Debate Guide: Your arguments must be self-serving
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 an actual criminal "online pedophile" would not 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.
Forbidden fruit/crossing the rubicon
Are you, or are you not trying to defend pedophilia/degeneracy by describing yourself/other person as a "MAP"?
Setting up an "indefensible" position (on their own terms) and challenging an opponent to support it, 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 proceed to act hurt and offended when their flagrant ignorance has caused such a debate to arise. In some instances they even scold their opponents for suggesting pedophiles are a stigmatized minority, when it is they who perpetuate the stigma.
- 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.
One of the better responses to this argument, is to point out the flaws above, explain why defend pedophiles might in fact be necessary in the face of this ignorance, and then confirm that your answer is "yes".
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