Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:31, 9 April 2024

Typically this argument comes in the form of an emotionalistic ad-hominem that appeals unduly to motive:

Never trust a pervert.

Only a pedo would make this argument.

You are just a pedo loser, trying to legitimize your perversion in order to get access to kids.

Since you as a "MAP" are biased, you are always going to lie and obfuscate. There's just no point engaging with vermin; kill it with fire!

Ad-hominem arguments are invariably an attempt to distract from the proponent's own weaknesses and provide a suitable explanation for why their opponent may be more persuasive.

According to this illogical argument, card-carrying supporters of the Spartacist League, ASFAR, the 1970s Gay Movement, or even members of various societies throughout history must be "pedophilic".

It would also follow that no such criminal "online pedophile" would be spending his time very efficiently arguing with brain-damaged normies half way across the globe. Especially on hot-button topics that will never be resolved in his own lifetime.

The personal is political

Since a person's personal situation shapes their political beliefs, it is perhaps not surprising we see more MAPs supporting a broad base of of civil causes (including better understanding of attraction to minors), as did homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc, with their own radicalism.

This also works in reverse. Being able to question entrenched taboos and social values probably means you are also the kind of person who is more likely to recognize (and be open about) characteristics of their own that challenge social orthodoxy. Minor attraction is far more common than assumed; for example, a study by Hall et al indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. Other examples using more categories also exist.

It should also be noted that most victims of the "pedophile witch hunt" are not pedophiles. Some may be preferentially attracted to adolescent/pubescent youth, or have a non-preferential interest. Some may be the falsely accused or related in some way to such an individual. Supposed "pedophile defenders" include various academics and authors who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex can still be harmless.

The argument is an absurd appeal to the orthodoxy

Why not re-appraise and similarly undermine the campaigning of the Black or Gay Civil Rights Movements in postwar America? After all, their arguments were made by black and gay people themselves, and blatantly in their own interests. Realizing just how wrong we were about emancipating slaves, we could go on to ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from votes on gun control. But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.

Invoking the "indefensible" by way of a challenge

Are you, or are you not trying to defend pedophilia/degeneracy by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?

This is a common, but basic attempt at a guilt by association fallacy.

The extent to which you must "defend" something found to be unpalatable by most of society is actually determined by the level of misconception/bigotry circulated about that topic. So in this instance:

It is the person who objects to/misrepresents pedophiles/hebephiles who is actually creating the demand for a public debate or use of a neologism within that debate. They then proceed to act snowflake/hurty when said debate arises after they express their ignorance.
When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of evasion. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is they who are engaged in a form of evasion allowing them to manipulate the debate for their own ends.

Genetic fallacies concerning use of sources

The source you provided has no value, just like anything else re-published by Ipce. Their site appears to be a pro-pedo free for all.

Another guilt by association fallacy. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them, or journals such as Paidika.

Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered

Genetic fallacy: In particular, ad hominem, guilt by association, appealing to motive.
Cognitive distortion: Jumping to conclusions, mind reading and emotional reasoning

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 </blockquote>
-. It doesn't add up. According to this, every supportive member of the '''Spartacist League''', '''ASFAR''', the old [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|Gay Movement]], or even [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History|various societies throughout history]] must be a pedophile.
+Ad-hominem arguments are invariably an attempt to distract from the proponent's own weaknesses and provide a suitable explanation for why their opponent may be more persuasive.
-Still, as '''the personal is the political''', there does seem to be a trend towards a high representation of such people among advocates of more liberal laws on all forms of sexuality. Today's "sexual deviants" are after all openly despised and left frustrated, much like homosexuals were back in the day. Also bear in mind that simply being able to question these social values might mean that you are more willing to recognize that you do indeed have a preferential or non-preferential attraction to minors. The prevalence of sexual attraction, even towards small children, is far more common than we realize. A study by [[Kent State Study|Hall]] indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. [[Research: Prevalence|Other examples]] exist.
+According to this illogical argument, card-carrying supporters of the '''[[Communism|Spartacist League]]''', '''[[Ageism|ASFAR]]''', the 1970s [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|Gay Movement]], or even members of [[Research: Intergenerational Relationships in History|various societies throughout history]] must be "pedophilic".
-There are of course other sexual minorities who may themselves identify as [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|victims of the "pedophile witch hunt"]]. Some may be [[Ephebophilia|ephebophiles]]/[[Hebephilia|hebephiles]] (preferring older minors or pubescents) and others may have a broader sexual interest which encompasses minors at some level. In this sense, such people are only necessarily pedophiles, etc in the colloquial sense specified by some dictionaries, where any attraction to/behavior towards an object qualifies one with the applicable orientation. Support has come from man quarters; for example, [[:Category:People|advocates]] include various [[Bruce Rind|academics]] and [[Judith Levine|authors]] who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex may be harmless.
+It would also follow that no such criminal "online pedophile" would be spending his time very efficiently arguing with brain-damaged normies half way across the globe. Especially on hot-button topics that will never be resolved in his own lifetime.
-. Self-interested arguing is strategically illogical and a misnomer for a "practicing pedophile" - at least in the short and mid-term. There exist many outlets for those who seek to break the law, including [[Child Pornography|erotica]], the dark web, discord, dating sites and social media. What point is there asking random people to accept something one is free to go out and do, if said arguing does not immediately reduce the attendant risks, and may increase them? At the end of the day, a MAP ally on social media is probably just arguing for what they believe to be fair and just, accepting the considerable possibility of having their account suspended.
+==The personal is political==
-. Why speculate about the author when their argument is plain to see? Only an inauthentic, intellectual weakling would do so. Humor their accusation for one moment and still, all you are left with is a genetic fallacy and they would still be left with the task of providing a reasonable counterargument. Ad-hominems are just an admission of weakness and serve to waste time in an argument.
+Since a person's '''personal situation shapes their political beliefs''', it is perhaps not surprising we see more [[Minor Attracted Person|MAPs]] supporting a broad base of of civil causes (including better understanding of attraction to minors), as did homosexuals, ethnic minorities, etc, with their own radicalism.
-. Let's go mad and apply the same argument to something entirely different. Postwar America. Why not undermine the campaigning of the ethnic or gay civil rights movement, because their arguments were in their own interests? Why not also ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from referenda on gun control? But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.
+This also works in reverse. Being able to question entrenched taboos and social values probably means you are also the kind of person who is more likely to recognize (and be open about) characteristics of their own that challenge social orthodoxy. Minor attraction is far more common than assumed; for example, a study by [[Kent State Study|Hall]] et al indicated that around 30% of men in the sample were equally or preferentially aroused by prepubescent stimuli. [[Research: Prevalence|Other examples]] using more categories also exist.
+It should also be noted that most [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|victims of the "pedophile witch hunt"]] are not pedophiles. Some may be preferentially attracted to [[Ephebophilia|adolescent]]/[[Hebephilia|pubescent]] youth, or have a non-preferential interest. Some may be the falsely accused or [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|related in some way to such an individual]]. Supposed [[:Category:People|"pedophile defenders"]] include various [[Bruce Rind|academics]] and [[Judith Levine|authors]] who have made the argument that absent social intervention, unlawful minor-adult sex can still be harmless.
+==The argument is an absurd appeal to the orthodoxy==
+Why not re-appraise and similarly undermine the campaigning of the Black or Gay Civil Rights Movements in postwar America? After all, their arguments were made by black and gay people themselves, and blatantly in their own interests. Realizing just how wrong we were about emancipating slaves, we could go on to ban registered Democrats from voting on the party leadership, or ban NRA members from votes on gun control. But for subjective and preconceived notions of "motive" and "self-interest" against minorities, experience is otherwise valued in most fields of insight. For example, we now talk of the "lived experiences" of black people, gays and transsexuals (particularly black transsexuals) as something that cannot even be challenged.
 ==Invoking the "indefensible" by way of a challenge==
 <blockquote><font color="green">'''''Are you, or are you not trying to defend [[pedophilia]]/[[degeneracy]] by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?'''''</font></blockquote>
-Basic [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]], but let's play with it a bit:
+This is a common, but basic attempt at a [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]].
 The extent to which you must "defend" something found to be unpalatable by most of society is '''actually determined''' by the level of misconception/bigotry circulated about that topic. So in this instance:
 *It is the person who objects to/misrepresents pedophiles/hebephiles who is actually ''creating the demand'' for a public debate or use of a neologism within that debate. They then proceed to act snowflake/hurty when said debate arises after they express their ignorance.
-*When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of ''evasion''. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is they who are engaged in a form of evasion that allows them to manipulate the debate.
+*When the MAP/ally gives a nuanced response to the yes-or-no challenge, they are invariably accused of ''evasion''. However, their opponent has most probably not defined what "pedophilia" or "defense of pedophilia" means to them, while unfairly seeking a binding answer from their opponent. So in fact, it is ''they'' who are engaged in a form of evasion allowing them to manipulate the debate for their own ends.
 ==Genetic fallacies concerning use of sources==
 <blockquote><font color="green">'''''The source you provided has no value, just like anything else re-published by [[Ipce]]. Their site appears to be a pro-pedo free for all.'''''</font></blockquote>
-This argument is another dumb [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]]. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them.
+Another [[Debate Guide: Logical fallacies and intergenerational sexuality|guilt by association fallacy]]. You can not categorically reject data or arguments, simply because you disapprove of the messenger. For example, many scholarly works would not be publicly available if not for the efforts of activist organizations that publish them, or journals such as [[Paidika]].
 ==Fallacies and cognitive distortions covered==