GirlChat #604698

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Weird ass place

Posted by Dissident on Wednesday, October 29 2014 at 08:10:40AM
In reply to Re: Weird ass place posted by Butterfly Kisses on Wednesday, October 29 2014 at 06:54:50AM

It's odd that you think I am against adult/child sexual relationships when as far I can remember I have never stated one way or another on this board. I remember giving arguments in both directions before to see what answers people would give in response to my statements but I certainly don't remember ever saying one way or another as to what I actually believe.

I think the stance you prefer is obvious based on your over-defensiveness of any anti-choicer, and the way you obviously read posts from both sides selectively, always demanding degrees of behavior from pro-choicers that you never do from anti-choicers, and never perceive what the latter says to be insulting when I think a truly objective reader would see otherwise.

The only place I have ever done so is in VOA chat if I remember right and I'll go ahead and share it. I do not advocate one position or another at this time due to the fact that if I or anyone else were to have a sexual relationship with a minor the harm coming from psychiatry on the minor would be enough to make it reprehinsible for someone to put the child through that.

So noted, and I actually agree with this. But your actions and reactions to the back and forth debates by pro-choicers with anti-choicers on this board suggests a very defensive and deferential attitude towards the latter that is indicative of a preference towards that latter stance. Either that, or you're one of those individuals who always gives deference for the perceived underdog in any type of conflict without any concern for the content of the debate.

I don't think an anti adult/child sexual relationship stance is needed for activism to go better nor do I think anyone should advocate for something against what they believe. I do, however think it would be better if people like Ethan paved the way before us with more acceptance and anyone else involved with activism would focus more on treating pedophiles with respect rather than going straight into adult/child sex which automatically tunes people out. But, that is my opinion.

The thing is, there are MAPs who can pave the way for us as you suggested without taking an explicitly anti stance. Meaning, without pandering to public opinion and sentiment that is not supported by evidence but simply happen to be popular; or support notions against underage youth that are not supported by scientific data simply because it's still widely believed; nor defend institutions that are widely accepted simply because people are used to them and they happen to extend privileges to older people, but which data suggests are oppressive and harmful on many levels. That is promoting blatant intellectual dishonesty as well as pandering to win public approval, and that does not, IMO, justify giving support to anyone spouting a blatant anti stance.

It's also possible to make a case for our basic humanity, and for delivering accurate information about adult attraction to minors, without broaching those more hot button subjects. This is why I support the work of groups like B4U-ACT, which isn't even an activist group per se, but do not support groups like Virped.

That being noted, this doesn't mean that there should be no place whatsoever for discussing the pro-choice stance, because many of us believe it has real merit. That doesn't mean we have to be at the forefront of the MAP movement. But that doesn't mean the anti-choicers should be either, or that any fallacies they mention or insulting comments they make should be either defended or overlooked. These issues are important and heartfelt enough to both sides that you need to reasonably expected spirited debate, and for MAPs on both sides of the issue to get frustrated with each other.

I and others have been told we should not be allowed to be around children (the favorite insult of this board) and some other personal insults. Not to mention being called on multiple instances an anti which was highly amusing.

I don't recall any of the pro-choicers ever making such an extreme comment. I have heard antis say this before, including some of the anti-choice MAPs from time to time. Are you sure you're reading things accurately here, my friend?

As for you're being called an anti... I would like to know what you said before you were called that, or if it happened that a stance you mentioned was referred to as anti rather than you yourself, to make an honest evaluation of that claim's merit. I do believe the evidence suggests that you have strong sympathies with that stance, and if so, you should just admit it rather than insisting you don't yet continually providing evidence that you do. This is not an attack, but sincere advice.

As for the hated person of the day. No I am not talking about Ethan who is clearly enjoying getting everyone riled up. It's others including me who have been pretty viciously attacked for some pretty mundane comments over the past couple of years.

Again, in all fairness, I would like to know what you said specifically, and what was said in response, before I agree that you were either unjustly countered or misunderstood, or that the counter was actually a vicious attack.

Absolute zero and others haven't had any activity in years. As far as I know the only anti activity left is one anon twitter account who one time tried to find the identity of someone on boychat. Then there was over a year ago a dos attack against this site.

There are still anti orgs and committed individuals popping up all over Facebook, Twitter, and routinely writing an assortment of vicious and inaccurate articles. I noted that the heyday of organized groups like PJ and AZ has come and gone, but they are far from non-existent or the only remaining examples of their ilk. You can verify this any time you attempt to tote this subject in a room of random people, or post a sympathetic article about MAPs online (I still like the word tote, btw).

The arguments with Ethan don't really bug me that much other than the fact that you and others have made up things about people. And then that others have gone into personal attacks which I will admit you have never done.

Again, I would like to see a few "for instances." I'm not saying that you are totally wrong; there are, and have been, a few pro-choicers who have anger issues, to say the least, and are not able to be cordial, or never even really try. But they have never been numerous here in my observation. Are you sure you didn't run afoul of a few particularly persistent individuals here who constantly tend to target you and your statements? I've been subjected to that also by a few here, but never by a lot. Saying the board is filled with a few loudmouths who cause trouble for certain people whom they dislike is one thing; but saying this board is infested with them is another.

With that acknowledged, I'm not sure what you refer to when you say that I and others have "made things up about people." That suggests that we just pull things out of thin air which we don't even truly believe and present them to the board as facts. I think your complaint is more likely that we interpret some of your statements in ways that you think we shouldn't. That doesn't mean we are definitely correct in our judgments; it doesn't mean that you are correct in saying we're wrong, either. I'm simply saying that such an action is not the same as inventing things in the sense of deliberate lies with no plausible reason to sincerely believe them.

It's when someone comes here genuinly looking for help. And might not have a total acceptance 100% of adult/child sex and the problem or plea for help is ignored and the only thing this board cares about is their positions because their here to argue.

That is a legitimate cause for concern. I've been on hiatus until last week, so I'm not sure, in all honesty, if that went on regularly in my absence. I will keep an eye out for it on your behalf, though.

Please keep in mind, however, that if someone comes here for support, their tone and their overall attitude will color how others react to them. They also need to expect for others to disagree with some of the opinions they give, especially if these people looking for support actively insist that they are disgusted with their feelings, and should be. I would never personally reinforce such an attitude just to assuage someone, and I don't believe that helps them either. Some MAPs are greatly in need of being exposed to more views than that which is available in the mainstream, because many grow up without any idea that there even is other views. This is often the main source of their pain in the first place.

I would try to avoid starting a debate in such a situation, of course, but if the person making the statements insisted on an argument, eventually they are likely to get one. This could very well mean they didn't actually come here for support, but simply to vent under the pretense of asking for support. Such duplicity is not uncommon, sadly. It's an unfortunate but understandable fact that attacking and hurting others to relieve your own pain is not a reliable way of gaining the support and sympathy you mean. Venting also has its place, of course, but if you do it in a manner that targets others directly with hateful and cruel remarks, you can't expect to receive nothing but hugs in return.


Ethan is clearly not here for support and is here to debate. It's not what I am reffering to in terms of who to help. But, I do through him into the mix on both sides as to insults. As I felt his posts have been insulting to others, and have said as much on two occasions when I felt that his posts were, and and the numerous insults and lies directed at him which went far overboard.


I'm not sure what lies you have referred to. What have been said about him that are demonstrably untrue? Or do you mean comments or accusations that you disagree with for whatever reason? Just asking you to clarify.

As for insults, no doubt Ethan has received some. No doubt some went overboard with them. My fellow mods should have acted accordingly when that happened, and I like to think they did (but again, in all fairness to all sides, I have been on hiatus of late). However, I have seen Ethan pick many arguments, and make many comments and accusations of his own, including making very dubious claims and assumptions, that are bound to get numerous people here flustered, offended, heated, and upset, especially concerning the frequency with which he does this. So I'm not sure that the others were going disproportionately overboard compared to him, or simply that the fact that he's numerically outnumbered in terms of those who disagree with him created the illusion that others are going overboard with insults and accusations more often than he does.


But, still none of that bugs me as much as somoene new coming on here and people thinking it's their religious duty to convert them into pro adult/child sexual contact and ignore their problems.


It's not their duty to convert them, I agree. But it's not out of bounds to inform them of the pro-choice stance, many of whom are not even aware that there is an alternative to the mainstream view, which is often the source of their pain in the first place. This I noted before.

Or having to deal with the insults like I did making a post that is in my mind a positive post and having to deal with people suddenly saying I shouldn't be allowed to take care of children anymore.

Again, I'd like to know what you said, and the tone of what was said in response, before I can assess that. If you made comments that some took as ageist in the course of your intended positive statement, then you may have raised some hackles, and were told so. It's also possible, of course, that you simply ran afoul of a few posters here with anger issues, who reacted out of sorts to what you said based on a misunderstanding. And there could have been misunderstandings on the part of someone involved.

In conclusion I think you and others need to be very careful about the assumptions you are making as I've seen even you make a lie (that Ethan thinks child porn laws as they are now are just great when he has stated the opposite) to support your view.

Okay, thank you for that "for instance." I don't recall ever saying such a lie like that myself. If I recall correctly, Ethan isn't against viewing or possession of CP per se, but is against allowing underage youths the choice to make or participate in such erotica. So it's true he doesn't agree with the laws exactly as they are written today, but he isn't fully in accord with the pro-choice view of the issue by any means.

Are you sure that was a genuine lie you saw, or perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? It's very likely I, and others, weren't addressing the part of the issue that we agree with Ethan on, but the aspects which we don't, i.e., the right of youths to make choices, which is outside the aspect of being allowed to view or possess such material. Otherwise, your advice about being careful is indeed good, as I certainly do not support making outright lies to bolster a view. It should be said, though, that Ethan is every bit in need of the advice you just offered as anyone else here.


That being said I'm glad your a part of this board when your here.


Thank you for saying that, and I'm genuinely sorry if I was a bit scathing in my initial response to you. And yes, I again acknowledge I haven't been around lately to see what may have truly upset you. Consider sticking around.

Thank you for providing the dictionary definition of the word "tote." I was quite interested in seeing its use!





Dissident





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?