I was wondering where you were today! :-)

I'm not reading all of this, just skimming it.

Why were you so busy today?

And I'm sick of you and [Ethan] expecting us not to challenge him.

I have nothing against being challenged and expect you to if you disagree with my posts.

That's fine, but if that's the case, it would be nice if your cohorts didn't constantly accuse us of "attacking" you whenever we challenge you.

I think it goes beyond a challenge when you describe in many long paragraphs your assumptions about what I am thinking and why I'm acting as I am and calling me a liar.

If you do not want to be called on these things, Ethan, then don't make them such an obvious part of your agenda due to your frequent repetition of them. I'm not sure to what degree you are flagrantly untruthful, but it's more than clear that a good number of your cohorts are, particularly when you've seen them post for a long time and notice all the contradictions in their statements. Here's the thing: You don't have to be able to literally read people's minds in order to make a very educated guess as to what they are thinking and what their agenda are; their intentions and agenda becomes very clear as they put their words to paper or digital venue. This is especially true when you've heard the same types of euphemisms and indicators from many other individuals constantly in the course of your lifetime of research and many years of debate and discussions.

I don't mind any more (though I have at times in the past) because I know it's all wrong, and if you want to show your character to neutral parties in that way, it's your choice.

I think all of what you have said in the past here and elsewhere makes it clear you are anything but a neutral party, Ethan. If you claim so, then I do believe the evidence honestly suggests you are being disingenuous.

My "original sin" according to Dante is saying that pro-contact arguments should be greeted with skepticism due to the self-interest involved. If he thinks that is a major insult, I'd just say he is very, very touchy.

The way you said it came off as a "polite" way of alleging that we're selfish and cannot think past the carnal aspects of our feelings, when it's readily accepted today that the homosexual community were not merely or mostly concerned with satiating their lust when they fought for the right to choose romantic relationships that are natural to them. There is a whole lot more to romance and attraction than simple carnal lust, and the lack of a belief that the sexual aspects of our attraction would be toxic to act upon in a mutually consensual and respectful fashion should in no way should be taken to suggest that we lack character or concern for our hypothetical partners beyond sexual gratification. I'm sorry, Ethan, but suggesting otherwise is insulting, no matter what tone is used to express it. That is calling us immoral due to our views, and the fact that cohort Markaba just said that to me in much more flagrant fashion elsewhere in this thread speaks volumes. People can read between the lines and past the "cover" of a basically civil tone, Ethan.

If, on the other hand, you guys want to find some common ground with us...

I think we agree on many things.

Then for crying out loud, Ethan, talk about those things with us more than just occasionally. Do it at least as often as you lambaste us for our views on the contact issue and our support of youth lib, and you may very well convince us that you're sincere about wanting to find common ground with us, and that converting and/or discrediting us on the issues of sexual contact and support for youth lib is not your primary reason for interacting with us here. Otherwise, you create the impression that these particular issues are something we cannot get past in our discussions. But it's crucial that we do get past them if we do want to work together on issues of mutual concern that we can more readily find agreement on.

We think children should have their rights respected and not be hurt (although we have somewhat different definitions of those things).

That is the rub, Ethan, yes. Each side defines the words "rights" and "respect" (among others) in very different ways, and we need to be mindful of that when using terms around each other during discussions of any given issue.

But overlap does include thinking that adult-child sexual contact should not happen today due to serious risk of harm to the child. We think pedophiles should not be harassed and imprisoned for just being attracted to children, etc.

Then maybe you should initiate conversations around here about such things rather than focusing primarily on the contact and youth lib issues, which you know is going to lead to heated debate and likely mutual animosity rather than common ground. That's all I'm saying here.