"You started out by saying
Heck, you'd even think that something as simple as "a girl's main goal in freely expressing her sexuality is NOT prostitution," might be something you learn from observing your own daughters grow up. But apparently even a father like Ethan can draw the opposite conclusion.

I then explain what I intended in contrast to your characterization of it. I'm telling you my position, with some annoyance because I feel you've made a wild leap about my beliefs that a person who was actually trying to seek understanding would not make. The point we started with here was with what I believe and why I believe it. You change the subject by telling me that I'm wrong. Where are the goalposts? If you now talk about whether I'm right or wrong, I'd say you moved the goalposts, if we're using that metaphor."

I'm not sure how you thought that the "prostitution claim" spontaneously generated in a convo NOT involving Dissident. But if you really profess your ignorance and need to be reintroduced to the goalpost, its quite simple.

"...this is why those of us holding the pro-contact position who are inclined towards activism need to put much of our resources into educating society to reject all sexist stereotypes, including opposition to the attitude that tries to strongly encourage females of any age into feeling guilt and shame over expressing their sexuality." --- Dissident; post https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/592480.htm ( responding to AK47: hence, no soliciting your opinion. )

"My hunch remains that if you really freed children sexually and removed all their hang-ups and inhibitions, they would use the freedom mostly for prostitution." ----- Ethan; post https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/592488.htm inserting the claim that free expresssion of sexuality leads mostly to the free choice to prostitute. Note, no qualifier about prepubs, no assumption about Pedos wanting anything: only the child's agency and choice = prostitution.

So, I brought it up again in https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/592733.htm as you quoted above.

At which point you explain that in order to get from Dissident's position to your "prositution" reply you had to "set myself as a thought experiment what it would be like if we transformed society so those things weren't true and pedophiles could realistically look forward to lots of sex with girls." Ethan ----post https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/592764.htm

I gather that, had I not resurrected your strange claim that free girls mostly would choose prostitution, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to see that your reply to Dissident requires the assumption that he wasn't asking for a response to his conditions of freedom, but that he was further wanting to reject all that in favor of the "lots of sex" assumption.

Now whether you shifted the goalpost away from Dissident's clearly stated conditions as an unstated non-sequitur or as an unstated set of assumptions impugning his motives, the effect is to do the latter. If its the latter, then your incoherence is purposeful. If its the former, then its accidental. I really cannot speculate what moves you to incoherence; although you do seem more prone to the deliberate than the accidental.

However, we never "started" with your rationale for why you believe what you believe. This is a second attempt to shift the goalpost Dissident set up in a convo with AK47. That you hijacked the thread with an unstated assumption doesn't make the assumption, or your tenuous rationales for it the actual goalpost.

Now if you could please quote the poster whose "lots of sex" assumption you were actually responding to in lieu of Dissident, then we might at least get the convo you chose over Dissy's convo back onto some credible track. We might at least find out who here set the goalpost you preferred to aim at.

You do have a GC post here you're replying to? Tell me that much?

Please to cite.

Dante