MAP Forum

Creature Bipedal wrote: Thu Mar 26, 2026 5:45 pm

zarkle wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:13 am

Creature Bipedal wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 1:31 pm
Depicting … as … animals … does not prove that intolerance has some naturalist explanation.

yes it literally does.

It does not. I encourage you to read finally what I’m writing.

• Nazis depicted Jews as rats infiltrating Germany, but it does not prove that anti-Semitism is genetically programmed. — Jewish lobby describes Palestinian refugees as cockroaches infiltrating Western countries, but it does not prove that anti-Arabism is genetically programmed.
• Applonius Molon described Jews as an octopus that keeps everything with its tentacles, but it does not prove that anti-Semitism is genetically programmed. — Jews Stan Lee, Jack Kiryb and Joe Simon depicted Nazis as an organization HYDRA, but it does not prove that anti-Nazism is genetically programmed.
• Appian, Tacitus, Manetho, Lysimachus, Chaeremon, Apion depicted Jews as snakes, but it does not prove that anti-Semitism is genetically programmed. — Jews call female non-Jews snakes, “shicksas”, but it does not prove that Jewish hate to other races is genetically programmed.
• Brits associate their country with the lion, Indians with the tiger, and Mongolians with the wolf, but it does not mean that they hate and are afraid of their countries.
• Such dangerous but not predatory animals as elephants and hippos were worshipped as friendly gods, not as evil ones.
• Monsters like Minotaur and Christian Devil are depicted as bulls though ruminants are not dangerous.
• There was a motto “Sheep devour men” in medieval Britain, despite of the fact that sheep are harmless.

In short, depicting someone as animals does not prove that hate is genetically programmed.

I think you made a strawman out of me that I am a genetic determinist who assumes humans are suppose to be afraid of dangerous animals anywhere they are culturally depicted. (Which is not the case) and it probably happened because I sloppily used the words "biology" and "evolution" interchangeably and didn't explain thural what I meant. So its my fault you made a strawman of me.


Of course antisemitism, anti arab and hatred of any religion is not genetically programmed. It's taught. I KNOW ITS TAUGHT DUH. Though fun fact on another forum I made a typo that anti semitism was genetic. Labeling other humans Rats and Cockroaches is a known dehumanization strategy what Sapolsky called associating people you dislike with something disgusting until they don't even count as human anymore. The goal of the propagandist (rather it be Zionist soldiers or Nazis) is to dehumanize the other with "us .vs them" dynamics and make them synonymous with physical filth. So it triggers the same biological system that detects rotten food, they are dehumanizing an other with us vs them dynamics, that's just a strategy.


Evolution gave humans a "us vs. them" template and culture defines who the "us" and "them" are. Racism is when the us = white and them = black, and holocaust is when us = nazis and them = jews

But pedophilia is a special case with "us vs them" but also beyond with more complications, and no need for special pleading because it involves interacting with children, children from any culture. I assume animal parents evolved to protect their offpsring at all cost as we see with many birds, crocodiles and mammals do. That is the evolutionary side of how animals 100s of millions of years apart all have the same parental protection instincts. Now I will move on to the cultural side. Culture labels pedophilia regardless of how it is practiced as extreme harm. Which taps into the same parts of the brain animals use to defend their young, now we have Disgust Theory's core claim. You see how I got there. They mismatch us as dangerous animals, but I did not imply humans fear dangerous animals anywhere depicted in culture. I suppose a elementary school using a tiger or wolf as a mascot can appear as a counter argument against disgust theory to a accidental straw man that was made in good faith.

So your post about
"Monsters like Minotaur and Christian Devil are depicted as bulls though ruminants are not dangerous."
"There was a motto “Sheep devour men” in medieval Britain, despite of the fact that sheep are harmless.["
"Brits associate their country with the lion, Indians with the tiger, and Mongolians with the wolf, but it does not mean that they hate and are afraid of their countries."

and my example of the elementary school with a wolf or tiger as a mascot

are a straw man against me that is my fault for not being concrete.

So if you want to attack my ideas or at least appreciate my actual ideas know

1) I am NOT a genetic determinist. I am an interactionist. Much like Efferent and afferent nerves "too and from the brain". Evolution and culture are two way street interacting with each other, shaping our biological core.

2) Evolution gave humans "us vs them" thinking and culture defines who the "us" and "them" are and how severe the conflict gets rather it be our baseball team vs their baseball team or nazis vs jews, or qanon patriots vs satanic pedos.

3) Prepubescent attracted Pedos unlike jews, arabs, catholics and other cultural groups - are defined as a harm to children - by many cultures including pre-western ones

4) In cultures that are anti-pedo, part 3 (us vs them thinking) activates as well as the parts of the brain animals use to protect their young from dangerous animals. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. Nothing about fearing dangerous animals strawman. They tap into those regions of the brain to deal with the threat towards children.

5) Its possible anti pedophilia evolved from the same parts of the brain that due the westermarck effect in animals to prevent prepubescent vaginal tissue damage since wild animals are TOO DAMN STUPID to know a adult penis can harm a small child's vagina.

source:

https://ugspace.ug.edu.gh/server/api/co ... df/content

" intercourse before puberty among the Ashanti was considered an offence for which the entire community must suffer. This according to him it was punishable by death or expulsion. Unchastity was considered a great disaster in the life of the candidate hence
both parents and children take great care to protect virginity. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
The Great Ming Code, 25th section, Criminal Code on Rape came into effect from 1373, raised the age of consent to 12 by stating 'girls younger than 12 lack rational sexual desires, therefore any intercourse with them is considered the same as rape and therefore punishable by death with hanging'.[9]

https://www.academia.edu/9618261/Modern ... _sex_trade
Prostitution with kids was only tolerated when it was slave children who were viewed as an subhuman outgroup.

https://ia802901.us.archive.org/35/item ... r_text.pdf
page 181 (fear of prepubescent vaginal tissue damage)
For the most part these peoples seem particularly concerned with the pre-pubescent girl, believing that intercourse before the menardbe may be injurious to her. Girls of the east central Carolines are strictly forbidden intercourse before puberty, but
after that they enjoy almost complete sexual freedom, After menarche.

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/05/01 ... 020273948/

Buddhism has a hell realm for pedos who prey on prepubescent boys
"I have only come across one passage describing the fate of a man who loved boys. He went to hell and came to a river filled with acid -- and boys swimming it. They were in agony.Out of his love for the children, the man jumped in -- and had to suffer their pain."""

6) Cases of incest, forceful rape and having sex with prepubescents do various degrees of harm. Obviously forceful rape, black mailing rape and rape involving psychological deception are much worse then consensual prepubescent sex. But without hormones prepubescent's don't know what they are truly attracted too and once they hit puberty they might not be attracted to the person who had sex with them and it will make them feel violated to various degrees. This is what causes the harm narrative to spread in culture. Then 3 and 4 take effect.

I looked back at Jim Burton and others critique of me earlier in this thread.

yes I know the difference between "biological" IE the insular cortex that causes the disgust, which is the biological part of the brain. And evolution the repurposing of the insular cortex to adapt to moral violations instead of just rotten food, and yes it looks like I am using the term biological and evolutionary interchangeable when I shouldn't do that. That is a mistake on me.

I want Disgust Theory to be taken serious and mark my words. Disgust Theory has the potential to do more for MAPs/pedos then anything Focault, Gayle Rubin, Harry Hay, NAMBLA or left wing activist did in the 90s for us. NAMBLA turned into a joke South Park Parodied and the rest are remembered as radical leftist that dissected language and looked for cultural causes of oppression and did intersectionality research.

The word "child liberation" is overused even though it indeed is important, but that label itself is stigmatized from 90s leftist that tried and failed to liberate MAP/pedos, also feminist have hijacked the term to be anti MAP/pedo. Antis aren't going to take serious the "children are oppressed property of their parents and we need child liberation left wing activism" that gig didn't work in the 70s-90s with gay marxist and it isn't gonna work now. Re-adapting Karl Marx for the umteenth time failed.

I am trying to spread ideas and create real world scenarios where my ideas spread enough to where antis are forced to question the intense rage and visceral disgust they have towards pedos/MAPs. Once they hear the hate against us is nothing more then a evolutionary mismatch. (Mistaking us for a extreme threat to the young) The ones that can think critical will be rationally urged to be mindful of their disgust and rage. To introspect their own disgust and rage, instead of giving into the emotions STUDY THE EMOTIONS! Dissect them logically! Some of the worst antis could reason their way out of visceral disgust and rage, They'll reject their gut instinct which could lead to a future where some of the most intense antis become allys. Even if only a few concede, just as some of the worst slave owners became great anti slaverly abolitionist the same can happen in the future.

Tldr, just normalize the scientific doctrines of Robert Sapolsky. If the public learns humans are naturally disgusted by things that turn them off it can open all sorts of doors that are not currently possible and prevent feminist from saying "blank" should be illegal cause its gross.

I hope this leaves no room for me to be misinterpreted or strawmanned.

Disgust Theory's core claim is that western culture is tapping into instinctual behaviors to protect children from threats, and pedophilles are mismatched as dangerous animals that want to eat children. Nothing to do with humans being afraid towards dangerous animal mascots, folk lore or mythology like Creature Bipedal mistaked me for. Hope this helps