I'm for people having the option of reparative therapies IF any worked well. The APA says none of the existing ones work. So you say I'm in favor of reparative therapies that the APA says don't work? Give me a break.

In that case, it's learn 2 English.

I would and I am are two different tenses for a reason, and they express different things. True that each language tells apart tenses, moods and aspects differently, but exactly because of that there is a need to respect the distinctions made by each one when writing in it.

What is it? I would or I am? Choose it and stick to it.

So the laws of contracts and fair exchange are to operate inside a little girl's panties. Sounds terrific for the image of girl-lovers.

Again, you are demanding telepathy. Own up to it!

The grown-up offers the little girl a shiny dime for her grubby $20 bill. What's wrong with that? She got a shiny dime, and that's what she wanted.

Also, learn 2 economics.

First anything, value is subjective.

But one would be wise to note that the shiny dime can be melted and the scrap metal sold at its market price for more than a dime. Even more so for 10 shiny pennies. Whereas the 20 is just a piece of paper that only is received because people care to receive it but has no market value of its own. Indeed, all the series from 1 to 100 are identical in everything except the patterns the ink makes on the paper.

Hey, today 1 US dollar is worth a lot less than what 1 Confederate dollar is. But you'd have to have kept a stash throughout 150 years to achieve that value. For the most of that time, 1 Confederate dollar was just a piece of paper.

She can't prove it ahead of time. This doesn't bother me.

Again, you are demanding clairvoyance. Own up to it!

Though I am very happy that you have admitted in a couple of sentences what Dissident takes 50 pages to say.

Your only concern is to control children.

You do not care about children. Except inasmuch as you can have them as property.

In fact, you hate children. That would be more accurate to say. You care for them as for property, and as for usage property at that, not investment property, rather than as beings. I do not believe you are a pedophile, of course, but if you were, you would be the living proof that some pedophiles are detrimental to children.

I don't care if this runs Butterfly Kisses away again, but this is accurate: YOU SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED AROUND CHILDREN.

(If she's 13 I've told you on several occasions how she can be part of forgiveness afterwards.)

Of course, this contradicts the previous sentence, but fuck logic, right?