Fragment speaks with Gone Fishinq

[Fragment]

Another discussion with an anti. This guy has previously done a kind of hit piece on zoophilia so I wasn't expecting much, but it went better than I thought.
https://fstube.net/w/4Tz6VjekVaDVJcMib4Xqw7

Let's see what's edited into the final version. I don't think there was any material that wasn't already out in the public, though.

We both started to repeat ourselves by the end, so it's about 30 minutes too long. But I hope everyone feels I did a better job this time.

[Lennon72]

Well, I can most certainly say this. It was interesting.

[Bookshelf]

What I loved about this was how he researched Piaget on the spot, then after not even a minute, acted like he was an expert. "It seems you have misinterpreted this..." after having never heard of the guy until then, reading what couldn't be anymore than a line or two.

Besides, the fact that he hadn't heard of Piaget up until that conversation shows how little research he's actually done on the topic — Piaget is one of the most surface early sources in child development. If someone's going to talk about development, the name Piaget should at least be familiar.

[Fragment]

He was so under-prepared in a general sense to talk to someone that spent almost every day for 6 months reading and internalizing this stuff.

The zoo community might've been a little cuter when it came to research - "National Geographic kids says dogs can solve puzzles so therefore fucking them is okay". But my position has at least 2-3 research papers I can rely on for each and every claim I make starting from the beginning all the way through to the conclusion.

And all it would take for my to change my mind significantly is one paper showing negative outcomes as a result of willing encounters. A paper that for all my searching and asking anti-cs does not exist.

[PorcelainLark]

Regarding child labor laws and "knowing better," better than what? Historically speaking, children would work at what they were doing for the rest of their life. The idea that children should have nearly 20 years of their life where they are contributing nothing directly to the economy, is an exceptional circumstance, a luxury. While I agree that children should be given the opportunity for class mobility, and that industrialization made things dangerous for child laborers, I genuinely don't think there's anything wrong with children working - how else do you learn practical skills? There isn't always going to be someone older than them who knows better.

Regarding lolicon, if using it is wrong, what's his remedy to using it? Therapy to stop being a pedophile? Doesn't work. Chemical castration? How is that proportional? I think he wants to say it's intrinsically wrong because getting off to children is wrong. However, if it really was as disruptive to society as a sexual relationship with a child, how come it's so common place? Stealing, murdering, and raping all have immediate harm, so it's understandable why you would suppress those things, and what a remedy for those behaviors look like.
It's convenient for him to think that majority of people who fantasize about minors are fantasizing about violent or coercive relationships. His claim is unfalsifiable.
Also he's misusing the word "normative." Normative means prescriptive not average; when you say "you shouldn't steal," you're making a normative statement, when you say "my perspective aligns with the majority" that isn't what normative means.

God, why can't he just bite the bullet and say he's concerned with child safety? Does he think letting a minor get a tattoo is liberation or irresponsibility? It's like someone who is pro-life trying to say they are also pro-choice, because they don't like the sound of being against choices.

He's really dense about the point about the justice system. The point isn't that minors shouldn't put MAPs through the justice system because it's bad for MAPs; the point is to give minors options to get away from MAPs without having to start a legal process. If people in positions of authority have to mandatorily report all of these claims it puts a minor in a position where they potentially feel guilty for reporting a MAP. If a minor feels ambivalent about a MAP, it will therefore prolong the time where the MAP will be making them uncomfortable or abusing them. It's like saying you aren't allowed to stop someone from stealing something unless you shoot them, it will lead to more theft because even if you don't want someone to take your property your only recourse is so extreme you'll hesitate from doing it. The point is about the well-being of a particular victim; in contrast, if an adult experiences sexual harassment they can choose whether or not to take it to court.
Also it's a myth that punishment works as a deterrent.
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2 ... eter-crime
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... duce-crime
Unless the point of punishment is retribution, it's irrational.

Amazing how smug he is about not understand what anecdotes are. If someone says juggling lemons cured their epilepsy, that's anecdotal evidence. Data isn't the plural of anecdote.

"Do you think that the majority of women are comfortable having sex with them?"
"It depends on whether it's rape or not"
"That's not a yes or no answer"
What a meaningless question.

"Gravity isn't real." You can't prove a negative. "Prove that there was never a teapot floating in space." That's what burden of proof means, those making positive claims like "adult-minor sexual contact always causes trauma" have the burden of proof, not the people questioning that claim. By showing positive experiences exist, we're already doing more than is logically required for our claims.

It's great the way he just ignores the point about his definition of CSA being circular. The WHOLE POINT is that willing and forced are being treated as the same, that's the foundation, everything else is irrelevant. It's not a qualifier, ffs. I'll concede everything else except that, because that IS the essence, the whole point of MAPtivism. It's not a tangent, it's not besides the point, it's not whataboutism.
And this IS the point of data, regardless of how anyone feels, claims can be shown to be false; if there isn't an independent measure by which you can judge something, then there genuinely isn't any point in arguing about it.

Every claim, theory, investigation is a self-made barrier because nobody changes their mind about anything under any circumstance.

More idiocy about treating trauma as a moral category instead of a psychological one. Perpetrator trauma is real. If you think trauma is bad, you should oppose it as a whole instead of only selectively. Even if you don't, trauma doesn't discriminate between those that "deserve it" and those that don't; trauma is trauma is trauma.

You did good Fragment, but that interviewer was insufferable. I haven't been this annoyed since listening to Candace Owens argue. Self-righteousness and thought-terminating cliches abound. I guess if he's built his identity around being a predator hunter, he has at least as much invested in never admitting he could be wrong as any of us might do.

[FairBlueLove]

Data isn't the plural of anecdote.

[Fragment]

I think my biggest regret in both debates is that I went into logic-bot mode. I didn’t open up about my emotional connection to the boys. I didn’t talk about my feelings of love, care, or tenderness. I didn’t convey that I would’ve taken a bullet for them, or done anything to protect them.

And in failing to do that, I let them be reduced to abstract symbols—no longer the people I knew, but generic "victims" interchangeable with any other.

D wasn’t the boy I stayed up late with on school camp, laughing and joking.
K wasn’t the boy who’d light up and walk over the moment I entered the classroom after school, just to talk.

By speaking in generalities, I lost them. And in their place stood a homunculus—a puppet with a voice that wasn’t theirs, telling a story that wasn’t ours. That voice cried out in pain, and it wasn’t challenged, because no one else knew the real boys. Only I did.

I let others dictate who they were.
And by letting that happen, I became the predator in their story.

[FairBlueLove]

You did good Fragment, but that interviewer was insufferable.

I have momentarily stopped listening at around 1h05m. This was the top "insufferable" point for me:

“Ideally, that just would have fucking never happened”

He doesn't get it, does he? Look: Ideally, this should not have been a problem at all.

"[...] because *clearly* even under your framework which I believe is *obviously pretty deeply* flawed because minors cannot understand [...]"

Come on dude...


"...little 13-year-old boys"

"little?" <- Legendary Fragment!

[PorcelainLark]

You did good Fragment, but that interviewer was insufferable.

I have momentarily stopped listening at around 1h05m. This was the top "insufferable" point for me:

“Ideally, that just would have fucking never happened”

He doesn't get it, does he? Look: Ideally, this should not have been a problem at all.

"[...] because *clearly* even under your framework which I believe is *obviously pretty deeply* flawed because minors cannot understand [...]"

Come on dude...


"...little 13-year-old boys"

"little?" <- Legendary Fragment!

At least mrgirl is capable of counterfactual reasoning. This guy seems unable to even imagine what it would be like if what he believed wasn't the case. If I say "imagine the sun revolves around the earth, what would that be like?" you don't say "but the sun doesn't revolve around the earth" unless you are dense, willfully or otherwise. For a hypothetical, whether you think it's in contradiction with reality or possible doesn't matter. I guess he's too scared of being seen a pedophile-sympathetic to bite the bullet on hypotheticals like that, even though anyone who isn't completely stupid knows that accepting the logical consistency of hypotheticals doesn't mean agreeing they reflect reality. If you're not going to engage with hypotheticals and you're not going to test claims against empirical evidence, what's the point of talking to MAPs, other than just producing a spectacle?

[InfinityChild]

Ironically Gone Fishing's greatest argument for his side was his "youthful inexperience" in making his arguments, I ended up feeling sympathy towards him because of him not having that much in the way of depth of knowledge. We all (including me) need to work on our critical thinking and should be taught it more in school.