Transparency about who is a moderator

[PorcelainLark]

Ok, I'll try to address your points one by one. But before then, I would like to know where you stand on AMSC, and where you lean politically generally, since it'll help me whenever I discuss something with you in the future. Providing a link to one of your past posts will suffice. So, here are my answers.

I don't think AMSC is intrinsically wrong, however the power dynamics cause me some concern; I don't think every sexual relationship between a person with more power and a person with less power is necessarily immoral, however it complicates those relationships. The question for me is how to distinguish between ones which are ethically permissible from ones that aren't.
I've been all over the political spectrum before, for a time a libertarian, for a time a Marxist. Now I'm a unironically a centrist and prefer evidence based policies. I'm also not keen on people that throw around terms like "patriarchy" and "white supremacy", but I'm not a fan of Trump or populism either. Basically I disagree with everyone.

1) You did try to paint sex as exceptional in that discussion, hence me bringing up sexceptionalism. My point wasn't to make you pick a side though. I guess it was too charged, so I'll refrain in the future.

OK. I think using the term "sexceptionalism" is underhanded. Labeling something an "ism" is a way of avoiding taking it seriously, in my opinion.

3) Well, I already said that it was a poor example. But to address your point here, if you have no choice on what or how you're taught (and we are talking about more than just basic literacy or arithmetic here), it can hardly be called "autonomy", even if it may be conducive to it. Autonomy by itself necessitates choice. But then again, I myself am not a bodily autonomy absolutist, and one of the core leftist arguments against sexual rights for youths is how age gap relationships have power imbalances, and thus are imposition against the youth's autonomy, hence the age of consent is actually about respecting young people's autonomy, I don't see appeal to that concept except when pointing to antis' hypocrisy and double talk on it. One can twist any concept to their benefit, after all, and for MAPs to be freed alongside AAMs, a stronger case will be needed.

So would abolitionists be opposing the autonomy of slaves, by introducing a framework external to them? My moral framework is heavily influenced by German idealism (particularly Kant and Hegel), so admittedly I think about autonomy in a way that's different from how people use the concept in everyday language.

4) Applying logic to situations generally yields better results. If the public thinks someone is a jerk for saying facts don't care about your feelings, then they might be trying to argue against facts with feelings and that's why they said it. But I understand your point on how pathos is as needed as the logos, for the masses themselves aren't logical very often, so engaging with their emotions is important. I just don't think that antis emotions should be validated, which in my experience is what happens in the political arena when a side tries to engage with their opponents too much, lest they get bad optics, which is a big no-no for any political movement. So that's why I'm skittish when it comes to people emphasising pathos above logos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that our differences here lies in me viewing it in terms of tactics and how it may benefit MAPs or not, while you take emotions in general seriously.

Rhetoric isn't the topic I have in mind. It's the somatic marker hypothesis. I think emotions aren't just errors that get in the way of thinking clearly, I think understanding your emotions is the key to thinking more clearly, and that frameworks that try to downplay emotions are, ironically, irrational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis