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:
IntroductionWhen 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. The arguments |
