Getting Past 'Gross'

[Fragment]

This is a big part of the reason that I want to attach the MAP cause to fighting disinformation and pseudoscience. There isn't evidence for these beliefs, like child sex dolls will increase abuse. Objectivity is the solvent of anti-MAP prejudice. The general public need to be dragged kicking and screaming towards evidence-based policy. We're talking about restrictions on civil liberties justified on the basis of myths.

But when you're so busy "thinking of the children" who can "think of the science"?

There's definitely no empirical reason to ban child sex dolls. But there's not a moral reason, either.

As a post on fedi said yesterday

making x a crime solely because it increases someone's risk of committing y crime, even if x really does increase that risk, is absolutely nonsensical lol, it's literally a tactic to de facto decrease the presumption of innocence requirements of y

if the only reason x is illegal is increasing the risk of y, which is illegal, then x is just a proxy that the government uses to assume "well you surely also plan to do y at some point so we might as well convict you"

Even if child sex dolls increase the rate of offending with adult children, that's still not a reason to ban them. The sex dolls themselves don't cause harm. The offending against children should be tackled as its own issue.

Literally "that's gross". That's all they've got.

[PorcelainLark]

I think the issue is that morality tends to be treated as subjective (regardless of whether it actually is), which means a person can never be challenged on their views if they don't like it.
With science, the stakes are higher because you can be right or wrong in a way that most educated people can understand and agree on (because of it's transparency).