"using youth rights issues as a shield to mask what they really want, which is, and has always been, to have sex with kids. If there was zero chance the youth rights card would give them an in, they would never have gravitated to it."

Its a shame that you were entirely deaf to the lesson your friend was trying to impart when he told you that if you find yourself accusing everyone else of being an *sshole.......

But, ........ pure douchebaggery.

I have actually seen no evidence that anyone has adopted a RL Anarchist or Libertarian stance as a result of being exposed to it on GC. I've met many who arrived at it long before. But none who connected the stance to getting laid and adopted it.

Now I could ask you to cite to support this unsubstantiated defamatory accusation. But we both know that you have nothing to cite and are too much the coward to retract the claim once you've put it out there without support.

So I'll do you the favor and assume that if it MUST be true of one party, that it must be true of the only one you do know: yourself.

And yes, your mental stability has seemed to get shakier with every vacillation and declaration that you were gone for good. So I do think that it is best that you not allow yourself the possibility of contact with kids. But projecting your issues onto others is not rational.

As to me, I came here an incrementalist. I actually had settled upon Ethan's magic number. But my take on human rights was already a Universal one with that one glaring exception. I didn't encounter the thinkers who took me there at GC. None of those thinkers are Pedos, and none who introduced me to them are Pedos, so your claims about me are false.

The only thing to happen at GC was for that glaring exception to be put in my face every day, and to be connected to examples of real kids who were being harmed as a result of the thinking my exception endorsed.

But then, I have run in some fascinating political circles long before coming here. ( As I said before, Dissy is the 3rd Marxist comix geek I know of. I didn't need to come to GC to meet an example of the species. )

"I'm saying that it's a tad hypocritical for you, Dante and the rest to attack VirPeds for selling out when you guys aren't exactly out in the streets proclaiming your right to have sex with kids."

And you won't because we aren't. You know full well that there is no pro-contact side; any more than there is an anti-life side on the issue of abortion.

And you know that having respect enough to call the sides pro-choice and anti-contact is something that only the pro-choice do.

"Whether your safety is at issue is beside the point, isn't it? What's right is right. If you genuinely believe children are being horribly oppressed, you should be out rioting in the streets."

LOL

Pathetic.

You demand that the Partisans hand their info over to the Nazis.

And, you act as if throwing a parade is synonymous with acting to save the kids. It is actually one of the least effective things that can be done; and it only works as a tactic when the majority is already on your side.

Mattachine before Stonewall. Assurance of Federal support before Selma-to-Montgomery.

Demanding the circus parade is typical of the all-or-nothing stance you demand of the pro-choice; that they must either act on step 53 or write it entirely off. Its just not possible for the incrementalist to do the work of building towards anything, is it?

"Power imbalances exist and will always exist regardless of the law. Dante and qtns like to pretend that removing power from the state will fix this problem when in reality it never has and never will."

You know that it is untrue.

In fact you know darned well that most of the demand to "remove" all power imbalances are irrational. Reciprocity, as an absolute, is just not possible. And no two people will ever be identical in regard to power in a relationship.

It is the false claim of absolute equality that allows the majority to proclaim one set of laws for themselves and another for minors.

All I ask is that they consider vulnerability where valid, dismiss the false demands for equality where invalid and come up with a set of laws to use for others that they see fit to live under themselves. Since we already have a fairly good set, getting rid of the hypocrisy would necessitate minimal tweaking.

Getting rid of the State is another issue entirely. But as it is all-or-nothing for you I can see how you need to claim for me what I have always denounced.

"But if you're going to keep impugning the character of the VPs, then expect the same in return. "

Chronology, buddy.

He came here with his defamations and insults already posted.

It is irrelevant that he demands civility in return when he insists on being uncivil when introducing himself.

But you've seen him shrug off the request that he refrain from the gratuitous insult.

And ALL of it over the necessity of declaring a stance on step 53? Who are the obsessives here?

Dante