Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[3point14]

This thread has been split from a thread discussing particular RCC priests.

The discussion language and labels was off topic so I have split it here.

Please remember your Membership Agreements, and in particular please remember that rule 1, rule 2 and rule 9 apply; ensure your posts do not breach any of the rules.

Posted By: Agatha

Given the sending of five paedophile* priests in a row to that parish I would not be surprised.

The priest also behaved sufficiently badly that even if all the child-abuse allegations were disbelieved he should have been defrocked.

*I can't see what the problem is with that term but if there is a good reason to change it, I will.

Given that we're a sceptic forum, why use the term reserved for a medical condition (that it isn't illegal to suffer from) to express an illegal act when, while related, they're distinctly different.

Or, in short, the 'good reason' is precision of communication - Isn't that reason enough?

 

[smartcooky]

Given that we're a sceptic forum, why use the term reserved for a medical condition (that it isn't illegal to suffer from) to express an illegal act when, while related, they're distinctly different.

Or, in short, the 'good reason' is precision of communication - Isn't that reason enough?

Arguing over what these disgusting individuals should be called is rather like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't much care whether you want to call them pedophiles or child molesters, its all the same to me. They are vile, depraved perverts who ought to have their genitalia removed with a rusty carving knife.

Just call them "kiddie fiddlers" then you have got it covered either way.

 

[cullennz]

The article says "child-molesting", your headline says "paedophile".

When will people finally figure out that the two are not synonymous?

When it comes to kiddie fiddlers I tend not to be so pedantic.


Argueing exactly which type of kiddie fiddler diverts from the fact they are scum

Just my opinion

 

[cullennz]

Apologies

Didn't see smartcookys post

What he said

 

[theprestige]

When it comes to kiddie fiddlers I tend not to be so pedantic.


Argueing exactly which type of kiddie fiddler diverts from the fact they are scum

Just my opinion

Arguing over what these disgusting individuals should be called is rather like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't much care whether you want to call them pedophiles or child molesters, its all the same to me. They are vile, depraved perverts who ought to have their genitalia removed with a rusty carving knife.

Just call them "kiddie fiddlers" then you have got it covered either way.

Does your condemnation include pedophiles who have chosen not to act on their urges?

 

[cullennz]

Does your condemnation include pedophiles who have chosen not to act on their urges?

If they haven't they aren't kiddie fiddlers and how would I know they are pedo?

It's an irrelevant question

 

[ponderingturtle]

If they haven't they aren't kiddie fiddlers and how would I know they are pedo?

It's an irrelevant question

They are looking for support to not offend?

 

[cullennz]

They are looking for support to not offend?

Good on them. Give it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Good on them. Give it.

Why would you help a kiddy fiddler they deserve nothing but scorn. It is like calling rapists, heterosexual men.

 

[Carnivore]

Why would you help a kiddy fiddler they deserve nothing but scorn. It is like calling rapists, heterosexual men.

If they don't fiddle kiddies, they are not kiddie fiddlers. Calling them that is like calling all straight men rapists.

Saying that men and women who grow up with a sexual attraction to children and who remain celibate for life because they are good people who know that acting on their most basic sexual urges would be evil deserve nothing but scorn seems not just very silly, but potentially harmful to children.

ETA: This is of course mostly a hypothetical question. As a general rule the only peadophiles the public hears about are the ones who engage in criminal activity. Logic suggests there must be some who don't, in much the same way as some gay people try to deny and suppress their sexuality.

 

[smartcooky]

Does your condemnation include pedophiles who have chosen not to act on their urges?

My condemnation is for anyone (of either sex) who would even consider any sexual contact with a child (of either sex). No beating about the bush, we all know what we are talking about here; clergymen who abuse their position of trust in the community to use little boys (and sometimes little girls) to perversely satisfy their own sexual urges.

I have zero tolerance and zero sympathy for this kind of scum.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My condemnation is for anyone (of either sex) who would even consider any sexual contact with a child (of either sex).

The crime really is in the thinking then. Like any man who ever feels like they want to sexually touch some attractive stranger really is a pervert and deserves condemnation.

 

[cullennz]

Why would you help a kiddy fiddler they deserve nothing but scorn. It is like calling rapists, heterosexual men.

You just said they hadn't acted on it

 

[GodMark2]

When it comes to kiddie fiddlers I tend not to be so pedantic.


Argueing exactly which type of kiddie fiddler diverts from the fact they are scum

Just my opinion

It's simple: pedophiles may or may not be 'kiddie-fiddlers'. 'Kiddie fiddlers' may or may not be pedophiles. Most sexual abuse involving minors is not about the sexual drive or attraction; just like most rapes, it is most often about about power and control.

One is a thought; the other is an assault. If you can't tell the difference between a thought and an assault, you should seek professional help.

Using the wrong terms confuses the issue, and delays any possibility of helping to correct the problem. "Pedophile is the same thing as child-molester" is exactly as wrong as saying "Man is the same thing as rapist".

 

[cullennz]

It's simple: pedophiles may or may not be 'kiddie-fiddlers'. 'Kiddie fiddlers' may or may not be pedophiles. Most sexual abuse involving minors is not about the sexual drive or attraction; just like most rapes, it is most often about about power and control.

One is a thought; the other is an assault. If you can't tell the difference between a thought and an assault, you should seek professional help.

Using the wrong terms confuses the issue, and delays any possibility of helping to correct the problem. "Pedophile is the same thing as child-molester" is exactly as wrong as saying "Man is the same thing as rapist".

Nope. You fiddle with kids or you don't.

Simple

 

[Elagabalus]

Ooooh! cullennz is in one of those moods again! I like his energy. "Get in there cullen, I'll hold your coat"! ***to the others*** "Well .... I'll hold yours too ....*!"





*The coat I mean. Get your minds out of the gutter ....

 

[3point14]

Nope. You fiddle with kids or you don't.

Simple

So how do you refer to someone who has a broken brain such that they are attracted to the prepubescent but don't act on it?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Nope. You fiddle with kids or you don't.

Simple

Rule of thumb I've observed: Anything cullennz declares to be "simple" is nothing of the sort. The "simple" part is ignoring all the nuance and variables of human behavior while looking for answers that confirm premature certainty.

 

[cullennz]

Rule of thumb I've observed: Anything cullennz declares to be "simple" is nothing of the sort. The "simple" part is ignoring all the nuance and variables of human behavior while looking for answers that confirm premature certainty.

Yes in this case I do ignore them

When it comes to kiddie fiddlers they aren't worthy of the extra effort

 

[Carnivore]

Nope. You fiddle with kids or you don't.

Simple

Er, are you sure you've read the post you're responding to correctly? The point that GodMark2 is making is one you've already agreed with in this thread!