Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Belz...]

If you argue that pedophiles are no danger to anyone so long as they don't actually act on their urges, then you are "defending something controversial". That makes you an apologist.... by definition!

I'd like to see that definition.

Are you willing to agree that heterosexual men are a danger to women because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them? If not, can you show that a pedophile's urges -- as gross and unimaginable as they may be to us -- are harder to resist?

You had plenty of opportunity to distinguish between "pedophile" and "child molester", two categories which, though they overlap, are not the same thing. Neither is even included within the other. You've even touched upon this yourself a short while back. So why do you continue to argue this? Because you can't back down from your original statements?

 

[Belz...]

The thread is about sick, kiddie fiddling, pedo priests.

How do you know they are pedophiles and not just child molesters?

Not lets discuss why some pedos are misunderstood

How about you?

Are you willing to agree that heterosexual men are a danger to women because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

 

[smartcooky]

Why? Are you abusing the language over there, too?

No, but you are.... (its misusing not abusing)

 

[quadraginta]

No, but you are.... (its misusing not abusing)

I believe I got it just right.

Those two terms are not mutually exclusive, you know.

 

[cullennz]

How do you know they are pedophiles and not just child molesters?



How about you?

Are you willing to agree that heterosexual men are a danger to women because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

They dont have the kids in the choir because their balls have dropped

Nope.

They can be trusted by pretty much every one with women.

Pedos can't with kids

 

[smartcooky]

I'd like to see that definition.

It was quoted right above the bit you cherry picked from my post, if you bothered to read it.

Are you willing to agree that heterosexual men are a danger to women because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

No, that is a strawman argument.

Heterosexual adult men having urges to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

Heterosexual men having urges to have sex with little boys and little girls is not normal.

If not, can you show that a pedophile's urges -- as gross and unimaginable as they may be to us -- are harder to resist?

No I can't and I am not going to try, because it is irrelevant.

You had plenty of opportunity to distinguish between "pedophile" and "child molester", two categories which, though they overlap, are not the same thing. Neither is even included within the other. You've even touched upon this yourself a short while back. So why do you continue to argue this? Because you can't back down from your original statements?

No, because I don't care about technicalities. I only care about the victims. Paedophiles, kiddie fiddlers and child molesters, whether you think they are different or the same, could all bugger off and die and I would care not a jot.

 

[cullennz]

In fact comparing it to normal dudes who shag adults of what ever persuasion is a bit silly.

If the bloke has urges he can go home and shag his partner.

A pedo it's basically day dreaming or watching porn featuring little kids being abused.

Which is arguably not much different to doing it themselves

 

[quadraginta]

It was quoted right above the bit you cherry picked from my post, if you bothered to read it.



No, that is a strawman argument.

Heterosexual adult men having urges to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

<snip>

By your own logic, then, heterosexual adult men raping and beating adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

Well, there are people who seem to agree with that viewpoint, I guess.

 

[cullennz]

By your own logic, then, heterosexual adult men raping and beating adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

Well, there are people who seem to agree with that viewpoint, I guess.

Far out the wind ups on here are losing flair

 

[smartcooky]

By your own logic, then, heterosexual adult men raping and beating adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

You're almost as good at strawman arguments as Argumemnon

 

[Belz...]

They dont have the kids in the choir because their balls have dropped

Nope.

They can be trusted by pretty much every one with women.

Are you crazy? Heterosexual men are sexually attracted to women! They could rape them at any time. Clearly they can't be put near them!

 

[Belz...]

It was quoted right above the bit you cherry picked from my post, if you bothered to read it.

No, I meant the definition that supports your claim, not the one you quoted.

Also, please learn the meaning of the term "cherry-pick".

No, that is a strawman argument.

Another term you don't know the meaning of, it seems. I'm asking you to agree to an equivalent argument, not saying it's yours.

Heterosexual adult men having urges to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex is normal.

You're right, I'm sorry.

Are you willing to agree that hmosexual men are a danger to other men because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

After all, their urges are not normal, right?.

No I can't and I am not going to try, because it is irrelevant.

Indeed, you've just shown that the difference is that they're different, which is a very odd position to take. I'd think the risk of harm would be more relevant to you.

No, because I don't care about technicalities.

It's not a technicality AT ALL. You've been told this in every conceivable way. A pedophile is not a child molester and a child molester is not a pedophile. The two, while not mutually-exclusive, are NOT THE SAME THING. There's nothing technical about it.

 

[cullennz]

No, I meant the definition that supports your claim, not the one you quoted.

Also, please learn the meaning of the term "cherry-pick".



Another term you don't know the meaning of, it seems. I'm asking you to agree to an equivalent argument, not saying it's yours.



You're right, I'm sorry.

Are you willing to agree that hmosexual men are a danger to other men because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

After all, their urges are not normal, right?.



Indeed, you've just shown that the difference is that they're different, which is a very odd position to take. I'd think the risk of harm would be more relevant to you.



It's not a technicality AT ALL. You've been told this in every conceivable way. A pedophile is not a child molester and a child molester is not a pedophile. The two, while not mutually-exclusive, are NOT THE SAME THING. There's nothing technical about it.

Homosexual men who are into consenting adults are a danger to no one.

You seem to not get they can go home and shag their boyfriend.

Pedos it's kids who have zero say or control. Or sick porn

Seriously it ain't that hard to work out

 

[jimbob]

The sexual drive is one of the strongest drives that a person experiences. If someone has a drive that can only be satisfied without consent, i.e. a victim rather than a partner, then they are a risk.

 

[quadraginta]

You're almost as good at strawman arguments as Argumemnon

What strawman? Those were your very own standards, applied in the very same way.

If there's a strawman then you built it yourself.

 

[smartcooky]

What strawman? Those were your very own standards, applied in the very same way.

If there's a strawman then you built it yourself.

Utter bollocks

You know perfectly well that you took what I said, and removed some of my words (in green)...

"Heterosexual adult men having urges to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex is normal."

and then added your own words (in red).

"Heterosexual adult men raping and beating adult members of the opposite sex is normal."

thereby, completely changing the meaning of what I said. Then you attacked YOUR revised version of what I said.

You made the strawman, then you attacked it!!!

 

[quadraginta]

Utter bollocks

You know perfectly well that you took what I said, and removed some of my words (in green)...

"Heterosexual adult men having urges to have sex with adult members of the opposite sex is normal."

and then added your own words (in red).

"Heterosexual adult men raping and beating adult members of the opposite sex is normal."

thereby, completely changing the meaning of what I said. Then you attacked YOUR revised version of what I said.

You made the strawman, then you attacked it!!!

If a pedophile's urges make them do something wrong and illegal then it is the urges that must be criminalized. The thought is the act, apparently.

If a heterosexual's urges make them do something wrong and illegal ... well that's okay. It's normal.

Got it.

 

[jimbob]

If a pedophile's urges make them do something wrong and illegal then it is the urges that must be criminalized.

If a heterosexual's urges make them do something wrong and illegal ... well that's okay. It's normal.

Got it.

There is a difference.

The sexual drive is one of the strongest drives that a person experiences. If someone has a drive that can only be satisfied without consent, i.e. a victim rather than a partner, then they are a risk.

They shouldn't be criminalised for the urges alone, but they should be kept away from children.

 

[quadraginta]

There is a difference.



They shouldn't be criminalised for the urges alone, but they should be kept away from children.

And how is this determined? Do you have their therapists turn them in so that they get put on a potential sex offender registry?

 

[smartcooky]

No, I meant the definition that supports your claim, not the one you quoted.

The definition I quoted does support my claim

Also, please learn the meaning of the term "cherry-pick".

I know what "cherry-pick means"....

"cher·ry-pick
verb
1. selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available."

....which is exactly what you did; select the bit that benefited your argument.

Another term you don't know the meaning of, it seems. I'm asking you to agree to an equivalent argument, not saying it's yours.

I know what a strawman is....

"straw man
noun
a sham argument set up to be defeated.
an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

.... and what you proposed was not an "equivalent argument". You changed the argument to something that you could argue against because you couldn't refute mine as it stood.

Are you willing to agree that hmosexual men are a danger to other men because they may give in to their urges at any time, and should be kept away from them?

Only if the "other men" are unwilling. And of course, if the "other men" are children (and your homosexual man is attracted to little boys).

It's not a technicality AT ALL. You've been told this in every conceivable way. A pedophile is not a child molester and a child molester is not a pedophile..

And you can tell me a few more dozen ways if you like; it won't make any difference either BECAUSE I DON'T BLOODY WELL CARE!

The two, while not mutually-exclusive, are NOT THE SAME THING. There's nothing technical about it

You seem to be trying to say that pedophile who molests children is not a pedophile. Really? You really believe that?