Yu seem to be assuming that I'm "defending" Tafkaps because of some ideological solidarity which isn't the case.

And I'm asserting that because you only seem to defend the non-choicers, and to let you know that you don't fool me.


I only oppose at a personal level those who either I suspect of not being a gl or who drag things down to a personal level anyway.

My only personal problem with Taffy is his lack of honesty about what he is often saying. My primary problem with him is ideological, and debate here is, I'm sorry to report to you, fully allowed and fully democratic. He is the one who made the problem personal, but since you share his views, you instead "admire" him. Now, if you truly admire people on the basis of standing up for their beliefs amidst tremendous opposition in a purely general sense, then you would admire all of the pro-choicers, including Mike Van Houten, far more so than Taffy. The non-choice view predominates in society, even through the majority of MAA boards, I would wager, yet you seem to conveniently overlook these things. Hence, you are fooling no one.


I'm merely following the logical extension of my opinion:

" the whole point of GC is that all kinds of GLs come together to talk. There are many different kinds of GL so some could claim to be morally superior to another kind of GL. For example a TLer could say that TL is superior to pre-pubescent GL because a teen girl is older and therefore more capable of giving consent. Provided they are not harming LGs or breaking the rules of GC I see no reason to ban any poster no matter how much you dislike thier views or thoughts."

Where am I arguing against the above tenet, Invictus? When did I ever say that Taffy and other non-choicers should be banned simply for having dissimilar views to my own? Personally, I've seen no reason why Taffy should be banned at all. We are allowed to state our differences and debate them on this board, and you need to learn to respect that. And please note that I wanted Zapatista banned more than any other GChatter in history, as he was the worst troublemaker we ever had in regards to attacking people for purely personal and often inexplicable reasons...and he had highly leftist views, along with a huge respect for youths rights, that were very similar to my own (in other words, he was an inveterate pro-choicer). CONSIDER all of the above before you open your mouth about my allegedly wanting to have Taffy "banned," plz.

You didn't seem to have a problem with it back when I said it but now you do hence my concern for someone I value as an example of good MAA. I realise you are not calling for Tafkaps to be banned but your objection to him seems to be getting increasingly personal which I find worrying.

Invictus, with all due respect...PUH-LEAZE!!!!! You make the above HIGHLY silly allegations while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that Taffy mentioned my name in a derogatory fashion in TWO seperate threads that I was NOWHERE involved in until he opened his mouth! For the past few days, he can barely make any post without mentioning me in a derogatory manner, even when I was nowhere within the thread at the onset! And you seem to MISS the highly personal nature of HIS attacks, since my views hit him "right where it hurts" in regards what he stands to lose if youths are ever emancipated, including his old hat non-choicer claim that I only want to emancipate youths so that I can fuck them (he can't come up with anything more original than that?). And you ignore all of the above, and you claim to find what I'm saying to be "worrying" to you because of how personal I'm allegedly getting? No, Invictus, what is worrying to you is how strongly I fight for youth rights, and how I stand up to the non-choicers...and how I always demand honesty from people in regards to their views. Again, you counter your own arguments when you ignore the huge amount of contrary evidence to what you say, and you assume extreme stupidity on my part, and on the part of everyone else here. Get real.

Diss just because I believe that someone who chooses prostitution because they have no viable alternative is not infact making a choice does not make me anti-choice.

Ah...NOW we get to the crux of the REAL reason you're defending Taffy...you're still irritated with me for challenging your views on that. GOOD!!

And btw, I NEVER said you were anti-choice for believing that someone who chooses prostitution because they see no viable alternative "may in fact not be making a choice." I called you anti-choice if you supported laws that forcibly prevent people from making a choice where you could not prove that they did it under any form of duress. Yet you would NEVER directly confront that question of whether or not you felt that autocracic measures were a good way to "help" people in those situations, and I know how it utterly irritates you when you are called on your dishonesty...the same with Taffy. Again, you're NOT fooling me here, Invictus, all you're doing is making a fool out of yourself by making claims that are completely laughable to every sensible person here in lieu of the contrary evidence. I enjoy our battles, and you are NOT going to foolishly convince me that you're an ally.

How can I be anti-youth rights Diss? Up until recently I was technically a teenager and were I living in America I would still be unable to drink alcohol legally. It wouldn't be in my own interest to be anti-YL nevermind the whole GL issue. The real world is about compromise, so fucking what if Tafkaps isn't YL-friendly, should I care? It's a hell of a lot more useful to have him sitting on the sidelines with a vested interest in both parties than to push him into the opposing team.

I think you're lying, Invictus. If Taffy believes that youths should remain under the lock and heel of their parents, where MOST of the genuine abuse of all kinds occurs to them, then he is NOT having an "interest" in both parties, but he is very much on the opposing team. I don't "push" him there, he chooses to be there, no matter what he refers to it as. Your support of civil rights tells much more than the simple abstract and emotional act of loving youths. Why should I care? Because I CARE about the rights of youths, and I care about my fellow MAA's no longer having to live as we do today. Hence, civil rights are important to me, even more so simply because so many people, like you, treat the lack of them as no big deal.

"And I've stood my ground against NUMEROUS people at a time bashing me for my views on youth rights off of this board, and if you saw that going on, I would be willing to bet my entire life savings that you would admire them, rather than me."

Who says I can't admire you both? I do admire the fact you stick up for your beliefs even when you are bashing other people but that doesn't mean that I don't think you aren't shooting yourself in the foot with the silly flames and arguements you've been giving in to lately.

Ummmm...then why, pray tell, don't you accuse Taffy of doing the very same thing? And I opine that any post of mine that contains something substantive to say isn't "silly" or "shooting myself in the foot." Other pro-choicers here, such as Piz and Minstrel, certainly didn't find anything I was saying to be "silly." And I admit that my battle with Celebrator over the AG adoration posts was a silly thing to fight and flame over, but he did provoke it, and as bad as I admit that I got with the flames, the point is, that particular argument had nothing to do with politics, but was over an entirely apolitical topic, and I had to have my buttons pushed for a while before I lost my temper on that front. Funny how you make comparisons with things that have nothing to do with each other.

And I am well aware that you admire me in no way, shape, or form, but rather fear what I and other pro-choicers represent.

"Your real objective here, I think, is to defend his views, and try to get me to ultimately modify my pro-choice views to be more sympathetic with the moral imperatives of those who today control youths."

Why? What do I have to gain by the moral imperatives of those who control todays youths?

No youth liberation, and your own moral imperatives remaining ascendant. It's rather obvious that you think that autocracy is too comfortable a bedfellow to totally divorce.


That is why we are in this together, we have very real and very dangerous enemies.

First of all, Invictus, just because someone is a fellow MAA, does NOT mean that they are "in this" with me; if they oppose youth rights and full MAA emancipation, then how the hell are they allies? Obviously, they have little to no problem being "in this" at all, in such a case. Conversely, there are non-MAA's who support youth rights, and by proxy, our own rights...are you saying these people are "lesser" allies because unlike Taffy, they aren't also MAA's? You are asking me to build alliances based on AttB alone, rather than the courage of one's convictions, and I do not buy into that nonsense for a second, because it makes no sense at all.


They don't give a fuck about YL or anti-YL, they want our blood and if we keep fighting amongst ourselves they're going to get it and I don't want that to happen.

And I don't want many of the non-choicers to sell us out, either, and as such, I'm not going to ally myself with them, because they are working for polar opposite goals to my own. Most of the non-choicers DO NOT understand that as long as these current laws remain more or less intact, they are always going to be hated, but rather they believe that by kissing the "plantation master's" ass, they are going to achieve some sort of "social acceptance," and that the pro-choicers are working against that; hence, their possible willingness to sell us out in order to prove to the general public that they are the "good" MAA's. I am concerned about pro-choicers, be they MAA or non, fighting amongst each other (which was why I was glad to see Zapatista go), but it's not possible to reach common ground with MAA's who oppose our rights, because they are working against our goals! How could Taffy and I work as allies? We cannot. My views irritate him, his views irritate me, and in the end, whom we are attracted to matters not a bit, but only how much respect we have for youths we love.

Our real enemies right now are not the overprotecting parents but the callous and uncaring parents.

Um...a little bit of common sense here, Invictus. Both support laws that oppress youths and both tend to loathe MAA's from a moral standpoint (as Taffy loathes the expression of our attraction in a concrete sense), and regardless of how they feel about their children, they are callous and uncaring about their civil rights. Love often obfuscates your objectivity, and love and power mix together very badly. Hence, we cannot count on the support of the many loving parents anymore than we can for the minority of parents who are truly emotionally uncaring of their children (and I find the latter to be relatively rare).

If you don't agree with me ask some kids whether they'd prefer to be controlled or shipped off to Tranquility bay or any other gulag school.

Um, another reality check, Invictus...and NICE TRY, btw. We pro-choicers do not offer the youths the option of the lesser of two evils. Instead, we support the option of full civil emancipation from laws based upon rigidly arbitrary age restrictions altogether. As long as they are controlled, those gulags are going to exist, and you will be amazed at the new things the government concocts and/or allows private industries to do to those who have no civil rights. This month, its those bio-chip implants to monitor their whereabouts 24/7, next month...who knows. So it's the lack of civil rights that are the core of the problem for youths, not "uncaring and callous" parents.

Maybe we should get people to treat kids as human beings before we try to give them equal rights. I'm not disagreeing with the goal just how we should get there.

Those with power over others do not tend to treat them as human beings very often, and when they do, it's never in great enough numbers to actually lead to their emancipation. Parents tend to treat their children as treasured pets rather than actual human beings, because those without civil rights are unable to "sassy" their superiors or speak up. And there is NO WAY that you can count on the non-choicers to support "getting there" in any way, because they DO NOT want to "get there" at all.

"The thing about Mike Van Hauten that causes you to speak out against him (something you hesitated to do before he was banned) is how much you feared his strong pro-choice stance, and had little to do with his attitude problems."

Bullshit diss and you know it.

No, I don't "know" it...I disagree with your contention. If Taffy or another non-choicer was picking fights with the mods, I highly doubt you would be so happy to see them gone. Instead, you would most likely claim the mods banned them for "standing up for an unpopular view on the board." So I'm not the one spouting bullshit here, Invictus.


To be honest I suspect the real reason was that he was continuosly picking fights with the mods and as is repeated almost continously "GC is not a democracy". NFiH was more than justified in slinging Mike out.

He would have been, if he was able to justify why he didn't fling out Zapatista in the past. And note again that Zapatista was a pro-choicer.


He was a fanatic and an intellectual bully.

I admit that he had a bad attitude that he should have learned to quench at times. But again, Zappy was tolerated for over two years, under two different nick "identities," and he was constantly attacking people on highly personal levels, and often for highly illogical reasons, and he would also constantly try to post in defiance of his frequent bans...but you didn't see him getting banned nearly often enough (though he was banned rather often), and it was two years of activity a lot worse than anything you ever saw Mike do before he got kicked for good...and this ONLY because he committed a blatantly illegal act on the board. I happened to get an e-mail copy of Mike's post that got deleted, and it didn't constitute a reason to delete it, IMO. I'm not sure exactly what he said to NFiH, but I would wager it wasn't worse than anything I routinely used to see Zappy saying to and about the mods.


He spouted a load of garbage and when he got called on it he went and had a temper tantrum.

You only think much of what he spouted was garbage because you disagree with his views. I wager you wouldn't be doing so if he was a non-choicer.


He was also unwilling to finish our discussion despite the fact he was happy to give excuses for a mistake that NFiH called him for in the thread, so i have little respect for him as a person and as a debater.

I'm not sure what error Mike made, but I see you, Taffy, and others making far more incorrect statements that Mike ever did. Also, NFiH tends to be overly anal with providing exact references, and some of them are rather beside the point of the discussions at hand, and he has been told that a few times before. Your main problem with Mike, I still contend, was his views, not his often combative attitude.


I did however admire the fact he stuck to his beliefs no matter how often they were ridiculed however Hitler did the same so it may not be much of a compliment.

I could say the same about any non-choicer here...including Taffy (who you expressed admiration for!). And note that Mike stood up strongly for views under his real name that are highly unpopular in RL. The non-choicers have the majority of the world on their side currently, including most of the mainstream liberals and progressives, and no one in Nazi Germany DARED speak out against Hitler, so that was a BAD comparison. Hence, I think that Mike does indeed deserve the admiration that you questioned his worthiness for.


I'm hardly afraid of confronting him as he can almost certainly still read this.

You don't fear confronting people, you fear speaking the exact truth as you see it.


If he reads this and wants to have it out on another board I'm more than happy to take it there provided it doesn't annoy or break the rules there.

I would love to see that, but I will be happy to have it out with you myself any time, and on any board.

"Stop talking to me as an ally, Invictus, because I do not consider you to remotely fit that appellation. You are not one of the many people here who have earned my respect."

I have no need or desire of your respect if it is conditional on agreeing with you on every issue or from refraining from telling my point of view.

No. It is conditional upon your honesty and integrity, qualities that I do not feel you have too much of.

Believe it or not I did once respect you

When you thought that perhaps I shared more of your views, or at least wouldn't fight so hard to defend the pro-choice stance, of course.

and to a degree still do

I find having respect from you on anything but a VERY grudging adversarial level to be utterly disturbing.

i just think that if we are to ever gain our freedom even if it is just to exist we can't dismiss people just because they don't agree with us or because their views don't coincide with our own.

We don't dismiss them as people. I respect their right to exist as they choose to live as much as myself or anyone else. But we have no choice but to oppose them as long as they stand against our right, and the rights of others, to live as we choose. There is a VERY good reason why you don't see genuine liberals of the Caucasian allying themselves with members of the Ku Klux Klan on the basis that they are all white. And note that the Klansmen often spout lines such as, "All white people face the same problems in this society, no matter what views they hold, so we should be united against the blacks, Jews, and communists who are out to subvert our rightful place in this world as the white race." Think about it, Invictus. Now you see why I am the one who finds it worrisome that you suggest we align ourselves with people who are against the rights of others on the mere basis that we share a general AttB.

. I'm fed up of the division and cliques that riddle these boards.

Ideological division is going to exist in this world, Invictus, and it exists with good reason. And I'm sick of the snakey "we are all united" behavior of the non-choicers, Invictus, because as I noted above, it sounds a lot like the Klansmen trying to woe all white people onto their side, and claiming that they are all fighting for the same goals, i.e., for the "benefit" of all white people.

It's so much easier not to do anything when everyone's your enemy, there's always an excuse "it's not my fault it's because of the antis/CAs/LEOs/YL/anti-YL/blah blah. In the end it comes down to a choice, do we want to spend our lives wasting time complaining about this and that or do we want to enact real change.

Um...how can we work to enact real change with those who are opposed to any substantive change, Invictus? Can you plz try to ask yourself that very difficult question one of these days?

In the nearly 3 years I've been here things haven't changed in the real world. sure there's new faces and old faces and some old faces with new names but what's actually been done whats actually changed?

Change takes time, and there has been some change that signals hope for the future...you just don't notice it very much if you live in the U.S. or the U.K. Other Western and First World Eastern nations are becoming more liberal, including Canada, the U.S.'s closest First World neighbor. So change is indeed becoming evident...and this OVER the course of those three years.

People drift in get the support they need and then drift off again, some stay in one capacity or another but most of the old-timers have a much more casual approach and maybe that's all GC is, a place to find acceptance when no-one else would listen and if so can we please leave the politics at the door or at least not take them so seriously and personally.

Um...Invictus, another reality check, and another request that you plz stop reading so selectively here. Did you not notice that support was provided for Newtlover, Moss Daddy, and Magus when they needed it, and very recently at that? Support has ALWAYS been provided here, even when heated political debates were simultaneously ensuing. Did you not also notice that I offered support to Magus on a few occasions recently, despite the fact that he is a major political adversary of mine? It's interesting what you miss here (perhaps deliberately?). It seems much of your actual objective is to get politics off of this board altogether. That is exactly what we need to do if we DON'T want real change to occur! Why do we take them so seriously? Because, believe it or not, many of us consider our civil rights and the democratic status of our nations to be a very important component of our lives! Why do we take them so personal? Because look at the state of things for both MAA's and the youths we love and it all becomes obvious why we take it so personal when our very happiness and security in this world are threatened by those who believe our rights aren't important! Those were no-brainer questions, Invictus.

. But if GC is about real change then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to deal with working with people you don't always agree with and compromise otherwise you're doing more harm than good in the end.

Do you think I'm unfamiliar with history and civil rights movements of the past, and how they were accomplished, Invictus? You seriously must. And I think the word "compromise" goes a long way towards explaining what you're seeking here. You know damn well that civil rights cannot be compromised, or agreeing to "some rights, but not others" in order to "keep the peace," because you know how vulnerable those rights are when they are incomplete, and how the less of them you have, the easier it is to strip away those lesser numbers. You know that's a deal that inevitably works on the side of the autocracy-lovers, so it's never a "true" compromise, but rather a victory for the latter in disguise, and both a pyrrhic victory and a Faustian bargain by the former. This was proven with the final result after the liberals repeatedly tried to "compromise" with the conservatives regarding how much rights people should have, when the gays tried to "compromise" with the hetero majority regarding how much rights they should be allowed to share with them in regards to marriage, etc., with the same being the case for a long time with the women's suffrage movement and the black civil rights movement when these two tried to make similar "compromises" in regards to how much rights they should share with men and whites, respectively. You seriously think we are all too stupid to know these lessons of history. You cannot compromise on the issue of civil rights, and you KNOW THAT, Invictus. That is why you are rushing to get us to do this very thing. The more you talk, the more your foot clogs your mouth, so just keep on talking.

Our enemies and our struggle is real and Tafkaps is on the recieving end as much as you or I. United we stand, divided we fall, it's that simple.

Taffy doesn't see himself as on the receiving end if he promises Super Culture that he will "behave." We stand united on the basis of ideology, not on the basis of skin color, gender, ethnic background...or AttB. This is something you do not want us to acknowledge.

If we DO NOT have our rights, Invictus, then we fall. And that is exactly how many people...nons and MAA's alike...want it. History has shown that repeatedly, and I'm not as eager as you or others to repeat those mistakes. And that is why I will not call such people allies simply because they share a similar "skin" to my own. The outer garment means little compared to the type of soul that lay within.

--Dissident