Then why is it so hard to answer the question?
Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester
Belz...
Fiend God
As I said: I will answer it once you've learned what people are trying to teach you. The difficulty is entirely yours.
People are telling me I have done something I haven't.
Not all pedos act on their urges.
As I said we established this on page one
Then people started writing novels as if we hadn't
Belz...
Fiend God
So why then do you keep asking a question based on a false premise?
It isn't
Let me put it longer
Would you trust a pedo who hasn't acted on their urges?
In other words
Would you put your actions where your words are?
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes. I don't engage in thought crime. Just like I would trust a hetero who hasn't acted on their urges.
Again: unless you can show that pedophiles are more likely to act on their urges, your contention that they are somehow more at risk is unfounded. Do you have such evidence?
Come on. Show that you have indeed learned something, here.
Thank you.
I personally wouldn't.
But I would explain to them that while they haven't I put risk management (any risk management) way high up on kids.
And all it would take is a false accusation.
But that's just me
Belz...
Fiend God
I guess you never had any intention of learning anything here.
And you seem to ignore the fact letting a known pedo look after kids would create a **** storm among the parents.
The media.
And probably lose you what ever licence you have.
But good for you sticking by your personal guns
Belz...
Fiend God
There's a reason why I subscribed to this forum, cullennz, and that's because I don't let my personal feelings inform my knowledge about reality.
You should try it.
Cool, but the reality is it would be foolish.
Sad, because as you say it may be irrelevant.
But it just is what it is
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok so now you're back at claiming that pedophiles are more at risk of acting on their urges. I've been asking you for a while now to demonstrate this assumption and you have not even responded to that request.
Are you going to do that now?
There is a difference in that if one's urges can only be satisfied with a nonconsenting victim then they are more of a risk. There is no acceptable outlet for their urges.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yes, but that's mostly theoretical. Do we have evidence that this is indeed the case? Remember that there's plenty of things we used to think true because they made sense to us and they turned out false.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
This really should end the discussion. But it won't - not now, and not in future instances, either. Every time someone uses the word "pedophile" to describe a child sex offender - any offender, even one that is unquestionably a pedophile by even the most pandantically-tortured meaning of the word - someone else gets upset and has to force a long tangential discussion on whether it's "fair", "correct", "intellectually honest" etc to refer to child molesters using the word "pedophile". And someone else inevitably points out that using "pedophile" in this colloquial form is common and completely normalized, and has been for many decades. Point out all you want that this is not a medical school classroom nor are we professional psychiatrists or lawyers debating precise theory on a professional level. It matters not. We'll be down this road again, and again.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
So, you would happily allow a known paedophile to supervise your child alone and unsupervised? Really?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
You want to point out where he said that?
Or how someone is a known pedophile if all they have is urges they've never acted on?
Post 166
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Cullennz: "But would you let a confessed pedo who isn't a kiddy fiddler look after kids alone"
Argumemnon: "The fact that you keep asking whether we're let a pedophile near children shows that you don't understand the distinction, so the fault is entirely on you."
Cullennz: "Then why is it so hard to answer the question?"
Argumemnon: "As I said: I will answer it once you've learned what people are trying to teach you. The difficulty is entirely yours."
Cullennz: "Not all pedos act on their urges. As I said we established this on page one"
Argumemnon: "So why then do you keep asking a question based on a false premise?"
Cullennz: "Let me put it longer
Would you trust a pedo who hasn't acted on their urges? Would you put your actions where your words are?"
Argumemnon: "Yes. I don't engage in thought crime."
Sometime, you could try reading back through ALL of the conversation, that way, you can learn stuff about what people are talking about.
You could also try checking and reading the post that is being quoted... in this case it was Post 166 as cullennz told you!!
They could admit to having those urges. That would make them a paedophile, would it not?
Last edited:
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Dude, have you forgotten the pages and pages you, I, and others spent exhaustively going over this exact same topic in a thread last year? I don't understand what is so complicated about this. The word "pedophile" means someone who is attracted to prepubescent children (whether or not you "know about it.") The word "child molester" means someone who molests or has molested a prebuscent child or children (or as you insist on going with, "kiddie fiddler" - now I really do need a shower, ugh). One is a *********** thought, the other is a *********** action. We have two different words because they mean two different things.
People trying to get you to use the right word is not them defending EITHER type of individual. It is them defending correct verbiage, and nothing more. Where is the ambiguity? I'm sure you'll tell me.
Last edited: