...you didn't simply change your heart on one issue. It was the BIGGEST issue of them all. You got upset and pissed off at us because one of us was uncordial to you and most others stayed neutral, and then you turn around and change your heart on the most important issue affecting us as MAA's. Nice of you to punish the entire community like that. The non-choicers don't need your help, Todd...they have the support of virtually the entire general public. We non-choicers and youth liberationists are the ones with our backs to the wall, and who REALLY need you.

No, what I got pissed off about was the fact that I have often come to the defense of those being verbally abused or insulted at this board, and yet I have rarely received the same from others. JD's treatment of me and the reaction of the board made me realize that the immaturity and treacherousess of many of the people at GC (and beyond) indicates legalization of adult-child sex will never work. Despite what you and Olives think, I am not punishing the board for anything. As Olives pointed out, I've been having doubts for awhile, and this was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Olives is mischaracterizing the convo we had in chat. I was not attempting to get him or anyone else to "take my side"--I was attempting to get people to acknowledge that I had been insulted and verbally abused, which Olives finally did, in fact. The point was not to win people over or any of the crap that jd was saying--it was to get people to confront jd on his bs, which has gone unchecked for far too long. His crap would never float at most other forums.

One of the problems at this forum is that no one wants to take a stand when someone else is clearly being abusive. This is a bad sign for the community and for CLers in general, and it's ultimately what got me thinking about the problems with legalizing adult-child sexual relations. It is incredibly unfair for you and Olives to make out like this is some kind of petty revenge against jd. That is NOT the case. My change of position is only tangentially connected to jd--the incident was a catalyst, not the cause of my no longer advocating the legalization of adult-child sex.

I also disagree that the non-choicers don't need our help. They DO need our help in understanding where we're coming from. They need our help in fighting child rape and incestuous abuse.

Do I think we have common ground with these antis? No, Todd, we DON'T. These antis say they are out to stop the rape of children, a goal we all share, yet they are determined to define ALL mutually consensual activity between adults and people under 18 as "rape." They defend the continuation of laws that make the media depict us as monsters and the police to constantly harass us, to actually threaten us with the death penalty if we dare to have an illegal relationship, etc. Yet you suggest we have common ground?

We DO have common ground. If you'd open your eyes you'd see that. We both love children and want to do what we think is best for them--it's just that there is a diference of opinion on what we believe that is.

You underestimate these non-peds as well. I have communicated one-on-one with some of them and find that, when you get past their surface and give them your respect, treat them as the rational and compassionate INDIVIDUALS they are instead of stereotyping them as a group (something we tend to accuse THEM of doing) they are often able to understand where you're coming from and can see US as we really are. The fact that they are offering us a chance to discuss these issues rationally, without tolerating insults or flaming from anyone, should clue you in that they HAVE come to realize we aren't all child rapists and molesters.

The problem with many of the people on this board is that they simply refuse to take any approach but their hardline, no-compromises approach, the very thing you claim to despise in the antis. You accomplish exactly zero with that approach.

But the real issue is that almost all of you deny the existence of ANY negatives to your arguments. This is the first sign that there are problems with the argument, for not even the best arguments are impenetrable, but one gets the impression that many of you believe it is. That equates to a high degree of self-delusion, and that is EXACTLY where the argument breaks down, because I cannot in good conscience advocate what you propose when the people who support it the most refuse to even look at the glaring problems with their position.

Todd, I can't pretend to know what is going on in these antis' heads, but I can't help worrying that at least SOME of them have the goal of getting as much personal info on us as they can for who knows what reason. They have lied and done dishonest things prodigeously in their past dealings with us, and I can't imagine that they are all sincerely extending an olive branch to this community. I think some of them would be pleased to lie to us further in order to "stamp us out" as a menace to the status quo.

No one is asking you to give out personal info. If they do, I'll be the first to call them on it. Yes, some of them have been dishonest, but so have many peds. Perhaps they might have the ultimate goal of deceiving you in order to "stamp you out" but I honestly do not get that impression from any of them. If that was the case, they would've done so to me long ago, as I have been out for ages and have had extensive contact with LILO, Payned and Magz via their respective boards BEFORE I ever changed my position. I really think you and the others are being far too paranoid, but I've thought so for a long time, as you know--my change of heart on this issue hasn't changed my opinion that there is a far higher degree of paranoia in this community than is warranted. Nevertheless, you're all adults and smart enough to know not to give out personal info, I think.

My goal is to create a society where youth is emancipated and sexuality is treated as a positive and empowering aspect of life, not something terrible that will ruin lives if put into practice. Do these anti's suppose youth liberation? No, they support the CONTINUED oppression of youths as pre-citizens, thus forcing them into the same type of situation in which the majority of actual sexual abuse occurs. Is this part of our anti-rape agenda? If so, it doesn't sound like much of an agenda to me.

These are precisely the issues that need to be discussed at that board. You make too many assumptions before you've even given it half a chance.

And now that you have decided that you're among the antis, Todd, I will NOT trust you as a friend or with any of my personal information. What is the NEXT thing you're going to do when someone from the pro-choice side pisses you off, Todd? Join forces with John Walsh and become a CA?

This is what I'm talking about--labeling. I have not decided I am "among the antis." I am an individual with my own p.o.v., as is everyone. In some ways I agree with them; in some ways I don't. Pardon me for saying so, but you sound just like George W. Bush with his "You're either with us or againat us" spiel. Stop looking at the world in such stark black & white terms; people are complex and varied.

Also, I don't believe you've ever trusted me anyway. You've even told me so several times in chat. I recall you spent months in chat not even replying to me after I said something you didn't like, and to this day you never say hi or bye to me in chat, nor much at all really. So your lack of trust simply doesn't mean much to me any more.