I don't understand the "MAPs".

Person 1: I think children should be respected and allowed to date and have sex with whoever they want.
"MAPs": NOOOOOO UR A RAYPIST!!!1!!1!

Person 2: I want to rape and traumatize children.
"MAPs": OMG WE STAN UR SO VALID

@miria i guess they wanna do a "pro fantasy" take on it, but completely mess up arguing their point?

it's just weird putting "legalization of consensual child sex" and "fantasies of rape are ok"

like yes fantasies are ok but thats not the point?

@cummies I don't mind as long as it stays a fantasy. What confuses me is how they will defend someone who openly voices their desire to rape children, but condemn someone who openly voices their desire to grant them rights.

@miria @cummies It will never make sense as long as you view it as just "granting them rights". They would view that as legalizing abuse.

@KayFaraday @miria yeah this. the anti-c mindset is fundamentally different

@cummies @KayFaraday Fundamentally twisted too, if they think "Children should be free to love who they want" is worse than "I literally want to rape children". Even to anti-cs it should be plainly obvious that, even if they think all forms of sex with children are abusive, someone who doesn't care about the child's physical and mental wellbeing, and openly says they want to traumatize them, would cause far more damage.

@miria @cummies So far you've only mentioned desires and that is the point you're missing. The comparison with those two thoughts is not twisted or inconsistent. You have promotion of (in their view) real-world abuse on one hand and harmless fantasy on the other. The latter person does not cause any harm unless they act on it.

@KayFaraday @miria the problem with the anti-c mindset is that the former person doesnt cause any harm even if they do act on it

@cummies @miria well yes, I agree with you, but they don't, so it's still internally consistent

@KayFaraday @miria yeah, it can be difficult to see things from other people's perspectives. essentially what holds up the anti-c mindset is the mistaken idea that adult child relationships are inherently harmful, and that is pivotal to this discussion

@cummies @KayFaraday A person who actively says they want to rape and traumatize children would still cause more damage than someone who treats the child well.

@miria @cummies how would the former person cause any damage at all though

@KayFaraday @miria @cummies Not actively being against evil means you're supporting it. Supporting it means even more so

@applejack @KayFaraday @miria everyone here is actively against the evil of child rape

@cummies @miria @KayFaraday If you fantasise about it, no you're not. I don't care what your words say, your actual actions prove that you don't.

@applejack @miria @KayFaraday what actions? fantasizing? weren't those just words a few minutes ago?

@cummies @miria @KayFaraday Yes, thinking about it, and sharing it. Past the liberal bullshit, thoughts and behaviours actually effect people (themselves included) and can have negative externalities beyond themselves, and are thus very well worth discouraging.

Fantasising about, wanting to, or sharing the previous, are not acceptable, and should get you very harsh treatment

@applejack @miria @KayFaraday i disagree with punishing for fantasies, that's just gonna lead to bs in the long run. in fact repressing people's fantasies can make them present *worse*. all we can realistically combat are actions, and as pedophiles we make sure child rape is combatted

besides, it tells you who to watch out for if they post it publicly

@cummies @miria @KayFaraday

>lead to bs in the long run
No, enabelement of bad things leads to bad things. It's very simple. You can't just literally slippery slope having standards away

>who to watch out for if they post it publicly
Who to watch out for but then any action against them is bad. Any bad treatment of them is bad. I'm pretty sure you'd (or people like you) even say being cautious is a form of abuse