Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Butter!]

They could admit to having those urges. That would make them a paedophile, would it not?

They'd be a pedophile anyway! Oh my goodness, this really is a brain-buster, innit?

Look - let's try an example that doesn't involve kids, because that topic seems to destroy participants' skepticism right off the bat. Here's something nice and normal: I'm a straight woman. I desire men. When I experience attraction or sexual desire, it is for men. If I decided to become celibate and went around for the rest of my life without flirting with a man, touching a man, or doing anything nasty with a man, I would still be a straight woman. Do you get that? Whether I tell anyone I like men or not, I STILL LIKE THEM.

The tree DOES make a sound if it falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, and in much the same way, your sexual orientations/fixations/paraphilias/whatever are there, whether you discuss them, act on them, or just sit on them silently 'til the end of time. It's like the difference between "abstinate" and "asexual." One means absence of desire, the other absence of activity. Is there overlap between the two groups? Of course there is. But it's not an eclipse.

There is no ethical argument being made.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, I've been told this before but this doesn't tell me if they are actually at higher risk. After all they also have their hands as outlets, and having a convincing answer that makes sense doesn't mean that reality will correspond to it.

 

[Checkmite]

Yes, I've been told this before but this doesn't tell me if they are actually at higher risk. After all they also have their hands as outlets, and having a convincing answer that makes sense doesn't mean that reality will correspond to it.

A pedophile by definition is at greater risk of committing a sex offense against a child than someone who has no sexual interest in children.

People who fantasize about committing mass shootings, have video games, writing, and art for outlets. Nevertheless, most people would consider it highly irresponsible to knowingly provide someone that has expressed a fantasy about committing a mass shooting or spree killing access to a gun and ammunition. That they've never "acted on it" before isn't a very compelling reason to consider it less of a risk.

 

[Belz...]

People who fantasize about committing mass shootings, have video games, writing, and art for outlets. Nevertheless, most people would consider it highly irresponsible to knowingly provide someone that has expressed a fantasy about committing a mass shooting or spree killing access to a gun and ammunition. That they've never "acted on it" before isn't a very compelling reason to consider it less of a risk.

You continue to appeal to common sense when I'm asking for actual evidence, Checkmite. Do you have anything beyond your feeling that the conclusion just makes sense?

 

[cullennz]

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.

I didn't dodge it. I said I don't know.

I agree with others that the whole looking after kids scenario just makes it over complicated

 

[Belz...]

I didn't dodge it. I said I don't know.

Well, if it puts your mind at ease, I don't know either, which is why I didn't assume that the risk was higher.

 

[Checkmite]

Assessing risk is basically a generalized prediction of the future. So there really can't be "evidence" that a risk assessment is accurate in any specific case. Risk assessments must rely on logic. There is more risk that a house which uses a real tree at Christmas time will burn down from the tree catching fire, than there is that a house which uses an artificial tree will. Introducing other variables or specific scenarios can change things obviously.

 

[Belz...]

Assessing risk is basically a generalized prediction of the future. So there really can't be "evidence" that a risk assessment is accurate in any specific case.

I'm not asking for a specific case. I'm asking you if you have any evidence that pedophiles are more at risk of acting on their urges. This is a statistic. It's obvious that you have no such evidence.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm not asking for a specific case. I'm asking you if you have any evidence that pedophiles are more at risk of acting on their urges. This is a statistic. It's obvious that you have no such evidence.

There doesn't need to be. Again, by definition, a pedophile is more at risk of initiating a sex offense against a child than someone who has no sexual interest in children. It's like asking how likely ice is to be cold.

 

[Belz...]

There doesn't need to be. Again, by definition, a pedophile is more at risk of initiating a sex offense against a child than someone who has no sexual interest in children. It's like asking how likely ice is to be cold.

Absolute nonsense! You think it makes sense because of the "outlet" argument, but you have no clue if the argument holds any water. The argument is convincing, but that does not tell us if it is true. And it isn't true "by definition" at all, unless you're using a completely different definition of "definition", which would be quite an interesting semantic issue.

 

[cullennz]

Absolute nonsense! You think it makes sense because of the "outlet" argument, but you have no clue if the argument holds any water. The argument is convincing, but that does not tell us if it is true. And it isn't true "by definition" at all, unless you're using a completely different definition of "definition", which would be quite an interesting semantic issue.

The difference is a kid has zero defence and it may go undetected.

That and as has been mentioned everyone else has other lehal outlets to satisfy their urges

 

[smartcooky]

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.

So, a paedophile is not a child molester, except for when he is?

Got it!

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'll let Modified answer this for me

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.

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?

You can't tell, but this doesn't mean you should ignore the fact, or should not act cautiously with regard to putting one alone with children if you do know.

I refer you to post #185 where I have already addressed this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11577129&postcount=185

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?

I have no idea. Do you?

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

And I'll let Checkmite answer this one

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.

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.

Right back at ya! You keep dodging our question. You claim it is because the question is "stupid", but in reality, you won't answer it because a truthful answer yanks the rug out from under your feet. I'll ask it again.

"Would you happily allow a known paedophile to supervise your child alone and unsupervised?"

And this time, no dodging, no circumlocution, no sidetracking, no Socratic counter-interrogatives, and no BS. Give me a "yes" or "no" answer.

 

[Checkmite]

Absolute nonsense! You think it makes sense because of the "outlet" argument, but you have no clue if the argument holds any water. The argument is convincing, but that does not tell us if it is true. And it isn't true "by definition" at all, unless you're using a completely different definition of "definition", which would be quite an interesting semantic issue.

You're not making any sense.

The question we've started with is whether leaving a child alone with a pedophile is more of a risk (implied - of being the child being molested) than leaving a child with someone who isn't a pedophile. The answer is yes, because a pedophile by definition has a sexual interest in children. Non-pedophile hetero- and homosexuals have sexual interests as well, but they do not involve children so their interest is largely irrelevant. And so, too, is the question of whether pedophiles are more or less likely to "control their urges" than the non-pedophile adults. It does not matter - that likelihood can be completely equal, or the pedophile can even be more in control of his urges than a typical non-pedophile, but it is still irrelevant because when the non-pedophile adult makes a conscious decision to act on his or her urges with the object of their interest they can do that completely legally and consensually, whereas when a pedophile makes a conscious decision to act on his or her urges with their object of interest, that results in abuse.

 

[Belz...]

The difference is a kid has zero defence and it may go undetected.

That is irrelevant to risk, however, which was my question.

 

[Belz...]

So, a paedophile is not a child molester, except for when he is?

Got it!

The same stupid logic could be used to say that a person is not a criminal except for when they are. That is borderline dishonest by you, since you've followed this thread enough to understand what we're talking about despite your emotional involvement.

Right back at ya! You keep dodging our question. You claim it is because the question is "stupid", but in reality, you won't answer it because a truthful answer yanks the rug out from under your feet. I'll ask it again.

"Would you happily allow a known paedophile to supervise your child alone and unsupervised?"

I _have_ answered this question. Will you apologise, now, for accusing me of not answering it?

 

[Belz...]

The question we've started with is whether leaving a child alone with a pedophile is more of a risk (implied - of being the child being molested) than leaving a child with someone who isn't a pedophile.

No, the question was whether a pedophile is more at risk of acting on his urges. That was my question from the get-go. You have no evidence to show that he is. All you have is an argument that _you_ find convincing and have called it true "by definition".

The answer is yes, because a pedophile by definition has a sexual interest in children.

That does not in any way show that they are more at risk of acting on that interest.

Non-pedophile hetero- and homosexuals have sexual interests as well, but they do not involve children so their interest is largely irrelevant.

Really? Why is it irrelevant?

And so, too, is the question of whether pedophiles are more or less likely to "control their urges" than the non-pedophile adults. It does not matter - that likelihood can be completely equal, or the pedophile can even be more in control of his urges than a typical non-pedophile, but it is still irrelevant because when the non-pedophile adult makes a conscious decision to act on his or her urges with the object of their interest they can do that completely legally and consensually, whereas when a pedophile makes a conscious decision to act on his or her urges with their object of interest, that results in abuse.

And yet they can act on their urges with a completely non-consensual victim. The fact that they can otherwise DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I'm starting to think that you simply don't understand the question at all.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not asking for a specific case. I'm asking you if you have any evidence that pedophiles are more at risk of acting on their urges. This is a statistic. It's obvious that you have no such evidence.

FFS , you cant have evidence of something that hasn't happened yet!

When doing Risk Assessment, all you can do is use logic and common-sense to try to ascertain what risk there might be in allowing a particular scenario. LATER, you then look at what happen to see if you assessment was accurate, and refine you logic to try to make your assessment more accurate in the future. Its like a guessing game

1. you make an educated guess based on logic and reason
2. you check the result against your guess.
3. your refine you guess from what you have leaned so that future guesses might be more accurate.

 

[cullennz]

I should add again.

That in MY OPINION a pedo who needs to satisfy their urges by watching child porn is not much better than a kiddie fiddler

 

[Belz...]

FFS , you cant have evidence of something that hasn't happened yet!

Again, it's clear that you simply don't understand the question.

NOBODY is asking you if that SPECIFIC pedophile is more at risk. The question is whether pedophiles IN GENERAL are more at risk.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm starting to think that you simply don't understand the question at all.

I'm starting to think that you simply don't understand the answer's you have been getting.