Challenging axioms

[CantChainTheSpirit]

I think there has to be a real effort to challenge axioms that underpin the hysteria against maps.

There are certain axioms that are routinely peddled out as the foundational arguments against maps with little to no actual scientific basis to support them, and yet they're universally accepted as fact. Examples that come to mind.

- Children do not want or enjoy sexual contact.
- Sexual experience in childhood results in trauma and developmental problems later.
- There is no benefit, no positive argument supporting adult/minor sexual interaction.
- Maps only care about their own sexual gratification and lack empathy for children.

I'm sure there are others, but these statements represent the type of non-factual axiom that close even debate of the subject.
Each in turn can be challenged but then the argument just moves onto the next axiom, then the next before circling back to a debunked axiom as if it's still a fact. These axioms are really driven by religious bias rather than science but they persist because they're not permitted to be challenged.

[OnionPetal]

[...] Each in turn can be challenged but then the argument just moves onto the next axiom, then the next before circling back to a debunked axiom as if it's still a fact. [...]

Debating logically is one approach, but when people are not thinking logically, we should consider other approaches, like narrative, parody, and mocking humour, to expose normies' hypocrisy and irrationality.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

[...] Each in turn can be challenged but then the argument just moves onto the next axiom, then the next before circling back to a debunked axiom as if it's still a fact. [...]

Debating logically is one approach, but when people are not thinking logically, we should consider other approaches, like narrative, parody, and mocking humour, to expose normies' hypocrisy and irrationality.

Yes, they can be effective approaches as well. The trouble with axioms is they can be so deeply rooted while being based on nothing at all. There are arguments against map sexuality that I respect, I've heard good arguments against homosexuality to, and sex outside of marriage. But overall the arguments are unconvincing in all these cases but for some people they have unwavering beliefs of the harm they cause.

I think trying to convince a true anti that relationships between adults and minors can work is going to be as effective as trying to convince a passionate hard-line Christian that gay sex is acceptable. Thankfully, most people are not hard-line Christian's or true anti's and are I believe reachable.

[OnionPetal]

I think trying to convince a true anti that relationships between adults and minors can work is going to be as effective as trying to convince a passionate hard-line Christian that gay sex is acceptable. Thankfully, most people are not hard-line Christian's or true anti's and are I believe reachable.

There are different strategies that can be used for people at different levels of indoctrination. As for antis, they are perhaps better described as 'agenda pushers' or 'activists' than as indoctrinated. And antis usually have some ulterior motive for pushing that agenda. You're not going to win over those kind of enemy activists, so it's better to mock them, like said. There are still a lot of people who are quietly neutral who would be more receptive to hearing a logical debate.