Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

isissxn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean how am I supposed to know what their urges are till they say

I know. Which is I have been separating them since page one.

It's just no one seems to have actually read my posts and accuse me of doing so.

My posts are fairly simple to read

There is a reason I don't want to get things overly complicated.

If you could just point to my posts that have it would be nice
 
So is anyone going to point out where I said all pedos are kiddie fiddlers or not?

You spent enough time harrassing me for doing it.

By spending paragraphs thinking you had to explain what we had already established on page one?

Maybe an apology?
 
quadraginta said:
Admitting it is acting on them.
Click to expand...

Utter Poppycock. Simply admitting to an inappropriate sexual urge is not acting on that urge. If what you say were true (and, of course, it is not) then whole thing is moot. You and others have said that the difference between a paedophile and a child molester is that a child molester has acted on their urges but a paedophile has not.

Now you're saying that a paedophile who has admitted their condition has acted on their urges. That makes them neither a paedophile or a child molester... so, what are they then?

Can you see the problem you have now?

You need to scrape the bottom of your barrel harder than that if you're going to succeed in convincing me there is any merit in what you say.

PS: Your deft sidestep of the other part of my post was duly noted.
 
quadraginta said:
And they would still be a pedophile even without admitting it.
Click to expand...

So

1. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child and/or has never admitted to his condition, then I don't know he is a paedophile, so whether or not I would trust him to mind a child unsupervised is moot.

2. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child, but, he HAS admitted to his condition, then I am not letting him anywhere near a child unsupervised.

Do you think that would be a fair reaction?
 
smartcooky said:
So

1. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child and/or has never admitted to his condition, then I don't know he is a paedophile, so whether or not I would trust him to mind a child unsupervised is moot.

2. If Fred is a paedophile, but has never behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards a child, but, he HAS admitted to his condition, then I am not letting him anywhere near a child unsupervised.

Do you think that would be a fair reaction?
Click to expand...

For me yes

1 is always the unknown. But what can you do?

2 is just IMO basic common sense.

If 2 reacted badly with it then I would think less of them
 
smartcooky said:
So, you would happily allow a known paedophile to supervise your child alone and unsupervised? Really?
Click to expand...

Would you happily allow a known homosexual to supervise that child?

You continue to make the mistake of thinking that a pedophile is someone who molests children. Despite your objection that you know this isn't the case, your words betray you.
 
smartcooky said:
Utter Poppycock. Simply admitting to an inappropriate sexual urge is not acting on that urge.
Click to expand...

"Inappropriate sexual urge". So you do believe in thought crime!

That runs contrary to the core values of modern western civilisation. I hope you realise that. But then, you argued that posters with unpopular opinions should be banned.
 
Argumemnon said:
Would you happily allow a known homosexual to supervise that child?

You continue to make the mistake of thinking that a pedophile is someone who molests children. Despite your objection that you know this isn't the case, your words betray you.
Click to expand...
A homosexual doesnt have urges for pre-pubecent kids.

Well. Normally

So yes and I have
 
Argumemnon said:
Would you happily allow a known homosexual to supervise that child?
Click to expand...

One of my my grandson's regular babysitters is gay, so yes! I trust her, and so does my daughter.

Argumemnon said:
You continue to make the mistake of thinking that a pedophile is someone who molests children. Despite your objection that you know this isn't the case, your words betray you.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that a paedophile would EVER molest a child?
 
smartcooky said:
So you don't think that a paedophile would EVER molest a child?
Click to expand...

What a stupid question. If that were the standard, we'd never interact with anybody. Do you not see how silly this was for you to say? It's a false dichotomy.

Read what I said again, and address what I actually wrote.

Despite your claim, you seem to still confuse pedophile with child molester. I've told you already that the two sets, while having some overlap, are not the same.
 
smartcooky said:
Utter Poppycock. Simply admitting to an inappropriate sexual urge is not acting on that urge.

<snip>
Click to expand...


If they have no such urges how can they admit to them? If they admit to them that is an action based on the existence of those urges.

Your confusion is based in your inability to admit to yourself that not all acts have to involve the abuse of a child.

I can't help you with that. It's your own obsession.

Now you can answer the question you've been evading. If they don't act on (including admitting) to their urges then how can you tell they are pedophiles?

And just out of curiosity, how many publicly self-admitted pedophiles who have harmed no children do you believe are out there?

It isn't exactly the sort of action society rewards. What would their motive be?
 
quadraginta said:
If they have no such urges how can they admit to them? If they admit to them that is an action based on the existence of those urges.
Click to expand...

That is not what "acting on an urge" means. It means acting in a way that would satisfy the urge. This is fairly basic for any native English speaker.
 
Argumemnon said:
About half of them are XY, yes.

You still haven't answered my question: are pedophiles more at risk of acting on their urges? Otherwise, why would you trust any man around a woman, for instance?
Click to expand...
You asked about homosexual and kids.

They would also have to be child molesting pedos.

Homosexuality is an irrelevant part of your question.

I don't know if they are more at risk

What I do know is that it would be irresponsible to put a known pedo with kids alone.
 
cullennz said:
You asked about homosexual and kids.

They would also have to be child molesting pedos.

Homosexuality is an irrelevant part of your question.

I don't know if they are more at risk

What I do know is that it would be irresponsible to put a known pedo with kids alone.
Click to expand...

Stop dodging the question, cullennz. I know that answering it will damage your position, but since you're an adult I assume you can take it.

Are pedophiles more at risk of acting on their urges? Otherwise, why would you trust any man around a woman, for instance?

If the answer to the question is no, then you have no reason to conclude that they are a risk.
 
Well, y'all are admittedly kind of losing me with the "would you trust your kid around" argument. I do not have children and don't ever plan on it, but if I did, I'd have a hell of a time trusting him/her with ANYBODY I didn't know really well. Especially when he/she was quite young. And hell no, I wouldn't allow my child alone with someone I knew had such urges but had never acted on them. I'm a dick. There's a first time for everything. I wouldn't accept a risk like that in my own life.

What does that have to do with whether or not the words pedophile and child molester mean the same thing (they don't), or can be used interchangably (they can't if one is concerned with correct definitions, but they already are in common vernacular). It seems like muddying the waters. If we're arguing semantics, I'm ready to throw down all day. If we've switched to ethics, I'mma sit this one out from here.
 
Argumemnon said:
About half of them are XY, yes.

You still haven't answered my question: are pedophiles more at risk of acting on their urges? Otherwise, why would you trust any man around a woman, for instance?
Click to expand...

Because men and women, whether homo- or heterosexual, have outlets for satisfying their "urges" in a legal and consensual manner, and do so. This can include interaction with the person they are "around".

Pedophiles do not have this option, which makes placing them together with the object of their desires inherently riskier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom