Tit-for-tat and willy-nilly can bleed into each other somewhat, especially if people aren’t privy to the ‘tat’ part of your line of reasoning. Endless correction is obviously no good if it isn’t backed up by something, but at the same time it’s no good if by forcing the truth down somebody’s throat you induce a gag reflex (as an aside, it’s certainly debatable whether ‘you’re lying, so I’ll lie too’ constitutes the truth or not, especially as ‘rapists’ have the annoying plausible deniability of never being exposed to much of our side of the argument). You know you’re on to something and you’re running with it, which is good; but remember you took issue with me for being too crude to effectively get my point across in my postings when arguing that there’s nothing wrong with eating meat.

My biggest worry about this CAT wheeze is reflected in what Asterix posted: namely that they apparently accept there is a pressing danger to children in the form of adults who want to sexually abuse them, and that extraordinary measures have to be taken to make children ‘safe’ (as if they aren’t already—I must have missed the meeting where the figures were handed out showing the world has become more dangerous for children). Hysteria over child-sex is one of Western society’s current pet neuroses, and I don’t like the idea of doing anything that would contribute to it. I’m not averse to aligning myself with non-pervs, but I’m not going to go running to the first group that offers if there intent is to perpetuate the current hysterical attitude that children today face grave threats wherever they turn. There are plenty of ‘nons’ who don’t buy into that, so I think we should be discriminating about with whom we work.