GirlChat #599623

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Shooting yourself in the foot.

Posted by Hajduk on Sunday, July 27 2014 at 9:17:38PM
In reply to Re: Shooting yourself in the foot. posted by Markaba on Sunday, July 27 2014 at 08:42:08AM


I will only reply to a part, seeing that Dante already replied to you too.

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.

You speak as if there is a counterpart in the other side offering us something but not everything.

Show me that counterpart.

If there is no counterpart, there is no point in talking about what of the all is going to be negotiated away and in exchange for what. Because there isn't that last "what" to exchange something away for.

Still, I have already stated that I would accept even a higher AOC if there was an absolute parental consent exemption. Or no changes to the AOC if there was no age of marriage and an absolute marriage exemption. And it has been pedophiles, rather than antis, who have considered either of these unacceptable.

Well, were not Sinn Fein. Hell, most people here aren't even willing to step out of their comfort zones and proclaim who they are in real life, much less be willing to fight openly for their beliefs.

I've gone through this with Ethan extensively. But you may have not read it.

The only use I would have to be out "to the world" is because I am looking for a partner, or have got a partner and want to take her out to couple things.

Since I am not looking for a partner, nor have one, it makes no sense to scream from the rooftops.

To me, it's even in bad taste. Not "immoral," just "rude" if you will. But if your sexuality is between you and your partners alone, screaming it from the rooftops is just incompatible with this: you are including everyone else in your sexuality -- and doing so in a way they can't even decline to be included. I think the same of teleios, both gays and straights, whose displays about their orientation fall into this. I would never want to reproduce it as a pedo. I will never reproduce it as a pedo.

This would be true even if we had complete acceptance out there. In the instance of having to fight for rights, it is distracting. A lot more can be done (and is being done) by people who are not out and who could be harmed by outing. You know why they would be harmed by outing? Because people would question their motives. As it is, it is more valuable to me, and to many more, to fight for child sexuality, (or child labor, or education reform, or intactivism, or any other child or pedo issue) as a non-outed guy than if we were out, and we can go further. Because people would question our motives.

You see VirPed as selling out their brothers; I see them as somewhat misguided but essentially sharing the same goal when it comes to society's treatment of us.

Absolutely nothing in my life would change if VP got all their goals.

I dare say that absolutely nothing in your life would change either.

If my goal (or yours) were absolutely no change, I think neither of us would be here.

Philosophically, I also disagree that considering us doomed madmen is superior to considering us evil criminals. Evil criminals are recognized in all their agency as humans. Doomed madmen are deprived of their humanity with a denial of agency. I do see that this may improve the immediate life quality of some CLs in the criminal justice system passing them to the mental incarceration system. I see that this consideration may alone form the basis of a temptation to define ourselves as doomed madmen. But over the long term, more of us are better off in a model of evil criminals than of doomed madmen. As an outie, you'd certainly already be locked up in a mental facility, for instance. That doesn't happen with the evil criminal model because you still have the timer to your ticking time bomb.

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.

He's been challenged by dozens of posters on this. Not just Dante. He hasn't moved an inch. It's been too long and too many threads for this to be an incidental subject. It is essential to the VP position.

Still that may not make him an Uncle Tom (I thought the expression was banned HTML)? but it does make him not a friend of CLs who are not dangerous and do not want to be defined as dangerous.

Well, you have to admit that it does look mighty suspicious to outsiders that MAPs seem to be the only ones clamoring for dropping AoC laws.

[Citation needed]

Ethan has never provided support for this claim.

I know you're just quoting it; but it is as unfounded for you as it is for him.

I do see antis trying to say that anyone who wishes any kind of AOC or other child-sex-related legal reform must be a pedo (Hey, why don't you criticize THAT instance of poisoning the well?) but I do not see any proof that pedos really are overrepresented among reformist tendencies in any of the child-sex-related legal issues I can think of.

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?

Ethan does not hold teleios to the same standard though. It has been mentioned to him that this was (and remains) valid about straight men and female suffrage; about interracial couples, and, of course, about gays. By the way he argues he is saying that pedos are indeed less capable than teleios to be rational about the issues even tangentially related to child sex.

Thomas Szasz already criticized this, with specific regard to us and our inclusion as a mental illness:

[Fred] Berlin misleadingly talks about the involuntariness of being "sexually attracted to young people." The issue is not sexual attraction; it is sexual action. A healthy twenty-year-old make with heterosexual interests is likely to be powerfully attracted to every halfway pretty woman he sees. This does not mean that he has, or attempts to have, sexual congress with these women, especially against their will. The entire psychiatric literature on what used to be called "sexual perversions" is permeated by the unfounded idea--always implied, sometimes asserted--that "abnormal" sexual impulses are harder to resist than "normal" ones.

Sorry, but it is one thing to believe we think with our dicks, and another to believe we think with our dicks particularly more so than teleios do. All of Ethan's statements are that we think with our dicks more so than teleios do. At best the claim may be reserved for exclusive GLs and BLs who don't care about their non-preferred gender's rights, which, yes, are many. But there are plenty of exclusive GLs and BLs who argue inclusively about their non-preferred gender for this to hold true. And in any case, to agree that pedos think more with our dicks than teleios is validating the whole narrative of uncontrollability that is one of the REAL barriers to progress. If I can be accepted as long as I admit I am uncontrollable then, again, I'd rather just not be out.

I DO think it would be smearing us if it was claimed that we alone are subject to these frailties.

But he does.

That is why I doubt that he is even a ped. Btw.









Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?