long version:
>"???"
'hey kids, watch me pretend that i don't know who lowtax is!'
i've already seen enough red flags right at the bottom of your homepage:
"The Brick Testament | Church of the FSM | Cult Education Institute | Feministing | Friendly Atheist | Metabunk | Rational Wiki | Religious Tolerance.org | Right Wing Watch | Skeptic's Annotated Bible | Snopes | Southern Poverty Law Center | Talk Origins | ThinkProgress | US Humane Society | We Hunted the Mammoth | Wonkette"
need i remind you of the history of somethingawful and /r/shitredditsays? you sound awfully like those feminist goons with so much snark.
>"Says the one is desperately (and incompetently) trying to portray himself as a revolutionary freethinker."
again you've resorted to ridicule without any basis. i'm merely parroting the thoughts of revolutionaries. i just know what to expect from you and i come back to have a laugh and test my judgement. even though i might hate it, i know that being wrong can be valuable if i can improve myself and the models which i use to evaluate my perception of the world.
after posting in this thread for the first time, i was met with discussion in addition to ridicule. i responded to said discussion and then your 'side' started acting differently. i know that you and your ilk wish to ridicule someone and i happen to be the target but why do you need to justify it? from the off you could've shitposted. instead, you try to act as if you have a political motive and then hide behind insults and an implied moral high ground when your political stance is challenged. 'i am wise, respected, snarky and mentally stable. you are not. i cannot be wrong.' the irony of your accusation is what makes me come back for more comedy. you're not seriously invested in your preferred political movement despite using it as a shield to justify your actions. hallmark of a coward! in fact, your condescending tone is a sign of YOUR arrogance.
>"No, I am using that term* more generally to denote arrogant arseholes who fancy themselves iconoclasts toppling the outdated notions of morality blahblahblah. You, for examole. *The misspelling is deliberate, by the way,"
then you could've said that instead of being cowardly as i have already pointed out. you also imply that it's 'wrong' to do what you describe here: to be arrogant (which you're actually projecting onto me here); to be an iconoclast; to 'topple outdated notions of morality'. 'it makes you look like an assblasted dork whose balls didn't drop.' and have you shown to me that you are any better here? i would love to learn from you if you are as wise as you imply you are here!
>"I did not. There is no point in debating a pseudointellectual psychopath."
as an individual, you didn't. your brothers in arms did.
>"If sex is "merely extensive genital contact, particularly in the pelvic regions", why not restrict this contact to consenting adults? Or, if it has nothing to do with feelings or brain-activity at all, why not do it with a flesh-light or a real-doll?
We normal, sane humans see sex as interaction with other humans, caresses of the whole body, laughter, excitement, relaxation. There are many emotions involved, at least in us that have emotions, and children are not really able to cope.
I believe in human rights. Including the bodily autonomy of children, and protection from manipulative adults."
>""...normal human rights are things to be disregarded."
...until you require the force of law to secure your own rights against predation by sociopaths; then they matter."
if you try to distance yourself from the actions of your peers who are indeed PART OF THE SAME MOVEMENT AS YOU then you admit that you're not serious. you don't even have to agree with everything that they might say here; you need only develop and defend a generally-shared position to be invested in that movement. here you have failed to do that. that's not a series of unconditional and absolute moral statements but practical assessments. i'm even trying to help you to achieve your goals unless i really don't know what you want.
if you do wish to put me in my place then perhaps you should intellectually overpower me. buzzwords and weird twitterisms won't do it. if you're partial to turning this into a political statement then you'll need a cult and a media engine. wait, hang on...
==================================================
tl;dr version:
i'll say it again: if you're anti-fundamentalists then why do you assert that paedophilia is ahistorically immoral and harmful?
>"???"
>t. progressive liberal who speaks like a goon
>"Says the one is desperately (and incompetently) trying to portray himself as a revolutionary freethinker."
t. condescending retard
>"No, I am using that term* more generally to denote arrogant arseholes who fancy themselves iconoclasts toppling the outdated notions of morality blahblahblah. You, for examole. *The misspelling is deliberate, by the way,"
>implying that's wrong
>"I did not. There is no point in debating a pseudointellectual psychopath."
>i'm not going to defend my position despite others trying to do so fuck them lol
>umm what do i do now i know YOU'RE [insert buzzword here]
i'll ask again: if you're anti-fundamentalists then why do you assert that paedophilia - let alone anything - is ahistorically immoral and harmful? justify it to me.