GirlChat #599611

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Shooting yourself in the foot.

Posted by Dante on Sunday, July 27 2014 at 4:35:37PM
In reply to Re: Shooting yourself in the foot. posted by Markaba on Sunday, July 27 2014 at 08:42:08AM

"Maybe that's so when the minority position has the numbers to be able to demand concessions with the possibility of some significant negative impact if those demands aren't met, but that isn't us. Not yet. Not even close. And at any rate, what has the all-or-nothing tactic gotten us thus far? It certainly hasn't gotten us 'all', so what's left? You do the math. "

Its hard to tell just what we lost when subtracting zero from zero in a refusal to sell-out others.

However I can tell you that being the sole target left standing when a society was ready to make concessions was the result of the Gays adopting your notion of selling out the BLers.

Now whether you agree with this realpolitik or not, could they have made any concessions if they'd given it all away prior to being offered acceptance?

Further, there is the danger of projecting a "price." As you point out, nobody is offering. So how can the party who has not been offered anything know what will be valued when the bargaining finally comes?

You assume that THEY want nothing from us other than an gesture of submission. But ultimately they have to tell their constituency that they wanted something and got it. That something will be selected to sound acceptable. And THAT presumes insincerity. What if they want something specific?

Often history has shown that you gain a place in the legislature by disarming. Here you are saying that you KNOW they will accept us if we concede later on Child-labor having already abandoned child-sexual-self-determination. You are asking a party to disarm in hopes that the insistence on bilingual street signs will prove an acceptable sacrifice to appease those who don't speak Basque/Gaelic/whatever.

I cannot presume to know what they will ask. Nor can I even know who will do the asking if its past my lifetime. So I'm unprepared to sacrifice the real for the imaginary.

"But, as it stands, this whole thing is basically just a mockery of those groups who did exactly that, and a dangerous one for those few MAPs who are actually out in the open."

That's pure drivel.

They believe the worst of us already.

Am I making it worse by arguing that we have credible reasons and principles? No.

The only thing that would make it worse is if, instead of challenging them to think, I confirmed that even Pedos think we secretly want to jump their kids.

Any request for thought is an improvement over the unthinking propaganda which turns outing into a hit list. For some reason Ethan peppers his requests for thought with confirmations of the myth you suffer under. And somehow my refusal to join in and admit the possibility that Markaba is just sayin' all this in order to molest LGs makes ME the enemy?

And I'm sorry if you believe that my continued ability to fight from the shadows makes my support for GC or any other cause of ours hypocritical. If I believed that putting my *ss on the line would lead to tangible improvements, I just might. But you have continually told us that it hasn't done squat for you. And all I've seen is that its made you vulnerable to "jamming" when you have tried to do things for the movement.

And ( irony-alert ) you are defending one anonymous coward from another. And all this occasioned by the real progress made by those anonymous cowards at B4UACT.

I would be delighted to see another PNVD. And I cheer whenever our out brethren make progress. But I cannot pragmatically see why we should abandon everything which may be done from the shadows, regardless of how galling you find closeted activists to be.

"The problem is that when your position is an absolutist one, you can never really respectfully disagree. You can claim that as some kind of ideal, but in practice you will always find fault with anyone who views things differently than you do. "

Untrue. But apparently you haven't been reading me.

As I see it, sexual-self-determination for children doesn't seem to be a priority at B4UACT. Bully for them. Concentrating on their mandate makes them more effective. NYRA focusses on curfew laws, drinking age and several other things but is silent about child-labor. Groovy.

It is very possible to focus as an organization on a specific issue.

Remaining silent is a whole nother thing from denouncing people. And worse yet, denouncing people categorically, rather than over issues. This is why its so rare to see someone affirming the stereotypes their people suffer under just because others choose to be silent about an issue which is irrelevant to their goals.

As I see it, B4UACT would be silly if they became a YR organization as well. But they would be vile if they denounced YR organizations for challenging laws affecting youth. And they would be self-defeating if they disparaged the motives of people just for challenging unjust laws.

"Let me get a better handle on this. I have not read the VirPed site in depth, and I do not recall much about Ethan's posts here to that effect. Can you give me a rundown on the positions of Ethan's that you find contentious? Beyond that, my thought is that if Ethan sincerely holds the view that MAPs generally are dangerous, I would challenge that view at face value rather than try to smear him as an Uncle Tom. That's a form of poisoning the well, is it not?"

Since I recently cited FAQ Q4 and Q7, I won't go back into that.

I never said "Uncle Tom." I don't doubt his sincerity. Others do. Tom O'Carroll does. But I am of the belief that he cannot see how the statements in his FAQ ( which assume selfish motives and hidden agendas to cloud our judgement on matters of harm where access to kids is at stake ) are not tied to the issues. I demonstrated recently, to his own satisfaction, that they aren't. ( Although I did so by picking another substantive issue at random, inserting it into the defamatory comment, and watched him address the argument as if it were legit for ANY subject. )

"And indeed, I see it as likely true in many cases, because human beings on the whole are notorious for "thinking with their dicks"--history is chock full of examples. Why would MAPs be more noble on average in that regard than the rest of humanity? "

Not MORE. I'll leave all the hokum about "virtue" to Ethan. But not less.

Society has deemed that this possibility among a few is a non-issue regarding the motives of most in asking for legal reform. And here society happens to be correct. Arguments that various minorities are prone to contain more rapists, and enough would-be rapists to be treated differently under the law have been raised for almost every demographic and rejected as slurs.

Gays aren't less predatory that everyone else; just as Jews aren't less avaricious &tc. But if I were to claim that Jews who advocate for political reform in finance should be looked at skeptically and with an assumed bias in favor of their selfish interests, I would rightly be deemed to be a bigot. And if a Jewish socialist believed in attacking a Jewish Capitalist by telling folks to not trust those avaricious Jews; what would we make of this?

I just don't believe that Pedos are some magical exception where the slur is valid. Not even when its floated by a Ped.

" appear to be missing some vital info here. Are you saying that VirPed has criticized B4UACT on the grounds that they have refused to come out against legalizing sex with children? If so, can you point me to the relevant sources?"

RLY? You spend this long attacking me for holding Ethan to what VirPed says, and you haven't bothered to read what they say?

"Q 15 Are there other organizations for pedophiles who wish to obey the law?

The only one that we are aware of is B4UACT (www.b4uact.org). Like Virtuous Pedophiles, B4UACT is dedicated to helping pedophiles obtain appropriate mental health services and encourages all pedophiles to obey relevant laws. The founders of this present site have been affiliated with B4UACT, and we share many perspectives and beliefs. But we have been motivated to form a separate organization because of two key issues. We believe firmly that pedophilia is an undesirable condition, and that sexual activity between adults and children is a very bad idea—and not just because it is illegal. While B4UACT does not take the opposite positions, they deliberately do not take any position on those issues at all. In our experience, this has important implications in practice. B4UACT's statement in an "Issues of Disagreement" section (http://b4uact.org/issuesofagreement.htm) is: "Based on both our reading of the literature and our interactions with others, we are aware that researchers, clinicians, and minor-attracted people may disagree among themselves on their conceptions of childhood, adolescence, effects of sexual behavior, and morality.” But, to be clear on an important position B4UACT shares with Virtuous Pedophiles, this statement is in the same section: "People should abide by the law because of the potential risk to children and minor-attracted people of doing otherwise."


He has structured a simple syllogism for you to complete.

1 ) B4UACT doesn't condemn adult/child sex as inherently wrong. And we believe this sends a message.

2 ) Pedophiles who hold that there is no or less inherent harm are motivated by selfish desires, biases that lead them to dismiss harm and a hidden agenda. ( Qualified as lust-clouded judgement at the prospect of accessing children for sexual gratification. )

3 ) Therefore B4UACT in deliberately not recognizing inherent harm are motivated by........

( Where no other motives are provided or treated as legitimate. As with any effective slur is uses the qualifier "some Pedophiles" in order that the suspicions of the few must be applied to all. And it certainly acts as if the ALL must be rejected and silenced. For comparison see, "Some of my best friends are Jews, BUT..................... " )

Dante

Dante





• ( http link ) http://www.virped.org/index.php/f-a-q
[Anonymouse]  

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?