PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 9:45 pm
Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:54 pm
I'm sorry if the way I expressed myself upset you, PorcelainLark. That wasn’t my intention at all—I was hoping you’d take it as constructive criticism. I feel frustrated that rather than working together to improve our conversation dynamic, you’d rather block me after just a few disagreements.
I genuinely believe that we can learn from each other, even when we don’t see eye to eye. I’d prefer to keep our discussions open and respectful, so we can both benefit from the exchange. If there’s something specific that I said which bothered you, I’m open to hearing it out and making sure future discussions are more positive.
OK, I'll try, but I still think I'm going to feel a lot more guarded about what I write after that debate in the consent thread. Unfortunately, I think the subjects might be too high stake to be discussed positively, but we can at least try to approach them with empathy.
Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 10:30 am
...
I disagree about negative feelings and the law, people jaywalk, speed, take drugs, and while still being gravely serious about the sexual mores of a society. For comparison, how many pop culture references can you think of that refer to making use of drugs compared to references to performing sexual assault? Certain laws are more socially acceptable to break than others, which reflects a difference in emotional reactions.
Yes, and you're part of the problem by holding onto sexceptionalist mores. There's no reason as to why sex should be held onto a special place in a society that doesn't value female virginity for marital purposes. Many of the negative feelings people have about sex is due to over-socialisation leading them to be scared of sex and other activities deemed "risky". there are many crimes which cause trauma, and yet sexual assault (defined by the use of force, rather than illicit age gap) is only given more importance since females are more affected by it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... _domestic/
The idea is that education contributes to the autonomy of the child in the long-run, child marriage isn't setting a child up to be free whereas being forced to learn to read is. I would say as long as the child is genuinely willing/there's no external pressure (e.g. it isn't a veiled form of prostitution), there's no need for it to have any long term benefit to the child; to a certain limited degree it could be compared to another physical activity like sports, in order to use up a child's energy.
I didn't talk about education though, I talked about compulsory schooling i.e., forcing children to go school even if there's no clear benefit for them beyond some assumptions. I'm not sure why would you bring "autonomy" here, since no one thinks compulsory is about "autonomy" or "freedom", and by the way you already disregarded it the moment you decided that coercion is good for them if it'll benefit them in the long run. It should also be noted that one of the ways minors used to be emancipated was via adult-youth marriage, so your point is erroneous. adult-youth marriage is a choice after all, whether the minor girl does it, or her parents on her behalf. In fact, that's the whole discussion is ultimately about: Not boys, for which people aren't possessive of, but girls. Marriage is a far better way to sanction girl-love than having a convoluted and ever-changing definition of what constitutes "consent" regulating heterosexual relationships, particularly those with an age gap.
I don't say avoiding regrets is the ultimate goal, just that certain intense regrets should be avoided where possible.
Then it should be up to the individual how to deal with it. How one feels about something, or regret about it, is subjective and can't be quantified, so should universal bans be implemented to avoid regrets? I think not, and I think secularisation is partly to blame for government intervention into the private affairs of people in ways even more intrusive than past societies and cultures.
These were some of the points at which you rubbed me the wrong way.
1. Calling me part of the problem for holding onto "sexceptionalist mores". Personally, I still feel quite ambivalent about sex, and this feels like trying to force me to pick a side. That feels wrong to me.
2. The separation between education and schools. I know first hand I would never have learnt to read if it wasn't for mandatory schooling. In any case, it's quibbling about a difference which wouldn't change the underlying point I was trying to make. It's quite common for people to use the words "schooling" and "education" interchangeably. Anyway if I had used expression "compulsory education", that whole discussion wouldn't have happened.
3. The "lump" view of autonomy. If you think compulsory education is a violation of autonomy, comparable to indentured servitude for example, or that education is just another good like any other (e.g. food, shelter), I take issue with that.
4. Not taking how people feel seriously. Despite my concern with the law, I'm not Spock. I think emotions should be taken seriously, and there's this glib attitude that has spread (epitomized by Ben Shapiro's expression "Facts don't care about about your feelings"), which I think is wrong at the core. Sure emotions are easily manipulated, however there's a limit to how much you can play with people's emotions without being destructive to society. Just because PTSD is subjective and isn't quantifiable, that doesn't mean it's something you should just ignore.
There are other issues I take too. Like I think you often bring up Eurocentrism when it isn't really appropriate, for example when I was talking about Piaget.
I'll leave it at that.
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.
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.
2) Education is the transmission of knowledge, skills, and character traits and manifests in various forms, and schools aren't necessarily needed for that. Education was possible before the system of compulsory mass schooling become formalised in the 19th century. So yes, seperating schooling and education is pertinent for my point, but I acknowledge it as a poor example to counter your point, but I might provide a better one if you wish to continue it here. Moving on...
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.
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.
As for your last point, it seems more like a disagreeable personal nitpick, but meh, it's whatever.
Well, that's all for today. Feel free to disagree if you wish.