That is quite a long post you made, full of assertions and passion but few arguments. Many of the points are overlapping. There's a certain "shotgun" feel to it, and I'm surely not going to reply point by point.

Surely not.

Calling it "defeatism" isn't part of a constructive dialog

Why, because it's too close to home?

There's not much dialogue to be had about "we see ourselves as incapable of playing this sexuality in a socially acceptable way".

If you just call that view "defeatism" you're not engaging me but just attempting a steamroller maneuver.

Call it like you see it, right?

It is currently illegal for an adult to have sex with anyone under age 16 in the US. It deters genuine and indisputable rapes....

Your "best example" is just as rare as ours. And we're kinda fighting an uphill battle, putting our lives on the line. (Whereas your party has no excuse. And if it's a matter of keeping children safe, we're already doing a better job then any state measure could short of institutionalizing pedophilia itself - which I'm not in favor of, by the way.)

As I said, the question is going to be resolved without our help by the teleiophiles.

"Without our help?" What have we (and you, for that matter) been doing all this time? The difference is in the presentation, and the outcome. Don't kid people into thinking you're Switzerland. You're a direct adversary to the correct way of handling this, not to mention a sustainable future.

I suppose the gays, and the blacks, and the Jews should all have just kept their mouths shut while the teleiophiles resolved their problems.

There are currently 2,513 accounts, and they do not all belong to people who share that basic view, I think it's a safe bet that at least 1,500 are pedophiles who don't want to make adult-child sex more accepted.

So it's really closer to 65/35 even with the self-imprisoning (read: defeatist) nature of the cult you've created.

I didn't know you were taking people with open minds into your company. Can I join now? Or would you just shoot me down after my first post for keeping some integrity in the most polite, nonchalant way possible... and then try to coerce me with warnings about crossing lines with a young girl I never so much as kissed, even though she wanted it?

We'll stay away from the personal life details.

But we aren't acting as though nothing's real unless it gets reported in the newspaper, please. I don't play that way. Too close to home.)

It is also unfair to take the consequences of the most rabid hysteria on this point and try to make them stick to more *!!!*moderate anti-contacters*!!!* like me.

Lol. Ohhhhhh. That is not what happened at all.

The useful half of 721740 for you is the (respectfully, well-documented) observation log. (Whatever else is there, you chose to ignore it too.)

At least be aware of what you're contributing to, and own it. And don't cry "they're bullying me" dude after you parade around like a Donald Trump Supporter supporting Hillary Clinton.

I'm not calling you a Nazi or anything, but you're obviously grieving something here.

No one's painting you that way but yourself though.

(And heck, a person could easily support many of those draconian measures because of a desire to eliminate unwanted contact -- even while seeking to legalize wanted contact).

A person could easily. Which is why you're a problem.

I disagree strongly with that political judgment. I think VP gets a lot of support and we see some changes in societal views. But how the heck do you expect these 'radical changes' to take place?

They already did....

The requisite conditions to meet are: be a real person.

A secret army of pedophiles who violently seizes power?

There you go again. Suggesting not only subversion but violence.

Listen up kids: standing up straight like everyone else and speaking out loud like everyone else - not violent or subversive. Please, please, do not accept "sit down and shut up" as an appropriate course of action - not unless you're already in a courtroom.

That may be in some theoretical sense, but there's no way you are going to reduce the hate of MAPs until you convince them that you aren't itching to rape kids.

By pretty promising you won't?

... Or by showing them it was never an option?

I told you I supported the ban on the basis of pragmatic considerations, not "intrinsic negativity". You just ignore that.

The carpet don't match the drapes.

When I can see that my points didn't have any intrinsic relation to the topic, I quit arguing - because usually that means I've lost and need to read a bunch more and reprocess my opinions. (Maybe do a reality check then come back.)

I'm up for an exchange of ideas, but if you aren't reacting to what I actually say then there won't be much point.

I'm dying.

~ RBL
__________

*no such thing as a moderate anti