Apertado's Pedophile Funposting!

Apertado's Pedophile Funposting! is an argumentation guide written for pro-MAP people to handle internet debates with anti-MAP people.
Download the PDF
Download the .odt

Web version:

Pedophile Funposting! Argumentation Manual to Handle Internet Debates With Anti-MAP People Written by me and the guys and girl at Boychat for the minor-attracted people in general. Introduction When something is worth fighting for, it doesn't matter if it's a possible goal or not; just fight for it, to death if needed. Minor-attracted people, specially pedophiles, are a group that is very misunderstood everywhere. Because of people's bias and media hammering wrong ideas away, it's hard for us to get a civil conversation going. But notice how people react to us: they either don't reply or stifle our voice, by filing bogus trouble tickets to get us banned. When they reply, they don't argue. They deny vehemently, as if speaking aloud with ears closed. Are they scared of something? They probably are not. They are just filled with self-righteousness, preconceptions and hate. Have mercy on them. But if you ever get in a real debate with anyone, you are likely to win. That's because scientific evidence of beneficial intimacy with children, as well as evidence that adult-child sex isn't always harmful, is being produced to this day. It never ceased and keeps coming up. We have science on our side. Unbiased science, that is, as a lot of good minds won't discuss this subject due to fear of losing things like ad revenue or State funds. But we have access to those studies, articles, books, interviews, from the seventies to 2017. We have a damn lot of evidence and argumentation that are unheard of by many people, because they never cared to look it up. They took things for granted. If people aren't going to speak it publicly, we gotta speak about it and we have the Internet. We gotta use it wisely. There must be a strategy to make people actually debate and be interested in the studies we dig. We have to set preferred demographics, aim for the undecided MAPs who are confused, make people feel safe around us, even if we are up to tearing age of consent apart. Hard task, given the stigma that we carry. However, that stigma is being slowly removed. The proof of that is that confused MAPs are embracing the cause, rather than just trusting what media says, the changing views in science and philosophy and, what still baffles me, the spawning of “supporters”, people who share our views without sharing our attractions and struggles. If our argumentation works, along with stigma reduction, we may be a sizable minority to be taken in consideration during elections. Imagine people seeking votes from us. Strange, isn't it? We gotta invest into changing people's minds and I hope this document comes handy. The next decade is going to be hell exciting! Arguing on-line has two benefits. The first is, obviously, getting our views out there, for people who are more open-minded to read, as well as to provide an “invitation” for undecided MAPs. That works well: I was anti-contact before reading Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch, because I thought that traumatic contacts were majority. The second benefit is anonymity. There's no need to fear backlash online, unless you really are the kind of guy who gets offended by words on the screen. If we do it alright, they may even admit defeat, even if just for themselves. They, of course, won't say in public that they lost. Take, for example, Todd Nickerson. What if he suddenly felt like we are right and he is wrong? He built a community, with many followers, a philosophy, a praised website, he wouldn't be willing to admit defeat because that would mean throwing away everything he built around his mistake. So, don't expect people admitting defeat to you, but enjoy when they flee. Cause they eventually do. Three points should be addressed, tho. 1. Many people don't argue with us decently because our argumentation is lengthy and enrages them. Take, for example, Newgon's Debate Guide. I would have to summarize each argument, as some are three-paragraphs-long. If I got in an argument on Twitter, the Guide would be almost useless, unless I had a compiled list of arguments that I already summarized. They aren't up to reading a wall of text. Arguing on Twitter is a nightmare, no less. So, if we want to have chances of winning, we gotta keep it short and complement with a link to a study that supports our affirmation, if they or a passer-by is up to clicking. I'll try to keep each reply as short as possible, removing addendum. It's also needed because, according to Herbert Marcuse, in his Ideologia da Sociedade Industrial, short sentences are harder to criticize by people who just don't or can't think (majority of the population), compared to a long text. To make people more encouraged to read your point, fill in the gaps with personal reflections, experiences, jokes, don't be too dry. Try to give a personal spin to things, be emotive, express feelings too. But the core of the argumentation, the argument itself, needs to be short, clean, self-contained and concise. 2. Our accounts are banned due to bogus reasons, even when we don't break any rules. So, a good way to keep active is having an account queue. You create two accounts, but uses only one. If that account is banned, you have a second one that is unused. Make a third account and move to the second. If the second is banned, move to the third and make a fourth. If the third is banned, move the fourth and make a fifth. And so on. If you need to validate e-mail, Mail.com is painfully easy to create and manage, requiring no cellphone, but it's much better to use disposable e-mail services, such as Abine's “mask me” feature in Blur Firefox add-on. You can have one e-mail attached to each account that way. To keep your accounts from being easily banned, don't use your account solely for arguing. Use them normally and share others things, rather than focusing only on proving your point about sexuality. 3. When people try to reduce things to a flame war, by just saying hate sentences, there are two ways of dealing with the problem. The first is to poke fun at how ridiculous they are being and try to make humor out of it. It's well-known that humor disarms people. Schopenhauer said that there's no better argument than an insult. Making the person lose it's temper is a good way to make them embarrass themselves. You shouldn't enrage them in the argumentation, but only responsively. If they hate, you piss them further off, without descending to their level, by the means of joking about it and producing humor out of their behavior. Remember we are also thinking of who is reading, but not participating. If they are reduced to a flamed ball of squeak and you still keep your cool, people who are reading will tend to give you more credit than to the other. The second way is playing dumb and it's my favorite. When someone tries to hate, ask why. They will then answer with why they hate. They might say things like “kids can't consent”, “pedophiles harm children”, “children aren't sexual” and so on. All of those are argumentation grounds. Whenever you ask why the hate, the arguing is extended and you can keep plowing. Eventually, they quit. The idea of this document is to make each argument short enough to be copied and pasted. If people copy and paste arguments from here, ipsis literis, the sensation would be that the accounts are controlled by a single user or a small group of users, which is inaccurate. They will think that we have a limited set of arguments. So, when someone sees the same argument used in two or so places, he will make one counter-argument for them all. If it's the same person or a bot, they expect the same answer. What if the two people reply differently? It allows to surprise. So, copy-pasting is encouraged. Be original whenever your common sense says you must be. Also, you are encouraged to enrich others by sharing your own arguments made in the same model, in simplified manner, with links if possible (not all arguments will have links, specially if it's something too original). The arguments They are sorted by theme and follow an structure: question asked, possible answers. Some of these questions really are “what the fuck?” moments, but trust me, people ask those. An answer can only qualify if it's 140-characters-long or less. Benefit 1 What would society gain by allowing intergenerational intimacy? Answer 1: The amount of cases flooding the justice system would decrease, meaning less tax-paying. Why use public money to punish harmless intimacy? Answer 2: Intervention in harmless relationships causes harm to children. Intervening often causes trauma. Answer 3: Some data shows that those allowed to participate in consensual intergenerational intimacy have better understanding of themselves. 2 What children gain by having that intimacy? Answer 1: Desired physical touch is beneficial, loving attention increases self-esteem.