Surely, he says, almost all of those millions of elite thinkers (let alone the other 99%) are acting only in their narrow self-interest because they don't want society to change.

Thomas Jefferson himself bitched in the Declaration of Independence that the masses tend to prefer what they are accustomed too, which is why it took so long for the changes leading to the American Revolution to reach fruition. This tendency has been recognized as a well-known historical phenomenon for many centuries.

Likely story!

According to Jefferson himself and a hell of a lot of historical evidence and precedent, it's a very likely story indeed.

Dissident dismisses those with opposition opinions as slaves to the capitalist system, saying they dare not differ for fear of losing funding from the powers that be.

Which is why Salon and all the other mainstream cyber-rags constantly worry about their sponsors leaving them if they print articles from the standpoint of someone who expresses opinions or presents data that public sensibility will go against sufficiently enough. Which is why Congress voted to unanimously condemn a peer-reviewed scientifically produced meta-analysis that had an unpopular conclusion. Which is why the state where the late Harris Mirkin's university is situated insisted that he either be fired or it would withdraw $100,000 in annual funding (commensurate with his annual salary) unless they recanted a paper he published with an unpopularly nuanced set of conclusions. Nope, all the evidence strongly suggests the corporations and the state support full democratic expression to the fullest! How could I possibly think otherwise in the face of all that evidence, right?

It is thus a self-contained and un-falsifiable view.

You mean like those based on all the wild assumptions you make about why an "erring on the side of caution" approach should be taken to prohibiting unpopular expressions of romance and sexuality? If so, I'm in good company here, Ethan, my man! Are you sure you aren't down for that Christmas dinner? If not, is it me or the prospect of home-cooked chicken you want to avoid? I hope it's not me! Nope, it's gotta be the chicken!

A lot of very smart people want the world to change in big ways, but think hard about competing interests, the difficulty of change, and how a great many attempts at profound change have back-fired and had horrible consequences.

When these big changes were initiated by a few powerful individuals...yup. As for competing interests, you would be surprised at how many common interests the collective masses could find if they actually sat and thought about it for a while. Respecting everyone else's freedom and equality is often a great shared common interest.

The actual reason society doesn't change much in the short term isn't that people don't want it to change, it's that forces pushing in opposite directions keep it just about where it is.

Those forces being those who are in power, and the majority of people either being conditioned to think they cannot make the changes or are too apathetic and involved in a life based on constant work and earning a living to have the time to try. Not a good excuse to rationalize not fighting for change, Ethan. Because eventually, as the saying goes, something has got to give.

Nothing that happens at GC is a major thorn in my side.

Which is why you cannot stop singling me out with attack posts and can rarely talk about anything other than the sexual contact issue, and why you display such desperate concern about keeping the pro-choice side as marginalized and discredited as possible. Mmmhmm. Do you have a nice bridge to sell me too, Ethan? Or, at least a new electric typewriter that actually works?

It's not a big part of my life.

For certain periods of time, maybe not. I'm sure you do have other things going on in your life unrelated to this. But at other times, it seems like you cannot stop yourself from obsessively talking about and admonishing the pro-choicers over the contact issue, sometimes for weeks at a time.

But while I am here I try to engage people where they are and convince them of my views.

Boy, do you ever. That much is honest, I'll certainly give you that. It's your inability to tolerate any place where your views are challenged that is a problem for you, and which constitutes the thorn.

In trying to improve the situation of pedophiles in society,

By getting us to acquiesce to the power structures that now exist, which we do not agree is in our best interests. Can we work together to better our overall situation? In the short-term, yes, I think so. But not if you do little more than fight and admonish over an issue we are not going to give ground on. I am not suggesting you stop expressing your anti-legalization opinion altogether. If that is your stance, then by all means express it. I am simply saying, why not concentrate on offering broad-minded support and engage in discussions on literature and popular culture that are not overly political more than just 2% of the time? Todd did that, to his credit, which is why he earned respect here that you never did, and which is why I have been unable to truly dislike him even though I have wanted to at times. To many of us, Todd is at least a real human being who comes off as more than just the sum of his anti-choice stance despite the frustration we mutually experienced during our arguments on the contact and youth competency issues.

pro-choicers and youth liberationists are an annoyance just because most people view them as ridiculous and the ridicule gets tagged to us too.

We're an annoyance? Bingo!!! :-D That sounds like the proverbial thorn in the side if I ever heard one. The great motivator for the periods of time you grace us with your presence as usually little more than a one-trick flesh and blood propaganda bot.

Sorry, Ethan, but we do not care if we annoy you or not, because our being an irritation and annoyance to you and even the majority does not mean what we say shouldn't be said, or that it's inherently without merit. We expect the majority to be against us at the present time, just as they have been against any radical proposal that has since become part of mainstream liberal acceptance. We do not believe the current mindset of the general public will be extant forever. You know this, hence your hard, oftentimes desperate attempts to keep us as marginalized as possible for as long as possible, to discredit us, and to outright shut us up. All the while claiming that is what we try to do to you, who has all the advantage!

You obviously worry that your comments and assertions of that nature may be coming off as ridiculous to the fence-sitters who are observing our exchanges from the sidelines with an open-minded eye but are mostly staying silent for the time being. You know they can be swayed with logical evidence and arguments presented, and that you will not be able to ignore their presence forever due to their cautious silence at the present time. You see more and more of them stepping out of the shadows to become the emerging open-minded researchers who have engaged our community with increasing numbers over the past decade and a lot of nuanced research papers.

So, yes, we annoy you, because we represent a form of fundamental change to society on many levels that you do not want. That, and the acceptable reputation with the mainstream media and research outlets that you savor so much.

In summary, what you have in Dissident is someone who is arrogant and disrespectful of me,

Traits you have never displayed yourself, of course!

nd someone who thinks that writing three times as much as his opponent means he wins the argument.

I think it's what I say, as opposed to how much I say, that wins the arguments, Ethan. Attacking my tendency for verbosity doesn't change that fact. You're a very intelligent guy, likely much more so than me, but your arguments are self-defeating because they are based on desperate emotion, not evidence or reason. That is what we have here in you.

(You should never assume that my failure to reply to Dissident means I'm left speechless by his logic -- I'm not sure that's ever happened.)

Of course it doesn't :-) Yet, you accuse us of being the equivalent of an irritating and annoying rash that refuses to go away. Well, it takes such a rash to know one! :-D

But far more important, you have someone arrogant towards 99.99% of the world, including those far more educated than he, feeling that his way is "obvious".

I have never been one to agree with the majority simply because they are the majority. Nor craved their validation. Not if I honestly believe the evidence suggests they are wrong. But I get your point: It's disrespectful in your eyes to go against the majority and not crave their acceptance. Nevertheless, I have faith in that majority, that they have the potential to collectively improve the world in which they live in a truly fundamental manner. Which is giving them considerably more respect than someone who regularly disparages their inherent nature and insists they are incapable of doing much better than the mess of a world order we have now.

You have someone who dismisses those with differing views as just corrupted by the system.

I do think those who both support and seek power to be very prone to corruption, yes. Something the system you support not only proves on a daily basis, but which it actually thrives on.

You have someone who is a devout proponent of radical change in every sphere in life.

And it's very disrespectful to the 99.9% by not supporting every single institution as it stands today and advocating for change rather than preservation of everything as-is, right? I must again confess that I have much more faith and respect for the 99% than you do.

You have someone who thinks the only thing in the way of achieving that profound change is not seeing things the way he does.

No, I'm the one who thinks not considering fundamental change is the only way to move forward. Differing conceptions of the future can and will eventually coalesce into a vision of shared interests that will eclipse the differences. Because at our core, all of us share a plethora of basic material needs, and a desire to live a life that is natural for us.

He is seriously deluded.

He is seriously a thorn in your side who annoys you because he might actually convince enough people that real fundamental change is warranted, kids are full human beings worthy of their full civil rights, and that we are not so collectively flawed that we cannot possibly achieve a better world order. Hence, your obsessive need to discredit me and marginalize all evidence that goes contrary to your assumptions and the power structures you support. Which is why you are so desperate to silence and discredit pro-choicers and youth liberationists in general. You fear change more than the Boogey Man himself.

In actuality, anyone who ignores the most poignant lesson of history--that change is inevitable--is the truly deluded person.

I await your next salvo! :-)