"You ever heard of burying somebody with lawsuits? Deluge the little company with more than they can pay their lawyers to fight and the little upstart goes under? That's pretty much what it's like here. Multiple posters gang up with much verbiage, and I can't reply to all of it. That's how the discussion that is getting deeply indented down below in this thread was going. Fortunately they're not lawsuits and I'm not going under."

Again with the notion that replies to the verbiage you generate somehow precede you?

No, RLY. When you aren't here we don't jabber away about you in your absence about your pet theories. And we certainly don't invent your erroneous claims and discuss them without you here to raise them.

RLY, a scholar recently wrote an academic paper proving this about GC; so now its in the Library of Congress that we don't discuss Ethanisms without Ethan here to start the ball rolling.

But this should be understood of any minority view. All it takes are equal replies. You say an absurdity noted by 3 posters and suddenly 1 post gets 3 replies. This is to be expected. Or do you really think your opponents ought to be so conspiratorial that they collude thusly; "Hey Joey, its important to match Ethan's posts one to one, and since you took the last one, and I took the one before, and Baldur took the one before that it is girlsarekittens turn.

I was outnumbered on finding the film Somewhere to be entertaining. The difference in the "deluge" is that I had no missionary zeal to keep posting and reposting the claims to every comer ( even imaginary ones when I'd exhausted all possible threads with replies. ) Nor did I malign those who disagreed with me. Or assume they were insincere/deluded/whatever.

Post as you wish. But please don't assume that everyone else shares your obsessive concentration on this one issue.

"All of Ethan's statements are that we think with our dicks more so than teleios do."

"I'm trying to think when I've ever said that. I'll wait for the citations. "

........... Give you some rope and 2 posts later;

"People hear the claim that little girls can be just fine with sexual activity, and it goes against their most strongly held beliefs about the nature of children. The idea that pedophiles are pushing this and hardly anyone else is sounds like we are dangerously out of touch with reality and/or cynically motivated by lust."

Now when I hear you ask for gender segregation on the basis that the requirements for consent for heteros are cynically motivated by lust; then I'll believe that you hold that the degree of "thinks with their dicks" is equal enough to merit equal treatment.

Further, if you would apply the psychic future-reevaluation-standard objection similarly to nullify consent, I'd believe that you hold these defamatory accusations equally for both.

It is clear though that what you're trying to do is mollify beliefs irrelevant of whether the belief is valid. In fact your preferred refuge is arguentum ad populum; if enough people believe it........ ( No citations, no support, just common prejudice required to make it true. You really ought to convert to Islam, it believes in the inerrancy of the Ummah too. )

It seems to me that you're self defeating because you profess to refute the Monster myth.

But in fact you say Pedos aren't Monsters who WILL rape your children, we're just lust-addled, biased and secretively are motivated by the DESIRE to rape your children. Since the ticking-time-bomb theory presumes that some lust-addled Peds may be incarcerated before they act out, I can't see how your flavour of it differs.

"When I say that I think pedophiles are influenced by their self-interest to adopt a pro-contact stance, I'm not saying anything one way or the other on what teleiophiles would do if they were in a similar circumstance."

But you are when you refuse to treat teleiophiles as if the "self-interest" applied to them. All your analogies and statements about the differences have made it clear at GC that you believe that Peds are an exception to your dismissal of "self-interest" as an objection to teleio consent.

Dante