MAP Forum

I'm not talking about breaking relevant laws, but about general interactions with the wider community.

Do MAPs have any obligation to care about others?

We are so horribly treated by society, there's an argument we are justified in being completely amoral.

My argument is that we have no special obligations to be moral, but should avoid amorality like stealing to avoid personal trouble for ourselves.

I highly doubt it. You can be moral but also not follow unjust laws.

No more or less than anyone else.

I'm not in a position to scold anyone for their lack of compassion but I can outline a reasonable ideal that justifies being as critical of me as it does of others. When one says that everyone deserves happiness and acts in accordance with that principle they are rebelling against the standard that justifies mistreating MAPS on the basis of their attraction (or anyone for any reason), they are publicly rejecting the ethics of discrimination against/mistreatment of pedophiles (or, again, anyone else for any reason). That seems to be the smartest vengeance since it outlines an actual critique you have of the people you perceive as unjust or immoral because whether you act out through violence or aggression or not you are probably existentially attached to the idea that it's wrong to unfairly mistreat people for their attraction to minors so you have to represent that because punching someone in the nose doesn't demonstrate it, if it's emotionally satisfying for you for a time you can't punch them all and it doesn't address the big picture of how a society should work or how you should treat people (long after we are dead there will be new bullies, new victims and new injustices, but the ideas that we would process various moral issues through are 'eternal.' You have to want to publicly condemn the ideas that enabled your mistreatment so, again, acting in accordance with a principle that contradicts those ideas is prudent retaliation).

Besides, even under an ethics of reciprocation you would have to care about innocent people and if they are 30%, 15%, 5% or whatever percentage of the population, a single exception to the general rule couldn't justifiably be lumped in with a majority and should not have to pay for their crimes. You can make assumptions based on past experience but just on the possibility that you might be hurting or neglecting the innocent you should err on the side of caution.

The socially rebellious compassion I have in mind is obviously not going to satisfy everyone's intuition, e.g. if you feel that you deserve happiness or compassion because you are innocent and not just by virtue of suffering itself being inherently bad, but that intuition draws a line that is as arbitrary as the lines drawn by the people who mistreat you. I think that people would naturally prefer to hold an internally consistent and non-arbitrary position when doing so is not too inconvenient.

I dont think we have a moral obligation to treat antis/adults with any type of respect or empathy. They frequently say that they dont see us as human and want us to be expiremented on like lab rats, or raped, or beaten, or exiled, or tortured, or murdered. Why should I have to see them as humans if they dont see us as humans? Why should I follow any of their morals if they see me as more disposable than the common roach and more evil than hitler simply because I was born? Even the so called leftists, who preach about holding hands and singing songs around the campfire, make a special excemption for pedos “I support prison abolition and rehabilitation, except for pedos who should be gassed like jews in nazi germany, and im against the death penalty, except for pedos who should be skinned alive, I think thoughtcrime is facist and evil, except for on pedos, I believe in freedom of speech, expect for pedos, which should never have a say, or minors for that matter, im against rape and abuses in prison, but I fully support and encourage pedos to be beaten and raped in prison, I support the mental health of even the most marginalized mentally ill people, like npd and aspd and schizophrenia, except for people with “pedophillic disorder”, who should just be tortuted and beaten and raped to death” Those hypocritical fucks can kiss my ass.

I am pro C, not just because I think the whole concept of “willing child sexual abuse” or “minors cant consent” is fucking stupid(because it is VERY fucking stupid, obviously a minor can agree and give permission to get a handjob from an adult, a willing and pleasurable handjob isnt dangerous or abusive you stupid fucks, at least not anymore dangerous then biking across the street or going swimming, which can literally result in death, unlike a handjob from an older party), but also because of the way society reacts to “pedophiles”(anyone convicted of a sex crime against a minor or who just seems “sus” in general). Even if the actions that are EXTREMELY BROADLY labeled as csa were actually abusive, it would still be abuse, not torture, not murder, not eternal damnation. But antis treat it like it is all three. Even if it was actually abusive, no one is lighting people who beat their kids on fire, or giving them half a century in prison or putting them on special “child beating” regristries for life, but a special exception is made for child sexual “abuse”. The drastic difference in the way they treat child sex “abusers” vs child phsyical abusers alone shows you that they dont hate pedophiles because we “abuse” or “hurt” kids. 49% of Americans beat their children, so that automatically prooves the “we hate pedos because they abuse kids” nonsense as exactly that, nonsense, pure and utter hypocrital garbage. Even the people who literally toture and murder children arent treated half as bad as people who sexually “abuse” children. They see a kid getting a willing blowjob from a hot older woman as a fate worse than abuse, worse than torture, and worse than death itself. On principle, that is fucking ridiculous, and even if it were actually abusive, treating an act of abuse as worse than not only literal TORTURE, but worse than DEATH ITSELF, is such a bizzare, stupid, and evil over reaction that I would be against anti C hysteria even if I DID actually find a willing blowjob to be abusive and didnt end up fully pro C.

I think we have an obligation to be moral to kids(not the anti kids who are luring pedos and then assualting or murdering them, they can go fuck themselves, kids or not) so that we can model positive behavior and hopefully have a brighter future for everyone, also, we would be hypocrites to say we love children then treat them like ass. And also also, children dont want to be around people who are genuinely abusive or cruel, so if we werent moral, children would stop seeking us out and wanting to be around us

Yes. I can't really judge people for feeling like that (I feel like that sometimes), but it's dangerous to completely give up on your own sense of humanity. I think for my own well-being, I try not to see the world in stark terms (i.e. everyone is evil, so it makes no difference whether I'm evil); a person can be bad or even evil in certain contexts, it doesn't mean they are perfectly evil. Humans are flawed, and it sometimes takes moral failing to learn morality; for example, a person can steal and feel bad, and as a result they come to know why that prohibition is place.

It helps me when I distinguish between those who talk tough, or edgy, and those who are genuinely cold-blooded. People can say vile things without deep thought, or they can say vile things and actually mean them; with antis there are certainly weird revenge-fantasy people (Dexter wannabes), but I think the majority are just imitating each other because they're terrified of standing out.

Obligation, no. I think it's best to look at most situations with apathy. After careful observation should sides be picked, if one so chooses.