Fir :transspecies star: on Nostr: Sofia "what reasoning could lead to that though?" I'm arguing aoc removal is a ...
Sofia (npub1qxx…u6la) "what reasoning could lead to that though?"
I'm arguing aoc removal is a consequence not requirement, it's a semantic argument mostly, but still important as it defines the requirements to be a youth liberationist.
a quick thing on the 4 points, they aren't inherent to any pro-c but are a flavor of pro-c, Pro-c isn't an attempt to create an equitable society for youths, that would imply anti-cs are attempting to create an inequitable society which is nonsense, and is not always an argument that there isn't extra risk in adult-youth relationships even if society changed. As anti-c is, it is a focus on adults ability to engage sexually with youths. Realistically another pro-c who is against the idea that consent is required for all sexual interactions (eg. xenosatanists, some pawooners, alt right MAPs, .onion users, some traders, etc.) could equally argue that caring about consent isn't important for the pro-c stance.
The pro-c of pedi leans particularly moderate and is closer to anti-c than a lot of places, but is not pro-c as a whole. As you say your stance is moderate but that doesn't mean everyone's is, and denying that "this" or "that" idea is pro-c, when there are those that identify them as their pro-c beliefs. Like stated it's fine to say you are pro-c and a YL but that doesn't tie pro-c into YL in a realistic way, even if YL is beneficial to some pro-c goals. When you make a general statement, it can be interpreted as covering all ground regardless if that was your intention or not. You could say that your version of pro-c is youth liberation, but at that point you're being so specific, you might as well just say you are a youth-liberationist and pro-c.
I'm arguing aoc removal is a consequence not requirement, it's a semantic argument mostly, but still important as it defines the requirements to be a youth liberationist.
a quick thing on the 4 points, they aren't inherent to any pro-c but are a flavor of pro-c, Pro-c isn't an attempt to create an equitable society for youths, that would imply anti-cs are attempting to create an inequitable society which is nonsense, and is not always an argument that there isn't extra risk in adult-youth relationships even if society changed. As anti-c is, it is a focus on adults ability to engage sexually with youths. Realistically another pro-c who is against the idea that consent is required for all sexual interactions (eg. xenosatanists, some pawooners, alt right MAPs, .onion users, some traders, etc.) could equally argue that caring about consent isn't important for the pro-c stance.
The pro-c of pedi leans particularly moderate and is closer to anti-c than a lot of places, but is not pro-c as a whole. As you say your stance is moderate but that doesn't mean everyone's is, and denying that "this" or "that" idea is pro-c, when there are those that identify them as their pro-c beliefs. Like stated it's fine to say you are pro-c and a YL but that doesn't tie pro-c into YL in a realistic way, even if YL is beneficial to some pro-c goals. When you make a general statement, it can be interpreted as covering all ground regardless if that was your intention or not. You could say that your version of pro-c is youth liberation, but at that point you're being so specific, you might as well just say you are a youth-liberationist and pro-c.