MAP Forum

List of fallacies related to MAPs. I haven't necessarily seen anyone making these fallacious arguments, but it's good to know them and keep an eye. Remember that fallaciousness tells nothing about the truth of the premises or the conclusion.

Tell me if the example does not fit the label. And feel free to add more examples in the comments.

* Argument for incredulity.
— I can't imagine how a minor would be attracted to an older person, so it can't happen.
— What is so special about sex that makes it have serious long-term consequences? I can't think of anything. Thus sex doesn't have especially serious long-term consequences.

* False middle ground.
— One side says pedos should die and the other side advocates for MAP rights. Let's avoid the extremes. Moderate discrimination against MAPs is the right option.

* Continuum fallacy.
— There is no magical number at which people begin to consent. Thus, the age of consent is totally meaningless.

* Divine fallacy
— Because my attraction to kids is so wonderful, there must be a purpose to it. God made me like this for a reason.

* Motte-and-baile fallacy..
— A: Children can consent.
B: How so?
A: Well, a 17-year-old child can understand sex.

* False dilemma.
— If AMSC is not legalised then MAPs will have no rights.
— Either you agree that society is right about what constitutes CSA or you defend child rape.

* Intentionality fallacy.
— Rind did not advocate for AMSC, he was just doing science. Thus, it is wrong to use his works to defend pro-choice positions.

* Kettle logic.
— A child can consent. Furthermore, since she has no autonomy, it is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on her behalf.

* Mind projection fallacy.
— Sexual orientations are 4: straight, gay, lesbian and bisexual. That's human nature.

* Moralistic fallacy.
— If pedophilia is a part of some people's sexual orientation, then this sickness could be justified! Nonsense.

* Nirvana fallacy.
— Imagine this ideal world where sex is harmless and enjoyable for everyone, the youth is completely free, and people are smiling all day. Now imagine this other world where MAPs become a recognised minority, but still face prejudice, laws don't change much, and sex sometimes has long-term repercussions. Since the first option is better, we should discard the second option.

* Proving too much.
— Adult-minor relationships are always wrong because of the power imbalance. The only valid relationships are traditional families where the man has the power.

* Slippery slope.
— If transgenders are accepted, then MAPs will be next!

* Special pleading.
— I also hate pedophiles, but I am the one good pedophile.

* Loaded label.
— I am anti-contact because I believe child rape is bad. How do you justify child rape?

* False analogy.
— Being attracted to children is like wanting to murder someone.

* Argument from anecdote.
— From my own experience, I can tell that AMSC is always wrong.

* Fallacy of the cause.
— MAPs are born this way.
— All harm in AMSC is inherent to the act.

* Poisoning the well.
— A: MAP rights are human rights.
B: You must be a pedo!

* Ad-honimem fallacy.
— Since you are a MAP, you are biased on AMSC and you have your personal interests in mind. Thus you are wrong.

* Naturalistic fallacy.
— Since pedophilia is part of human nature, it should not be considered problematic.

* Straw man.
— A: Pedophiles should be able to get help without being assumed dangerous.
B: So we are going to have therapists telling pedophiles that they can continue molesting children without consequences?

There may be some here, and vice versa - I haven't updated the list in some time.

Jim Burton wrote: Sun Nov 23, 2025 7:58 pm There may be some here, and vice versa - I haven't updated the list in some time.

Thanks for the link with the real-world examples! I just got the fallacies from wikipedia.

* False middle ground.
— One side says pedos should die and the other side advocates for MAP rights. Let's avoid the extremes. Moderate discrimination against MAPs is the right option.

I can see your point if one is avoiding 'extremes' for the sake of avoiding extremes.

* Continuum fallacy.
— There is no magical number at which people begin to consent. Thus, the age of consent is totally meaningless.

I guess I can also understand this if the idea is that because it's not clear where to draw a line then there's no practically meaningful distinction to make between one end of the spectrum and another (or more to the point, I guess it's about generalizations and policies having to be designed with statistical averages in mind because if there's a qualitative difference between adults and children in one area, there has to be a specific point in any given child where that difference at least starts to diminish/the adult trait begins to develop). If babies can't consent and adults can it seems to me that there has to be a black and white point where rational agency begins to develop, even if rational agency exists on a spectrum.

* Kettle logic.
— A child can consent. Furthermore, since she has no autonomy, it is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on her behalf.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I do believe that children can meaningfully consent but I have often argued that if I'm wrong the choice would have to be made on their behalf. I've done so with the intent of showing that the argument rooted in the idea of their being unable to consent is an incoherent basis for condemning child-adult sex even if I'm wrong and children can't meaningfully consent. Either we seek consent as a 'courtesy,' because we don't want to behave in a way that is contrary to the preferences of others (whether this is rooted in a hedonistic concern for felt emotional well-being or a preference utilitarian consideration of what others want, e.g. "do you mind if I call you this?" "do you mind if I take your picture," "do you mind if I smoke?" etc., from a property rights standpoint no one can demand that you not call them by something they'd rather not be called, take their picture, smoke near them, etc.) or we're seeking authorization because we don't want to violate their property rights/autonomy. Instead of treating no sexual intimacy with an adult as the default choice (which might be intuitive in part because inaction is default but a choice to avoid is still a choice and even that can come with consequences) I think it would make more sense to just argue that child-adult sex is bad on principle whether children consent to it or not, and if the concern is with harm that has nothing to do with choice one way or the other, ultimately (you can consent to something that is harmful, you might not consent to something that is beneficial. Harm is harm, consent is consent).

I think a lot of these depend on principles you might be taking for granted. It's probably saying nothing because obviously a concept will be misused sooner or later but in a lot cases people will claim that something is fallacious in some way that it might not be (what someone calls a slippery slope or a false analogy may or may not be what is consistently implied by a premise, with the slippery slope there might be a prediction about what a policy might lead to and I can agree that might not have anything to do with the fundamental premise that justifies that position but there's also what is logically implied by it even if people who support that policy never support other policies that can be legitimately defended by the same principle, and you can also wrongly treat something as implied by an argument when it isn't). When it comes to logical errors, I think it basically comes down to something being irrelevant to a point or claim or position; it doesn't further the argument or demonstrate it to be true (the most obvious immediate example is an ad hominem, the character of the messenger has nothing to do with the message, at least not in the sense of necessarily discounting it. Just insulting or critiquing someone's character is not, by itself, an ad hominem). Some of this is about a lack of evidence (e.g. argument from anecdote, which over-generalizes and doesn't consider different experiences other people might have, the argument for incredulity doesn't consider logically coherent possibilities either, I could argue the divine fallacy is speculative and it makes a false a-z connection that I'd critique if it's a claim to knowledge, I don't think speculation is inherently irrational though if there's no evidence to the contrary for something and someone is acknowledging the possibility of error) but a belief about what will happen with certain policies (or beliefs in general) isn't (aren't) necessarily a claim to knowledge or fundamentally incoherent because it (they) can't be proven (I also think the inconsistency charge only applies to claims to knowledge, which includes 'probability' estimates; I don't think anything is objectively probable or improbable but certain for all intents and purposes standards for 'evidence' can be inconsistently applied, I mean that if we're starting with a certain possibly universal common sense assumption; even if it's not objectively valid, then in that context something can for all intents and purposes give us a reason assume this or that, and other people might think these are ultimately objective standards that they're inconsistently applying). My point about taking certain principles for granted (I don't really have time to think through this, I went back and quickly edited in some things I might want to work on later too) is that if there's going to be some kind of practical consensus about what's fallacious it should focus on what doesn't demonstrate/further an argument or discredit an opposing argument because it has nothing to do with the argument itself, I have core epistemic and ethical principles that I can critique a position from but I don't think it will be very meaningful to other people to say that arguments rooted in their values or core philosophical/epistemic principles are 'fallacious,' even though I believe they're objectively wrong, but we might come to a common ground if I say, "that has nothing to do with the argument itself."

John_Doe wrote: Sun Nov 23, 2025 10:28 pm

* Kettle logic.
— A child can consent. Furthermore, since she has no autonomy, it is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on her behalf.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

The fallacy is that both of these cannot be simultaneously true (at least in a specific situation). You can argue that either one or the other is true, or the impossibility of consent implies that someone else must take the decision. But that's something different.

Learning to undeny wrote: Sun Nov 23, 2025 10:57 pm

John_Doe wrote: Sun Nov 23, 2025 10:28 pm

* Kettle logic.
— A child can consent. Furthermore, since she has no autonomy, it is the responsibility of the adults to take decisions on her behalf.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

The fallacy is that both of these cannot be simultaneously true (at least in a specific situation). You can argue that either one or the other is true, or the impossibility of consent implies that someone else must take the decision. But that's something different.

I would think it's obvious that they can't both be true simultaneously. Have you heard this often?

John_Doe wrote: Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:43 pm I would think it's obvious that they can't both be true simultaneously. Have you heard this often?

No, I haven't. They are not examples of arguments I've heard, they are made up.