Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Aepervius]

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.

They are disgusting if they act upon their impulse. If not they are merely sick. I am not saying that this is the case and probably not for 99.99% of the paedophile, but at least one paedophile was because of a tumor and the impulse stopped once the tumor removed (and yes when the impulse came back lo and behold they found the tumor had regrown).

Paedophile == one which may seek preteen/prepubescent, not necessarily an *******.
Kiddy fiddler == ******* by definition.

The two are different.

You can be a paedophile without being a kiddy fiddler.

 

[smartcooky]

The crime really is in the thinking then.

Of course thinking it is not a crime, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to regard people who think like that as vile and disgusting

Like any man who ever feels like they want to sexually touch some attractive stranger really is a pervert and deserves condemnation.

No, that is a strawman argument.

Your scenario would not be a crime if the attractive stranger was to consent

A child cannot consent, so it will always be a crime.

The two are not comparable

 

[Aepervius]

Of course thinking it is not a crime, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to regard people who think like that as vile and disgusting


No, that is a strawman argument.

Your scenario would not be a crime if the attractive stranger was to consent

A child cannot consent, so it will always be a crime.

The two are not comparable

No what is comparable is that the THOUGHT is for you equivalent to the CRIME.

Thinking of stealing is the same evilness as stealing.
Paedophile are the same vileness as child rapist.
Looking a woman you are not married with and imagination sex with her is the same as breaking your vow of mariage and cuckholding your SO.

That is the comparison he was doing. And that is where you err. ETA:The thought is not the same as the crime and nowhere near the same level in vileness.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Of course thinking it is not a crime, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to regard people who think like that as vile and disgusting

So...a 12 year old girl with the hots for a 12 year old boy (or vice versa) is vile and disgusting?

 

[cullennz]

They are disgusting if they act upon their impulse. If not they are merely sick. I am not saying that this is the case and probably not for 99.99% of the paedophile, but at least one paedophile was because of a tumor and the impulse stopped once the tumor removed (and yes when the impulse came back lo and behold they found the tumor had regrown).

Paedophile == one which may seek preteen/prepubescent, not necessarily an *******.
Kiddy fiddler == ******* by definition.

The two are different.

You can be a paedophile without being a kiddy fiddler.

Only if you don't act on it

If they do they are a kiddie fiddler

 

[smartcooky]

So...a 12 year old girl with the hots for a 12 year old boy (or vice versa) is vile and disgusting?

I know of no 12 year olds who are RC priests... do you?.

If those of you who are currently indulging in all the pedantic, new-age liberal weasel-speak, ever have one of your children "interfered with" by an adult who was in a position of trust (in my case, it was a school teacher) you will undergo a complete attitude adjustment, I promise you. All your fancy psycho-babble and gobbledygook will go right out the window. All you will want to do is kill the bastard. This particular (now ex) teacher is the only person I know who, if he stepped off the kerb in front of my car, I would not trust myself that my desire to accelerate would not overwhelm my instinctive reaction to brake.

There may well be technical and/or moral and/or psychological differences between a paedophile and a child molester, but I don't give a fat rat's arse what those differences are, and neither am I interested in learning what they are. These scumbags are all the same to me; vile and disgusting individuals whom I don't want anywhere near my children or my grand children.

 

[ddt]

Looking a woman you are not married with and imagination sex with her is the same as breaking your vow of mariage and cuckholding your SO.

That is the comparison he was doing. And that is where you err. ETA:The thought is not the same as the crime and nowhere near the same level in vileness.

Actually, there was a wandering preacher back some 2,000 years who argued exactly that; or, at least, some guys claimed that in a book. The various persons discussed in this thread hold that guy in high regard.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, there was a wandering preacher back some 2,000 years who argued exactly that; or, at least, some guys claimed that in a book. The various persons discussed in this thread hold that guy in high regard.

Maybe that's where they get the idea from?

 

[theprestige]

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

It's an irrelevant question

It's a relevant question, because the word lumps both offenders and non-offenders together.

You're vilifying both at the same time.

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

Pedophilia isn't a choice. Shouldn't you save your condemnation for those who choose to act, instead of lumping in those who don't as well?

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.

No, we don't all know what we're talking about here. The more you insist on using the term "pedophilia", the more it seems like you're talking about all people everywhere who have this sexual orientation, whether they choose to act on it or not.

I think most of us would be quite happy to just talk about corrupt priests who act on their urges. I think probably all of us agree with your condemnation of them. But your terminology goes much further than just that group of evildoers.

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

Your insistence on using overly-broad terminology suggests you have zero tolerance for anyone suffering from the condition, whether they ever acted on it or not.

"You're right, theprestige and others. 'Pedophile' is probably too broad a term for the idea I'm trying to express. Let's use something more focused instead."

 

[cullennz]

No it doesn't. I don't know what they are till they tell me.

If they say pedo they are pedo.

 

[jimbob]

Nobody would know if they don't act on their impulses. Even if they don't, they are unsuitable to be in a position of trust with children. So for shorthand, I will still use the phrase "paedophile priest".

Everyone in this thread knows that they are known to be paedophiles because they acted on their impulses.

I am willing to use a different term, say "non offending paedophile" for those who don't act on their impulses.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... 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.

An important distinction, and one tough to make on a topic like this. But in principle I must concur. In a happier example, I haven't beaten up any Trump supporters, in spite of fantasizing hourly about the prospect.

 

[Aepervius]

Actually, there was a wandering preacher back some 2,000 years who argued exactly that; or, at least, some guys claimed that in a book. The various persons discussed in this thread hold that guy in high regard.

I don't , and I am pointing out the silliness of equating thought with crime. Again neither do I give to the sons the sins of the father or whatever other silliness.

 

[smartcooky]

Whether you want to call them paedophiles, or child molesters or kiddie fiddlers, or whether there is technically a difference between them or not is really a moot point IMO. The bottom line is that I would not want any of them near my children

For those new-age liberals among us, let me ask you a couple of simple questions....

Would you hire a known paedophile to babysit your children?

Would you hire a known paedophile to work unsupervised at kindergarten or child care centre?

Would you leave your children at a day care centre when you know that one of the staff was a paedophile?

 

[quadraginta]

Of course thinking it is not a crime, but that doesn't mean I am not allowed to regard people who think like that as vile and disgusting


No, that is a strawman argument.

Your scenario would not be a crime if the attractive stranger was to consent

A child cannot consent, so it will always be a crime.

The two are not comparable

How does someone "consent" to somebody else's thoughts?

 

[Belz...]

Given that he seemed to get sexual gratification from children, I don't see why this matters so much.

Paedophile who acted on his impulses.

Yeah just like a rapist is a heterosexual who acts on his impulses. Doesn't mean heterosexuals are dangerous.

 

[ddt]

Actually, there was a wandering preacher back some 2,000 years who argued exactly that; or, at least, some guys claimed that in a book. The various persons discussed in this thread hold that guy in high regard.

Maybe that's where they get the idea from?

If that were the case, then the RCC would hold that every paedophile, whether they act on their urges or not, as a sinner and shun them from the clergy. They do the opposite.

I don't , and I am pointing out the silliness of equating thought with crime. Again neither do I give to the sons the sins of the father or whatever other silliness.

No, you don't, and nor do I. But the people discussed in this thread are father Searson, cardinal Pell, the pope and various other RCC clergy. They don't hold up much to the words of their saviour that sinful thoughts are a sin in itself.

 

[Belz...]

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

As if you don't already know that pedophilia is about the _attraction_, not the act.

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

Ah, thoughtcrime, then. A man even considering cheating on his wife is no different than an actual cheater. A girl who even considers shoplifting is no different than a thief. All of them vile and disgusting!

Only if you don't act on it

Yes, that is the POINT people are trying to make to you.

 

[Belz...]

I know of no 12 year olds who are RC priests... do you?.

If those of you who are currently indulging in all the pedantic, new-age liberal weasel-speak, ever have one of your children "interfered with" by an adult who was in a position of trust (in my case, it was a school teacher) you will undergo a complete attitude adjustment, I promise you. All your fancy psycho-babble and gobbledygook will go right out the window. All you will want to do is kill the bastard. This particular (now ex) teacher is the only person I know who, if he stepped off the kerb in front of my car, I would not trust myself that my desire to accelerate would not overwhelm my instinctive reaction to brake.

There may well be technical and/or moral and/or psychological differences between a paedophile and a child molester, but I don't give a fat rat's arse what those differences are, and neither am I interested in learning what they are. These scumbags are all the same to me; vile and disgusting individuals whom I don't want anywhere near my children or my grand children.

Translation: This topic makes me angry. My feelings outweigh my reason. I'm not interested in learning how these things work.

Then why the hell are you even on this forum?

 

[Belz...]

Whether you want to call them paedophiles, or child molesters or kiddie fiddlers, or whether there is technically a difference between them or not is really a moot point IMO. The bottom line is that I would not want any of them near my children

Your chlidren? I wouldn't trust them too much around any child. But that's a rational position, based on a calculation of risk. It isn't the same as calling all of them scum for a condition they have no control over.

This is just as helpful to them as exorcism was to mentally ill people in the past.