What is qtns's definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Not mine. Einstein's. I am not trying to steal his credit.

For the bazillionth time, we are not the gays. We are not the blacks. We cannot model ourselves on those minorities when it comes to political activism. What worked for them has not worked for us, and likely will not, at least in the initial stages.

The difference, of course, is visibility. Blacks cannot hide, and have forever lived in ghettoes. Gays can hide, but at one point they chose to gather together for buttsekhs instead of hiding. This allowed them to gain population density too, even without being visible in the sense Blacks are.

Even outed pedophiles haven't tried to establish pedo neighborhoods. SO colonies are the closest equivalent, and even them often reject pedo rights activists. The reason not to make pedo neighborhoods may be, of course, that overall we prefer to blend in into where the children are, than self-segregate. But until we self-segregate, you cannot expect what you are obviously expecting.

Because Black and gay neighborhoods meant sanctuaries to Blacks and gays both oppressed by the majority or disproportionately targeted by their laws. They became no-go zones for police, much less for racists or homophobes. And any of the majority, if present, had to accommodate living as a minority. The population density in turn meant that either they had enough political clout to influence the election of local political officers or their decisions; or at least that they could imbue in the majority fears that they would become completely ungovernable if they weren't at least tolerated, helped by their concentration in neighborhoods they could easily transform into no-go zones for everyone. PAZ's, if you will.

So, are you willing to establish a pedo neighborhood?

If you think that society is going to offer us anything out of the blue in the way of a concession, then I may have to reassess your intelligence level. I can tell you right now: it ain't gonna happen.

You cannot negotiate with someone who is not giving anything.

Suppose a bank robbery with hostage taking situation.

If the police are not willing to give the chance to escape under any circumstances at all, the robbers have no incentive not to attempt to steal all the money, use all the hostages, and still shoot all the police.

If the robbers are not willing for anything to give any hostages or promize not to shoot police, the police have no incentive not to attempt to break in forcibly and shoot all the robbers.

Both have to give something. Neither party can expect unconditional surrender to be a result of negotiation. You negotiate to gain (or keep) something; if you didn't seek to gain or keep anything, you just give it away for free, and there is no need to negotiate anything.

If I am asked for unconditional surrender, I will certainly not keep negotiating.

As Japan did in 1945.

As it stands right now, they want fuck-all from us except total submission and possibly our mass suicide.

So, what are you going to negotiate? Which bridge to jump from?

Because if what they want is you dead, what other concession can you make? Being in a coma?

And you'll note that I managed to make an LGF over the last few years that I am allowed to spend time with alone. I didn't do that by pompously trumpeting GLer pride or convincing her family that they were idiots for thinking sex with kids was bad. I had to show them that I was on their side. That was my responsibility because I was the one who wanted the LGF, and there was no reason they had to concede to my wishes.

Many others have LGFs. Many of those who have LGFs are not out.

Moreover, Dante himself has said that the kind of couple he wants requires a type of meeting of the minds that has been difficult for him to find at any age. Maybe you don't seek that. I don't. But I can't see Dante having many LGFs, even over a lifetime, compared to others.

we're not all militants who want to overthrow millions of years of evolution

I guess that must be easy, because they don't believe in evolution. :D

But if they believe on evolution, ask them why the penis and vagina with all their fitting [-with-each-other] parts and sensitive parts are fully developed at birth. Boobs are not. Adam's apples are not. Pubes are not. Eyes, brains, guts, legs, are not. Penises and vaginas are.

Well, how convenient for you, then, because it ain't gonna happen if only a handful of people are ever willing to actually fight openly for the cause they claim to believe in.

Unless you're reclaiming for yourself the anti claim that anyone in favor of reform must be a pedo… there is NO cause in the roughly defined pedo/child umbrella which is not being already effectively defended by Nons. Even the AOC itself. Plenty of Nons in Canada spoke against Harper raising it, and some have tried to revive the issue in subsequent electoral cycles. Peru's lowering was proposed and achieved by Nons. India's attempted lowering was proposed and defended by Nons. And only in Canada did they even talk about pedos - and it was Harper who brought us in, not his opponents.

I agree with this, but there is the added factor that unlike straights or gays, we cannot legally sexually interact with our preferred partners at all. That little fact cannot be ignored or explained away. We have to address it, because it does change the dynamic significantly.

Do we? Who made it an issue? Who made it illegal for us to have sex? If they claim that abstinence clouds our judgment, then let them remove the AOC so abstinence no longer clouds our judgment!

You are defending a logic by which it's illegal for slaves to be taught to read, with the outcome that slaves are illiterate; and then using the fact that slaves have not read the Constitution to exclude them from civil rights.

The whole gist of my involvement in this thread was to try to convince you to not be such a hard-ass towards those who disagree with you because you don't know their struggles in real life.

Trust me; there is a reason why almost no pro-contact poster views Ethan (or VP) in a favorable light, and not even many agnostic and anti-contact posters on GC and BC do. It's not about Dante. Or even "the militants." It's about pervasive intellectual dishonesty, despise for pro-contacters and our positions, and constant attention whoring for the sake of attention whoring.

Frankly, he makes me miss Moth (and Lux.)

It seems it takes a Pom to make an anti that is stimulating and hono[u]rable.