I think the trouble with this that you need a term to refer people who haven’t committed any crime yet and their thoughts are confined to their head, as a medical professional, you don’t go around spray canning paedo on some guys wall. But I do think the term should be protected. This guy isn’t a MAP (or shouldn’t be referred to as one), he’s a child sex offender and attempted child rapist. (If he hasn’t raped a child already…was he caught his first time out? Hard to believe.) The term is probably wrong, I don’t know what you’d call people who are attracted to minors, have never offended and are or could be seeking help. Does trying to prevent offences actually cause less offences, I don’t know.
Big whiff of the Daily Mail Fox GB News Won't Somebody Think of the Children EU Bendy Bananas Brussels Elite Democrats in Paedo Pizza Huts about it.
Marko1980 (26-10-23)
I just had a brilliant orgasm . Don’t want to ruin my mind atm w this subject , but would like to add to it later x
For now ::
Pop ::: ‘minor-attracted person website’ ::: into Google - brings up a page of references to the subject xx
Lots of reading x
Good points you have Sarah , I will would like to get back to it x
I do what I want. I cannot do otherwise.
IrishSarahBarra (26-10-23)
Youve nailed it in one.
Stephanie shared a link to this before and i looked it up.
Some Uni professor wrote a paper on using a term like MAP to refer to people who havent abused anyone so they might come forward and get help, like Sarah was saying. The goal being preventing child sex abuse.
The paper is obviously highly controversial and problematic and as you can imagine not popular.
The professor is trans so Tucker and the boys got their hands on it and it turned into LGBT and the lefty libtards want to recruit the paedos.
More ammo for the culture war and hyping up the outrage I reckon.
It makes perfect Iona got column inches out of it.
Stephanie is right that theres people advocating for this but googling the term has the usual suspects amplifying it.
Last edited by Marko1980; 26-10-23 at 18:41.
Palatine (26-10-23)
There's been a pattern amplified by social media in recent years where folks like the Iona "Institute" have struggled to argue against things like gay marriage (doesn't hurt anyone) and their approach has been to use the slippery slope logical fallacy. "If you allow two gays to marry then soon people will be marrying their dogs next/children will be deprived of mothers". "If you allow a man to identify as a woman then why not allow them to identify as a butterfly".
These kinds of stories are almost always the right misrepresenting the truth or amplifying the crazy wing of the left. Then the left goes into convolutions arguing about things that really generally don't matter and average joe goes and votes for Trump because the guy looks positively sane and stable compared to these "woke mobs".
Throw in the EU commission and the Daily Mail readers are positively jerking off in their bedpans as the NHS goes to shit around them.
Last edited by Palatine; 26-10-23 at 19:30.
Marko1980 (26-10-23)
Palatine (27-10-23)