Re: 'Special Love' vs 'Situational Sadist'.

"But first, you should be careful not to adopt the language and assumptions of hostile forces. Your critique was replete with this kind of invective, e.g. "wanting to fuck boys"." I don't think having an interest in fucking boys should be considered any more vulgar than having an interest in fucking adults, and I certainly don't see it as an adoption of any untoward assumptions. But the purpose of the vulgarity was primarily to highlight the absurdity of the OP's application of group selection. "Does it make sense to assume no such individual is capable of lashing out and committing unforgivable acts, if the group they are a part of is routinely demonized and denied realistic outlet to their feelings and fantasies?" Except that the murderer promoted by the "MAP-Union" folks, Nicholas Prosper, was no such case of a pedophile caving to the pressures of marginalization. He was an obvious mental case who was looking for something to be enraged about. "So it isn't so much that practicing sadists are representative of situational offending, but the fact that unrestrained and violent sadists make up a considerable proportion of the most talked about adult-minor sex crimes, which happen to be situational offences." If that's the case, it still wouldn't make the OP's No True Scotsman fallacy any less applicable. His argument is that sadism is predicated on whether or not the individual has a sexual or romantic attraction towards minors. He fails to make the case that sadists do not choose their victims without taking their own attractions into account, so instead of taking the position that sadists are unrepresentative, he must take the fallacious position that sadists and pedophiles are essentially different. And I don't think I'm going to concern myself too much with what kinds of arguments actual sadists employ in order to advance their interests. If we want to differentiate ourselves from them, it should start with forming arguments that are sound.