My last words

This will be my last post in regard to the latest scuffle. you can have the final word--I know you'll take it anyway.

Yup.

No, I give him praise because he's an honorable person who doesn't take sides concerning the validity of arguments, and because he's a generally nice guy. Many of the pro-contacters here (not all of them, but quite a few) are arrogant and immature and not the kind of people I would want to have a beer with, much less leave a young daughter in the company of. You guys tend to be your own worst enemies.

1) You mistake arrogance for confidence in our sexuality. Something the anti-contacters can't claim for themselves.

2) Immature? We're GLers, dude. Maturity is overrated. If we were totally mature, we couldn't bond with younger people as well as we do.

3) I don't take offense at this, because most of us wouldn't want to have a beer with the likes of you anyway.

4) You wouldn't leave a young girl in our company? Now that is an insult. Newsflash: almost all of us are non-contact and do not break the laws. Just because we aren't full of shame and guilt over our attractions, and do not have periodic emotional breakdowns, doesn't mean we routinely engage in illegal activities. I would trust pro-contacters around a young girl far more than I would an anti-contacter, who tend to be far less stable emotionally.

5) I'm glad you admire Baldur for his honorable behavior. You could learn a few things from him.

It's not about the uniqueness of an argument but the strength and validity of it.

Which is my point exactly. There is no strength or validity to the anti-contact position, because their points are based on emotion, assumptions, a tinge of misanthropy, and cultural beliefs rather than anything to do with science or fact. And you claim that pro-contacters are our own worst enemies? I would rather have science and civil liberties on my side than emotionalism and assumptions, more and more of which are refuted with new studies every day.

While most anti-contact arguments are ridiculous (and I will be the first to demolish them), there are a couple which are solid enough to warrant consideration.

And it's even more important to consider what effects any sort of draconian law--or any law based on freedom from rather than freedom to--have on a constitutional democracy.

Furthermore, it is abundantly clear to me that many of you guys really aren't about child liberation but about getting sexual access to kids.

Another silly assumption on your part. Your attempts to refute youth liberation as a valid ideology by claiming none of us are good enough people to actually follow it is nothing more than an insult and an extremely weak emotionalistic claim that should leave no one surprised why you are not liked or respected here. You continuously make insults and unfounded assumptions about pro-contact motives which are nothing more than typical media attempts to denigrate the character of anyone who fights for youth liberation. Another newsflash, dude: just because we are confident about our sexuality doesn't mean there is no more aspect to our being than that. And you have called me naive in the past?

You can dress it up however you like, but it's clear that's what it is. There are people out there who genuinely care about giving kids more rights who aren't MAPs; some of them agree on the sex stuff and some don't. But why is it that almost all of the MAPs I've encountered here and at other boards are all about giving kids all this freedom? The sheer percentages stink of ulterior motives.

Have you ever considered that the real ulterior motives come from you and the rest of society? Have you considered that suppressing the freedom of young people is not about protecting them but rather controlling them? Have you considered that so many pro-contact MAPs support youth lib because we respect young people more than the anti-contacters do? Have you ever considered that we do not have the Christian-derived hang-ups about sexuality that much of society and the anti-contacters have? Keep up those insults, Lat...they will certainly serve to make you more well-liked around here, and will continue to make us shake our heads in bemusement as to why you "love" this place and still want to hang out here if you feel it's filled to the brim with bad people who only care about having sex with kids. What a typical anti-contact attack on our character. It's both silly and pathetic. All you're doing is making your few supporters look all the more foolish for defending you. Are you up for defending him again, Baldur?

I don't expect you all to agree with me on everything I believe, but it's not out of the question for me to expect civility. I always give it until the point when it becomes clear that some of you are going to be vicious regardless of how I treat you. You're digging your own hole when you pretend like you guys have honorable motives and then spew bile at me and others who are genuinely concerned about kids' safety, as well as the viability of this movement.

The thing is, I do not believe concern for kids' safety is your main concern. I think your main concerns are pandering to public prejudices, trying to "clean up" our image in the public eye, assuage your own guilt and shame over your sexuality, and try to turn our movement into (for the most part) something seeking out assimilationist tactics that have no respect for civil liberties just because you think we will win public brownie points easier. If you want greater civility from us, stop insulting us as often as you do and show us some respect. Calling us "cultish" and saying you think all of us are dirty people who only want to have sex with kids will not win you civility, and it amazes me that someone who makes the claims you always do is owed such civility.

Making a claim like 'GC has cultlike aspects' is not a personal attack against anyone here; it's an observation based on certain patterns of behavior. I'm not casting moral judgment when I say it--I'm basically stating that I'm worried about how this movement is going. But you turn that around and make personal statements about me, as if that somehow makes you right.

Because your main concern for the movement is to turn it into something that is as acceptable as possible to the general public, which means throwing our principles aside. You are too naive to consider that it's possible for a group--and an entire society--to deal with any concern while maintaining its stance on civil liberties.

Right, and that's because you wear blinders. You should recognize the flaw in that position just through statistics alone. When has it ever been the case that all or most people who agree with you are honorable and all or most people who disagree with you are lowlife scum?

It depends on what they disagree with me about. People who put a high emphasis on civil liberties and stick to those principles through thick and thin do tend to be more honorable in many cases (though not all) than people who have little concern for these things and who support draconian measures. People who support the latter measures tend to be willing to lie to win their debates, to focus on emotion over science, and to support imperatives that lead to a police state. I have debated with more than enough anti-contact people over the past ten years to have a good idea of what type of people they tend to be in the majority of cases. There are noticable patterns with them just as you seem to think there are "cultish" patterns of behavior here.

It is much more likely that most people on both sides are operating according to their own moral compass and have the best of intentions.

If you lack certain principles, then the road to Hell tends to be paved with those good intentions. That metaphor definitely applies here. And didn't you just get done saying that you think many pro-contact people have shady ulterior motives and only care about having sex with kids? Next you are going to tell us that that statement wasn't intended to be a moral judgement and you didn't mean anything personal by it. Go ahead, Lat...be predictable again.

There are plenty of people who don't on both sides, and just as I pointed out above, the percentages indicate that many of you may ultimately be operating from selfish motives.

A desire to have the type of relationships that are natural for us, the desire to express our love any way younger people may desire to receive it from us, the desire to allow younger people to express themselves any way they please, and a desire to see younger people we love and respect be treated like full citizens is not selfish, but natural and entirely human. Only someone with a negative attitude towards sexuality would call that aspect of the pro-contact agenda "selfish."

We all do that to some extent, but in this case children's bodies and minds are at stake.

More emotionalistic drivel, and another example of freedom from instead of freedom to. Here are a few more newsflashes for you:

1) There is no scientific evidence that mutually consensual sexual activity between kids and adults is harmful or traumatizing to kids, as long as said sexual activity is kept to a developmentally appropriate level.

2) Some kids have a desire to be intimate with adults. Giving them this right is empowering them, not "harming" them.

3) Concern for another's well-being is noble, but the Nanny State mentality that anti-contacters espouse is simply about controlling under the guise of protecting. It's also making assumptions and moralizing judgements as to what is best for others.

That's a huge consideration and one that should never be taken lightly. The fact is, there's so much distortion, intentional and unintentional, on both sides that we need a lot more impartially gathered data, and it's just not going to happen in this environment. We should work towards demolishing the destructive taboos toward us first, and then it might be possible to sway the culture into undertaking the massive long-term studies that need to be done.

Slowly but surely, these studies are being done. And the more studies that are done, the more science refutes the arguments of the anti-contacters, as well as the popular position with society at large. Read The Case Against Adolescence and The Trauma Myth for two of the most recent examples of common anti-contact and societal tropes being refuted. The point of the matter is, science is gradually validating most of the pro-contact views, and begging your pardon, I prefer to be on the side that is right, not on the side that goes against factual info in favor of emotionalistic arguments. Other than that, I am all for more scientific data being compiled.