Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


I want to compile pro-contact arguments.

Posted by Apertado on 2017-July-20 20:06:42, Thursday

I was browsing the Internet today, looking at things like Youtube, Minds, Google+ and I noticed that there are people sympathising with us. I found it rather great.-w- I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but I am optimistic. Then again, I'm optimistic ever since I beaten depression at age 15.

Mso! But I also noticed that it's hard to muster argumentation against people because, when they reply, you clearly see they didn't read what you just typed. Our argumentation is far too huge and bloated and boring, not to mention enraging for the masses.

At university, I had a course on political philosophy, where we studied "O Fechamento do Universo da Locução" (something like "the closing of the speech universe"), by Herbert Marcuse. He analyzes in that text how media controls people by shoving down their throat a kind of argumentation that is short and dry. If you sum everything in few sentences, each of them self-contained, it's not only easier to read, but hard to forget and hard to refute. A long text can be easier refuted, because a bigger body of text always has an imperfection here and there. But small sentences are harder to disprove. Plus, another thing that the text says is to attach usually opposing terms in a single sentence as something harmonical, in order to promote desentization. For example: "adult-child sex" is enraging. Because the idea people have of sex is penetration. But I don't think 1/3 of us even fantasize about such a thing. That term, "adult-child sex", works against us, it creates in the listener an idea that we don't mean to convey. But "intimacy" has a softer meaning. People feel comfortable with hearing that term, it make us think of things that are softer than sex and that are often chaste. The use of that term, instead of "sex" would promote desentization, would say Marcuse. Examples he actually cite are "clean bomb", "comfortable war shelter" and others that make the horrors of war sound much more bearable.

What I want is to compile pro-contact arguments on pertinent things that people often come crashing upon, such as consent, benefits of intimacy, absence of harm, and then try to make the argumentation as short and simple as possible. Enough to allow it to be copied and pasted by several people. I don't think it's really needed, but would sure make argumentation much easier. You would see the opposing argument, then open a file with all arguments compiled and shortened, copy, then paste it with a reference link and hit "send". The opposing effort to argue would be much bigger than our effort to argue back.

I have some experience with Internet trolls too and many haters are hardly trolls, but just dumb people. So I wanted to make some guidelines on how to deal with them without breaking terms of service and codes of conduct. So, yeah. Depending on what you guys think, I'll start that "argumentation manual" tomorrow.-w-

If the idea sounds silly, forgive me; I'm a newbie with aspirations.;w;

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Don't annoy the cogs.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.