MAPs hurting MAPs (a thought bubble)

[Brain O'Conner]

I'm not opposed to changing the laws.

I'm not trying to strawman you, but I'm finding your position so hard to wrap my head around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think it is positive to call MAPs who break the law monsters, even though what they do is only "monstrous" due to the law existing in the first place?

And you think that kind of narrative helps push forward MAP rights how?

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing for illegalism (actually a non-MAP friend recently did, but that's a different topic). It's almost universally held that obeying current laws is the sensible, and likely more ethical thing to do. But "you're not doing anything innately bad, but because it's illegal you're a monster" seems such a confusing take to me. If the action itself is ethical, then breaking a law against that action definitely isn't praiseworthy but it doesn't suddenly change the nature of the act to its polar opposite.

What I'm opposed to are actions taken by pedophiles without regard for the law, I thought I made that clear.

Yet this topic was originally about how framing those actions informs perceptions of people who don't act. Rejecting the narrative of offenders as sadists.

Judging by this dudes behavior and the stuff that he says, I honestly think he may be a troll/anti posing as a MAP to try to convince actual MAPs to change their minds or something. People are allowed to have differing opinions, but there are red flags that I sense.

[Fragment]

Judging by this dudes behavior and the stuff that he says, I honestly think he may be a troll/anti posing as a MAP to try to convince actual MAPs to change their minds or something. People are allowed to have differing opinions, but there are red flags that I sense.

Possibly, but I'm willing to do my best to give people the benefit of the doubt and trust that MAPs can have a wide range of opinions.

I did notice that stropa registered without posting an introduction and has only been involved in strong criticism of pro-c positions so far, without engaging with any other topics. But it's not for me to second guess motives.

[Brain O'Conner]

I disagree. We can phrase it this way to see the issue:

"If a young girl is with an adult friend and she wants to skip school to be with her adult friend, and her adult friend lets her skip school for 2 weeks, and she comes back to school and fails her classes and gets suspended, then that does not make the adult the monster, that's society"

Of course, in that example I dont think the adult is a monster, but the blame still falls on him for the outcome. Adults have the responsibility of weighing the consequences that children otherwise can't. Adults can see the bigger picture. Just because something is consensual and feels good in the moment does not make it moral or ethical.

What a apples and oranges comparison. First of all, if that girl decided to skip school to be with her adult friend, then that is on her. She knew how much trouble she would get in and did it anyway. Kids aren't stupid as you make them out to be. What a fucking moron.

It really isn't. And no, I won't take the focus away from the adult because he's the one the kid looks toward for guidance and he's the one who knows right from wrong better than the kid. Discussions about the problems with society and its laws and morals can happen separately.

It really is though. And no, you should not take the focus away from the real perpetrators (society) who causes the real harm to mutual interactions/relationships between children and adults.

I don't care. It makes no difference to my point. I don't care if you have romantic feelings about the kid or not. You can have romantic feelings about a person and still make morally awful choices. Watch the movie Passengers.

Again, an apple to oranges fucking comparison. I've watched the movie Passengers and that is completely different scenario where that man forced her out of her own sleep because he was lonely. What you said makes no difference to my point.

Terrible argument. I'll explain later.

An excellent argument. I'll explain later.

When children enter those dirt bike tournaments, they are doing it under the guidance, care, training, and consent of an adult. They aren't even able to sign up without an adult. So clearly the adults are the ones who are considering the potential negative consequences and the mitigations to those consequences (like teaching their kid how to ride properly, saftey gear, skill level, age, etc). The child's not responsible for doing any of that. If the parent/guardian determines that their child is properly prepared for riding a dirt bike in a tournament then they sign them up, otherwise they don't. In addition, if anything bad does happen, it remains the adult's responsibility. You're making it sound like the ethics of bike tournaments all hedge on a 6 year old's understanding of the consequences. That is laughable.

What a mute fucking point dude. It literally does not disprove my point at all. Of course kids need to be taught how to ride a dirt bike and understand that they need to wear protective gear, so they won't get hurt or die. Foreknowledge is gain by having prior experiences where you were either taught something and/or did something, which applies to all ages dim wit. My whole point is that everything is rooted in environment and experiences where kids can easily understand the high risks of something and apply that knowledge (foreknowledge) from the very thing they were taught. No one what is a fucking predictive machine where they know every possible outcome, you need to be taught first from whatever medium that may be.

It has nothing to do with complexity, it has to do with a sober and rational consideration of the risks and consequences and a cultivation of an environment that mitigates those consequences as much as possible - which is what we entrust adults to do on behalf of their children.

Another mute point. Go read the previous reply I made on your prior statement on dirt bike tournaments. And if it doesn't have anything to do with complexity where a child can understand those risks when being taught by an adult but to call someone a monster over something that they can easily understand that is less complex such as sexual activity, then you're a fucking hypocrite.

On the contrary, when you say "the negative consequences of sex are not much of a concern because the child is capable of understanding those consequences and can easily avoid them" you are taking away the responsibility from the adult and putting it on the child. Now the onus is suddenly on them to weigh the pros and cons of their behavior instead of an adult. No where else in society do we weigh the ethics of a decision based solely on the knowledge of a child. So these are not the same arguments.

The responsibility should absolutely fall onto the child who understood the potential consequences of sexual activity. I don't know what fucking point you're trying to make here. If you're just trying to go with what society/the government deems who is competent, then that is a flaw on it's own that I don't feel like getting into.

If you want a consistent argument then either admit you want adults to control and be responsible for the sex lives of children, or admit you want children to be treated like adults in all aspects of society, including blaming 8 year old's for their irresponsible decison-making when they ultimately get pregnant or an STD.

No adult should control and be completely responsible for the sex lives of children. Everyone should be treated in situations like that based on the knowledge of the person, not the age moron. If a child knew that she would get potentially pregnant or catch stds, then the responsibility is theoretically on her.

[PorcelainLark]

I think the issue is that a lot people have been so whipped up into a hysteria, they've lost their grip on reality.

As I've said to another MAP before, people are more comfortable imagining a nuclear holocaust than an adult getting a handjob from an 8 year old. Any sane person would have to admit a nuclear holocaust is more horrifying.

Yes, AMSC is highly illegal, but that doesn't mean it's as big of a deal as it's made out to be. Maybe a good comparison would be smoking weed in Japan, i.e. dangerous but only because it's made to be dangerous.

I think anti-contact MAPs need to recognize there are times when the general public lacks perspective, so you don't have to agree with everything they say about MAPs or about AMSC. I understand the combination of fear and guilt makes it hard to think about though.

[terminally_unique]

I think the issue is that a lot people have been so whipped up into a hysteria, they've lost their grip on reality.

As I've said to another MAP before, people are more comfortable imagining a nuclear holocaust than an adult getting a handjob from an 8 year old. Any sane person would have to admit a nuclear holocaust is more horrifying.

Yes, AMSC is highly illegal, but that doesn't mean it's as big of a deal as it's made out to be. Maybe a good comparison would be smoking weed in Japan, i.e. dangerous but only because it's made to be dangerous.

I think anti-contact MAPs need to recognize there are times when the general public lacks perspective, so you don't have to agree with everything they say about MAPs or about AMSC. I understand the combination of fear and guilt makes it hard to think about though.

Some MAPS fail to recognize that the general public, excluding a handful of therapists and allies, don’t understand the nuances of contact. They judge us solely based on our attractions, which they find disgusting, not the harm our actions may or may not pose.