"Do Neo-Nazi parents have the inherent right to raise their kids to be Neo-Nazis themselves, and to punish them as disobedient if they should try to break away from that and make friends with people of all races? Think about things like this, Mr. Whittaker, as these are by no means extreme examples."
I suppose this question was aimed outward, and not inward, but let me add my thoughts. I believe that Neo-Nazi parents have the inherent right to try to raise their kids to be Neo-Nazis themselves. But I do not believe they have the right to prevent their kids from education and exposure to opposing viewpoints. If the only way you can get your kids to adopt your beliefs is to create a captive audience (and sadly, this isn't necessarily true, even for disgusting beliefs like hatism in all its forms), then your beliefs suck. You're free to believe them, and you're free to espouse them, but you are not free to silence opposing views, or restrict the exposure your kids have to such views. I don't care if you're their parents.
"arguing that we 'just want to have sex with them'"
Good God. I just want to spend time with them. To have a close emotional bond. To make them happy. And to in turn be made happy. Not by demanding specific acts of sacrifice in exchange for my love. But simply because they like me as a human being, and they want me to be a part of their life. So I can be close to them. Spend time with them. Make memories with them. I'm not going to get that by blackmail. Only by being the kind of person they want to have in their life. And only by being the kind of person who cares and looks out for them.
Why the hell do people have such a hard time believing that feelings of affection for a member of Homo sapiens of age XY should be similar to feelings of affection for a member of Homo sapiens of age YZ? And yet, they also argue that because they're similar (this focus on intercourse and whatnot), they're inappropriate. Pedophiles don't have the market cornered on hypocritical and self-serving arguments. Mind the plank in your own eye, Mr. Interviewer, before trying to remove the speck in your opponents' eye.
"Mr. Whittaker's dismissal of the full personhood of 'minors' causes him to insist that MAPs couldn't possibly see kids as worthy romantic partners, but only as 'objects' to glean sexual gratification from."
Good point. It's antis that see kids as objects. MAPs see them as people, and that's what scares the antis.
"That represents an important case study making it clear that MAPs take kids very seriously as full romantic partners when attraction blooms between them, and we by no means see them as objects instead of people."
My introduction into the world of minor attraction was gradual. I started out acknowledging feelings for young teenagers, which society inaccurately subsumes under the label of "pedophilia". I was at first uncertain about how to approach the phenomenon of adults having a sexual attraction to true children - prior to the onset of puberty. But unlike most people, I sought out information and firsthand accounts before jumping to conclusions. That's why I feel that nobody should be allowed to make any statements on pedophilia until they've spent sufficient time trying to understand pedophilia, from the perspective of a pedophile.
What really shook me is reading accounts - I think on this board - of people having complex emotional feelings for kids. The sadness is what hit me - of not being able to spend time with one you love. Of being separated from someone who loves you back, and ostracized, and called mean names, because the nature of your love is slightly different from what's accepted. We can talk on and on and on about the details of pedophilia and the best social and legal approaches. But if you don't have even the least modicum of sensitivity for the pain and struggle that pedophiles go through - I don't care how icky their attraction seems to you - I have a hard time feeling like you're even worth listening to. As I said elsewhere, these people should just shut their mouths already and listen. Listen to the people who've done their homework, who've lived these kinds of lives. Who know what they're talking about. But, alas, we live in a world in which the lunatic majority runs the asylum.
"It’s smacks of little more than horny men clutching at disingenuous political abstractions in a lame attempt to legitimise their attempts to wrestle innocent, naive children from the protection of their parents for the sole purpose of ejaculating inside them."
Spoken by a true person who has not spent one second trying to understand the pedophile experience. Here's a tip: avoid broadcasting your ignorance when you're speaking on a topic you're trying to sound knowledgeable about.
"And what terrible parents we are those of us who'd rather our children focus on activities that didn't involve them being drenched in semen and saliva."
Typical case of completely ignoring the child's potential pleasure.
I will defer, Dissy, to your introduction and not make any unnecessarily harsh comments about the interviewer. Kudos to him for at least making an effort and all that. But the more I read, the less credible he becomes.
I mean, for someone who alleges to despise pedophilia, his arguments are sounding more and more like lurid pedophile erotica. Perhaps he has some misunderstood desires of his own bubbling under the surface? People love to talk about pedophilia and child prostitution and pornography because it's intrinsically sexy. But because it's also majorly taboo, they can only do so in hushed whispers, and by framing the subject in the most disapproving tones. Like, isn't it horrible how those fourth graders are being kidnapped en masse and stripped naked and locked in cages in whorehouses so that filthy perverts can do nasty, dirty things to them - striking them and molesting their undeveloped bodies and sticking objects inside their little holes and covering them in great, gooey gobs of - er, excuse me, I need to use the restroom.
At this point, though, I've about read enough.