"They believe the worst of us already."

"So, frankly, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I have genuine experience in the matter. You have zip."

Its a convenient ad hominem. You spend plenty of time holding forth over the interests of genders you aren't and ethnicities you aren't. If you were addressing any claims by me to have suffered as an out Ped, then you would be correct. And you wouldn't be committing a generative fallacy here. But its wrong when you refute the claim by arguing that our experiences vary. You seem to understand this when you reject claims by the faithful that you must have experienced the holy spirit ( or whatever ) to have a valid opinion about religion.

I have refuted you on Islam. But never with the lazy assertion that you could only know what you were talking about if you were Muslim. Because, of course you have never claimed to have experienced Islam from within. And you know that the ad hominem is irrelevant to what you ARE claiming.

"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."

Would it have helped their opinion if I'd have said that they should be skeptical about your selfish motives and cognitive bias? That your judgement regarding their daughter would be dismissive of harm due to your lust?

"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."

"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. You can rest assured that your identity will remain secret until you shuffle off your mortal coil, then. Lucky you."

You will really have to cease this vacillation between "we're doing something" and "we've done nothing." The two cannot be claimed by a rational person.

I have seen distinct progress from both public actions and anonymous actions. At this point the anonymous seem to be both getting more press and having more of an impact with the APA. If you really believe that the time is right for B4UACT or the GC Committee to out themselves, I think you're wrong. But I don't believe it will never be the case.

So long as I see progress in my activities I will continue with them.

If I truly valued anonymity, I would be doing squat, since everyone who has a presence as a Pedo is at some level of "unnecessary" risk. But again, in availing yourself of a site run by anonymous cowards, you know this.

And yes, Lindsay too was upset that no mass-self-outing occurred. That was pre-Snowden, pre-War on Terror and pre-post-sentencing incarceration. I don't think that things have improved for the out, but what the H*ll do I know about it? Are you claiming that NOW is the time for mass-self-outing?

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

"Oh, I think I have. You proclaim the absolute rightness of sticking to your absolutist principles come hell or high water! Except, you know, in real life, where it counts. Funny how that works."

Lets see. You malign me because I'm anonymous. And then you make claims about my RL activities being inconsistent with my principles.

If you can tell me what charity I last gave to, I'll address its consistency with my principles. Or what meeting I last attended. Or........ well, you get the point that here you are truly making claims about what you're ignorant of.

Now my coworkers have heard me discuss the war on drugs and the war on terror. They wouldn't see any hypocrisy if I showed them every post on GC that addressed the issues I talk about in RL. The only thing they haven't heard is, "I'm a Pedophile."..... well, at least most of them.

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

"Right. Well, thanks for nothing, then."

I posted the f*ckin' link at the bottom of the page and told you which passages I was citing. Do you need me to hold your hand and blow your nose? * sheesh *

"He has structured a simple syllogism for you to complete.[...]"

"Never mind. Too late now."

How convenient. Because I wouldn't repost what I'm boring everyone else with, but merely placed the URL in your hands, and you refused to follow the URL, you are willing to dismiss the claims in any paragraph which follows.

Geeze. You were arguing from ignorance about VirPed. And you refuse to even visit when I show you where to go.

If THAT is your criteria for evaluating subsequent claims then I should assume that its your criteria for evaluating previous claims.

Its funny. You seem to prefer this structure. Looooooooong post to make your claim with a tiny sentence appended at the end having summarily dismissed anyone else's. And its usually an ad hominem.

At least this time you didn't use the old-reliable insincerity accusation; "Everyone secretly agrees with Markaba, and just posts otherwise to be perverse."

But maybe if you are going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, you could post your ad hominem dismissal at the top and not bother with the rest.

"Never mind. Too late now," would have been a much shorter statement of your willingness to engage with the post.

Dante



VirPed FAQ reposted once more, in case you, like, care.






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