowing of both my preference for AGs and my pro-choice views. And also despite the facts that they know I'm a Marxist, a youth liberationist, and a fan of Paris Hilton, to boot.
Which is why I DO sympathise with all paedophiles. I don't hate them.
You don't hate MAPs per se, but you do hate our attraction base, which is a fundamental aspect of our being even if hardly the only aspect, and you also support laws and cultural conceptions that hurt us severely, curtail the rights of everyone in society, and contrary to popular belief, often do not help children in the least but are simply designed to harass MAPs.
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.
It's wasteful in the sense that we cannot form the type of loving relationships that are natural to us, true dat. And I honestly believe your ideology does stem from a deep loathing of your attraction and concerns that it might make you a potential monster, and I believe you were convinced of this by the experiences you had during and following the ramifications of the incident to which you refer. And I believe your jumping on the "children come first!" bandwagon is a form of extreme moral overcompensation on your part to deal with that loathing.
We have no reliable figures either way.
Yes, we do; the FBI has them, as do many Non-MAP researchers in the field, and they are fully public, and have been for a long time. What you have are assumptions and beliefs based upon a strong need to divert attention away from the societal power structures that cause many minors to become victims of opportunistic abuse, and adults who are attracted to minors are a very convenient red herring for this. (Am I doing your favored term proud today, Markie?)
Well, you are fighting a basic instinct here so it will be a long, long road I'm afraid.
Yes, the basic instinct of a majority in power to deny any inconvenient truths and to establish cultural paradigms to enforce complicity in its continued power does appear to be a prominent socio-political phenomenon in human societies that are based on oligarchal power structures, and it's important to indoctrinate as many of the non-beneficiaries of these power structures and paradigms to develop an ideology in complicity with the beneficiaries as possible. Fighting for justice is indeed often a long road, but one that is absolutely essential to travel.