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.
