Belz...
Fiend God
Well, we've learned recently that consent in video game characters was important. I guess the next step is consent in characters in your mind!
Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester
Well, we've learned recently that consent in video game characters was important. I guess the next step is consent in characters in your mind!
A much more apt comparison would be alcoholic vs. drunk driver.
I wouldn't trust an alcoholic with my unlocked liquor cabinet either.
But I wouldn't go around using 'drunk driver' as shorthand for 'alcoholic' because it accuses all people suffering from alcoholism of also being drunk drivers, not caring whether they are responsible enough to make sure they do not drive drunk.
It's an important distinction because people tend to give up trying to live up to better standards, people feel there is no help for them in that struggle, when everyone has already thrown them under the bus as if they have been doing what they have to work at not doing.
Belz...
Fiend God
Lithrael, you just won the internet for today. A very good analogy. Thank you.
Which is why paedophile priests are a problem even if they haven't yet offended.
GodMark2
Master Poster
But that potential for problem is very different from the actual problem presented by those who have chosen to molest children.
One is a subset* of the other. I also think the horse has bolted. If someone was discussing "priests who are paedophiles" then that could and should have a separate and wider meaning than "paedophile priests". Due to news stories, and current usage, the phrase "pedophile priests" is usually taken to refer to those who have acted on their impulses
*I suppose there is a potential group who might just be in it for the "fun" of the abuse and the humiliation and power.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Belz...
Fiend God
Do you really think your appeals to emotion constitute constructive questions?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
They are not an appeal to emotions at all, they are questions I want the apologists for pedophiles to answer. That they are afraid to do so tells me they are not really committed to their cause or sure of their footing.
Do you really think that avoiding questions is good practice for a critical thinker?
Belz...
Fiend God
"Would you want your child near a pedophile" isn't an appeal to emotion?
Stop taking the piss, please.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No its not. I am testing their belief.
If a person truly believes what they are saying, then they will not be afraid to answer a question that tests that belief, in the affirmative!
If a person says that a reformed pedofile does not pose a threat to society, and they truly believe what they are saying, they would answer my questions in the affirmative.
If they answer in the negative, they they do not truly believe what they are saying
If they refuse to answer, or avoid the question, the they are afraid of the test.
Irrelevant: I have never beaten my wife, and you are twisting my meaning.
Its not the same type of question that I am asking
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,101
What the hell are you on about?
This is an argument about labels. Some of us think that it's important to be able to differentiate the psychological condition of paedophilia (there are lots of philias, you know) from the criminal act of child molestation.
It may not be important to you to be able to differentiate the term for reasons I fail to understand, but some people, particularly in the medical and psychological/psychiatric disciplines absolutely need two separate terms for 'child molester' and 'paedophile'.
Your conflation of the two, again for reasons I don't properly understand, will just lead to the medical profession having to find a new term which, again, people with a poor understanding of language will probably try to subvert.
All true, but "paedophile priest" has meant "child-abusing-priest-who-is-a-paedophile" for a couple of decades at least. There are quite possibly priests who are paedophiles who are not acting on their impulses, but they probably wouldn't be described as such unless they do start to act on them.
Belz...
Fiend God
BS. The question wasn't about whether pedophiles are more at risk of molesting children or whether someone would be willing to take that risk with their own. but whether your lumping all pedophiles and child molesters into one group labeled "scum" was rational.
There you go again, assuming they need to be "reformed". Is that like praying away the gays lest they assault our children?
That does not follow. You are makin stuff up as you go.
YES or NO?
You are missing the point. Deliberately, it seems. You said that avoiding questions was not the mark of a critical thinker. I gave you an example of a question that is not worth a critical thinker's time or attention, and one that is usually best left avoided.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
You could have just said this;
"Due to news stories, and current usage, the word "pedophile" is usually taken to refer to those who have acted on their impulses"
And it would be equally true.
Which is what this discussion has been about. It isn't really any different if they are priests. When someone gets in the news as an alleged pedophile people tend to assume it is because they have acted on their impulses.
They're probably right.
I think what is being discussed here is if it is appropriate for those thus alleged to be always identified by the press and others as pedophiles when they are actually in trouble for being child molesters.
Well ... except for the thought police.
I'd say that it is slightly different. If someone started talking about priests who were paedophiles, then I think that people might look at the wording and ask whether they have acted on their impulses.
In the UK and many other countries, possession of child pornography is rightly a crime, but a paedophile who only uses that is not directly molesting children but is knowingly supporting the abuse of children.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
You have more faith (or something) in people than I do. I think the same people who assume (with some justification) that someone who has been reported as a "pedophile 'priest" has acted on those impulses will link those two words together in exactly the same way when confronted with "priest who is a pedophile".
The assumption will be that they wouldn't be in the news if they hadn't acted on those impulses.
Just out of curiosity, do you know of any instances where a priest has been reported to be a pedophile who hasn't been alleged to have molested children (or young people)?
Even if no children had been involved in the pornography?
Carnivore
Salad Dodger
Wow, what a derail. Someone objected to the word "paedophile" being used to mean "child molester". We clarified that someone attracted to children could be celibate or have sex only with adults without being a criminal and that a child molester was someone guilty of actual crimes. We even established that child molesters could abuse children without even being paedophiles. I noted that this was largely a moot point because non criminal paedophiles virtually never publically identify themselves, and so cannot be verified to exist.
Now apparently the hypothetical non criminal paedophiles are being hypothetically treated as if they were hypothetical criminals because...they haven't proved they're not? And the people who acknowledged a point of logic are "paedophile apologists"?!
More than that, hypothetical non criminal paedophiles are being labeled "reformed" as if they used to criminal when the terms of the bloody hypothetical example specified they are not.
But think of the children! Would you want your sister to marry one? You're making excuses for them!
A child abuser is NOT exactly the same thing as someone who DOESN'T abuse children. A CRIMINAL is not exactly the same thing as some has NOT comitted a crime. That was the only point that was made. Nobody is defending child abuse or child abusers!
Might people tempted to commit crimes commit them in the future? Of course they might. Might an adult who has successfully resisted temptation since puberty continue to so resist? Of course they might. Are these questions in any way relevant to the topic at hand? No. No they are not.
Now apparently the hypothetical non criminal paedophiles are being hypothetically treated as if they were hypothetical criminals because...they haven't proved they're not? And the people who acknowledged a point of logic are "paedophile apologists"?!
More than that, hypothetical non criminal paedophiles are being labeled "reformed" as if they used to criminal when the terms of the bloody hypothetical example specified they are not.
But think of the children! Would you want your sister to marry one? You're making excuses for them!
A child abuser is NOT exactly the same thing as someone who DOESN'T abuse children. A CRIMINAL is not exactly the same thing as some has NOT comitted a crime. That was the only point that was made. Nobody is defending child abuse or child abusers!
Might people tempted to commit crimes commit them in the future? Of course they might. Might an adult who has successfully resisted temptation since puberty continue to so resist? Of course they might. Are these questions in any way relevant to the topic at hand? No. No they are not.
Last edited:
First part of the question, theoretically possible, but no, which is also why I see little problem in using the common term for them. I suppose some might confess to such thoughts. However if they are of good intent, then they should not put themselves in temptation. If they require a religious life, then a monastic lifestyle would be better. The mere act of being a paedophile and putting one in a position of trust with access to children suggests acting in bad faith.
As to your second question, I'll answer a slightly different one at first. It is in the interest of society that there is no defence that one is merely looking at "realistically-simulated footage" of abuse as opposed to real footage of abuse.
I haven't looked it up, and intend not to because I would be too distressed by the descriptions, but my impression from the news is that most is genuine footage of abuse.
Sorry for the rather lame reply.
Repeating my point in my previous post.
I'd say that a paedophile who hasn't acted on their impulses but still puts themselves for a position of trust over children is acting in bad faith.