Nope, all about the framing

No, Predator has a point: all of your statements, while true, or at the very least reasonable, are not only based on a set of values, but premised on the ability and willingness of the holders of those values to impose them over the whole of society despite the existence of other sets of values and people who hold them. Without that willingness and ability, those values are not an existential threat. They might be a particular hurdle regarding a particular child, but not an existential threat against all MAAs or all youths.

(So, for the purpose of this post, "you" is not "you, Scotty" but "you the guy I am hypothetically debating with")

Asking about your daughter is intentionally controversial, even though your daughter might be hawt.

Asking about someone's daughter is essentially the same question of sexual freedoms. Yet it is formulated in a non-threatening way; what is more, it is framed in a way in which you understand the liberty undermining implications of age laws, without being questioned, personally, on your values.

That's the same thing which for gays would be "Can I butt-fuck you?" versus "Can I butt-fuck that guy over there who likes it and wants it?"

It remains essentially the same question; but one wording implies we don't want to leave you alone and the other implies we want to be left alone.

That is what breaks open the ability and willingness of those with one set of values to impose them upon everyone else; not a clear attack on theirs which makes them believe precisely that they must be defended through offensive action.

Of course, if you only want linear replies to your posts, either yes or no, then yeah, this subthread is going crazy for you.