Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

[Carnivore]

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.

Absolutely, even if they were totally confident of their self control, in the real world they would not reveal their attraction to children to the stakeholders. A open paedophile simply wouldn't be given a position of trust over children.

 

[cullennz]

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.

Very good post

 

[Lithrael]

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?

I wouldn't trust an alcoholic with my unlocked liquor cabinet either.

That you avoided actually answering the questions is duly noted?

Avoided..? I thought my meaning was clear. I wouldn't x, and I wouldn't y either. I feel jimbob is correct in saying that a paedophile who puts themselves in a position of authority/trust over children is acting in bad faith. All of the following hand-wringing about how everybody is too much of a coward to answer your question is, well, hand-wringing. I'm glad that by being unintentionally ambiguous I gave you the chance to get it out of your system.

Oh, I did get my metaphor backwards though. I meant, I wouldn't want the press and everybody else to go around identifying drunk drivers by calling them only alcoholics. Apart from everything else, it would make some people think that when you say you have sympathy for alcoholics, you mean you have sympathy for people who have carelessly risked harming other people by driving drunk.

 

[cullennz]

Avoided..? I thought my meaning was clear. I wouldn't x, and I wouldn't y either. I feel jimbob is correct in saying that a paedophile who puts themselves in a position of authority/trust over children is acting in bad faith. All of the following hand-wringing about how everybody is too much of a coward to answer your question is, well, hand-wringing. I'm glad that by being unintentionally ambiguous I gave you the chance to get it out of your system.

Oh, I did get my metaphor backwards though. I meant, I wouldn't want the press and everybody else to go around identifying drunk drivers by calling them only alcoholics. Apart from everything else, it would make some people think that when you say you have sympathy for alcoholics, you mean you have sympathy for people who have carelessly risked harming other people by driving drunk.

The vast majority of people caught drink driving aren't alcoholics

 

[Lithrael]

It isn't a perfect metaphor. I'd hope you can see the point of it, anyways.

Using the name of the condition as a euphemism for the crime that can arise from the condition just creates messes like this thread's derail.

Just for the record and to be OT and to soothe smartcooky's troubled brow, I figure anybody who's going to work with kids should be neither a paedophile nor a child molester.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Absolutely, even if they were totally confident of their self control, in the real world they would not reveal their attraction to children to the stakeholders. A open paedophile simply wouldn't be given a position of trust over children.

I feel jimbob is correct in saying that a paedophile who puts themselves in a position of authority/trust over children is acting in bad faith.

Thank you for your honest answers. Its good to see that at least some people are capable of giving honest answers rather than attacking or dismissing the question.

I recognise that, from a purely academic standpoint, there is a technical/medical/psychological (or whatever) difference between a paedophile and a child molester. I also recognise that the medical/psychological profession needs to deal with them differently

However, the whole point of what I was saying is that, out here in the real world, where those of us whose job it is to deal with children and keep them safe from becoming the victims of sexual predators, we don't care about that difference. For all practical considerations, we treat them as the same, as someone who we need to protect children from.

As for the OP's "label" in his thread title, I have no problem whatsoever with calling the five of them "paedophile priests". They must have acted on their vile impulses, otherwise they would not have come to public attention.

Historically, the RC Church has never been interested in treatment for these predators, only in covering up what they have done, and paying off the victims and their families in order to keep the good name of the Church (such as it is) from being sullied. Therefore technically correct labelng of these five is of no consequence.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for your honest answers. Its good to see that at least some people are capable of giving honest answers rather than attacking or dismissing the question.

I recognise that, from a purely academic standpoint, there is a technical/medical/psychological (or whatever) difference between a paedophile and a child molester. I also recognise that the medical/psychological profession needs to deal with them differently

However, the whole point of what I was saying is that, out here in the real world[snip]

Yeah because science and reason have no place in the real world, where real men feel their way through life.

 

[3point14]

Thank you for your honest answers. Its good to see that at least some people are capable of giving honest answers rather than attacking or dismissing the question.

I recognise that, from a purely academic standpoint, there is a technical/medical/psychological (or whatever) difference between a paedophile and a child molester. I also recognise that the medical/psychological profession needs to deal with them differently

However, the whole point of what I was saying is that, out here in the real world, where those of us whose job it is to deal with children and keep them safe from becoming the victims of sexual predators, we don't care about that difference. For all practical considerations, we treat them as the same, as someone who we need to protect children from.

As for the OP's "label" in his thread title, I have no problem whatsoever with calling the five of them "paedophile priests". They must have acted on their vile impulses, otherwise they would not have come to public attention.

Historically, the RC Church has never been interested in treatment for these predators, only in covering up what they have done, and paying off the victims and their families in order to keep the good name of the Church (such as it is) from being sullied. Therefore technically correct labelng of these five is of no consequence.

Do you still maintain that there are*

apologists for pedophiles

In this thread? If so, can you quote the relevant bit, if not, then a withdrawal would be nice.


*This quote snipped to extract the relevant portion - context can be obtained by viewing the actual post.

 

[luchog]

These priests could have as well but they did not; they instead chose to pursue children, because they were pedophiles.

Well, no. They chose to pursue children for any of a number of different reasons. Roughly half of all child molesters, and the majority of violent child molesters, are not actually paedophiles, but when evaluated manifest typical heterosexual drives, even those who molest same-gender children. What they are is sociopaths, who choose an easily controlled and highly vulnerable target. They're not sexually attracted to their victims, they're sexually attracted to the power they have over their victims.

Further, it's estimated that the majority of clinical paedophiles do not act on their urges, and never molest children.

That's the big problem with focusing strictly on "paedophiles"; because screening for sexual attraction to children would likely not have prevented all of these cases, possibly not even half, since paedophiles who act on their urges are more likely to target those closest to them, with strangers or casual acquaintances targeted more by the sociopathic offender.

There are a number of important factors that need to be considered when screening for positions that have authority over or close contact with children; but such rationality certainly doesn't feed into the popular witch-hunt mentality and blood-lust fantasies that the topic invariably engenders.

 

[luchog]

In this thread? If so, can you quote the relevant bit, if not, then a withdrawal would be nice.

Not seeing any in this thread; but the forum does have a couple of apologists who have posted extensively in various other threads on the subject in the past. Kind of surprised neither of them seem to have made an appearance in this thread.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

A gun does not fire without bullets, if someone has a box of bullets with no gun I'm not scared they are going to shoot me but i am going to question why they own bullets.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you still maintain that there are*

.....they are questions I want the apologists for pedophiles to answer.

In this thread? If so, can you quote the relevant bit, if not, then a withdrawal would be nice.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

If you argue that pedophiles are no danger to anyone so long as they don't actually act on their urges, then you are "defending something controversial". That makes you an apologist.... by definition!

So, I will not be withdrawing my statement any time soon.

I understand that medical profession generally considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder, but that consideration is not by any means universal throughout the profession.

Many, perhaps even most pedophiles, who act to satisfy their urges are like any other criminal; they make a choice. They are not somehow forced to commit these vile crimes against their own will? They are sociopaths, just like rapists who attack women and force them to have sex. There is no excusable mental disorder that compels them to do what they do... they may not choose to think what they think, but they certainly DO choose to do what they do.

IMO, having a mental disorder is not an excuse for their behaviors, and frankly, I doubt that any of their victims care what their motivation was or whether they have a mental disorder. I am hard line when it comes to criminality.

When a burglar breaks into my house, and steals from me, I don't care whether he is just a greedy career criminal or a father on hard times desperate to support his family. He's just another criminal in my book, and should be treated according to what he did, not according to his personal circumstances. There are plenty of other fathers out there who have fallen on hard times but who do NOT resort to criminality.

 

[luchog]

If you argue that pedophiles are no danger to anyone so long as they don't actually act on their urges, then you are "defending something controversial". That makes you an apologist.... by definition!

No, that's crap. I've had urges to kill people, to badly hurt them, and I don't act on them. By your logic, anyone who accepts that I'm not a murderer is a "murder apologist".

This is pure emotionalism speaking, not rational skepticism.

People have all sorts of urges they don't act on. The majority of paedophiles don't act on theirs. That doesn't mean that they should be placed in positions where they may be unduly tempted to act on their urges, and certainly shouldn't be in a position of authority over children; but it doesn't make people who accept the fact that humans are capable of controlling their urges "paedophile apologists". That's just more of the same witch-hunt mentality.

 

[smartcooky]

No, that's crap. I've had urges to kill people, to badly hurt them, and I don't act on them. By your logic, anyone who accepts that I'm not a murderer is a "murder apologist".

No, that's crap. If you had acted on your urge to kill and someone defend you because you had a mental disorder then they would be a "murder apologist" The difference between what I said and how you read it is slightly colossal.

Go back and actually read what I wrote.


You said "That doesn't mean that they should be placed in positions where they may be unduly tempted to act on their urges"

Now ask yourself why should they not be placed in such positions? When you get your answer, you will understand the meaning of what I wrote, and you will also understand that my thinking is practical, not emotional.

 

[cullennz]

No, that's crap. I've had urges to kill people, to badly hurt them, and I don't act on them. By your logic, anyone who accepts that I'm not a murderer is a "murder apologist".

This is pure emotionalism speaking, not rational skepticism.

People have all sorts of urges they don't act on. The majority of paedophiles don't act on theirs. That doesn't mean that they should be placed in positions where they may be unduly tempted to act on their urges, and certainly shouldn't be in a position of authority over children; but it doesn't make people who accept the fact that humans are capable of controlling their urges "paedophile apologists". That's just more of the same witch-hunt mentality.

There is a difference between one off urges and sexual craving

 

[Carnivore]

If you argue that pedophiles are no danger to anyone so long as they don't actually act on their urges, then you are "defending something controversial". That makes you an apologist.... by definition!

So, I will not be withdrawing my statement any time soon.

I understand that medical profession generally considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder, but that consideration is not by any means universal throughout the profession.

Many, perhaps even most pedophiles, who act to satisfy their urges are like any other criminal; they make a choice. They are not somehow forced to commit these vile crimes against their own will? They are sociopaths, just like rapists who attack women and force them to have sex. There is no excusable mental disorder that compels them to do what they do... they may not choose to think what they think, but they certainly DO choose to do what they do.

IMO, having a mental disorder is not an excuse for their behaviors, and frankly, I doubt that any of their victims care what their motivation was or whether they have a mental disorder. I am hard line when it comes to criminality.

When a burglar breaks into my house, and steals from me, I don't care whether he is just a greedy career criminal or a father on hard times desperate to support his family. He's just another criminal in my book, and should be treated according to what he did, not according to his personal circumstances. There are plenty of other fathers out there who have fallen on hard times but who do NOT resort to criminality.

Again, nobody is arguing that child molesters are not criminals or are not responsible for their actions. Nobody is arguing that.

Likewise nobody is arguing that people who have not commited a crime but are sexually attracted to kids are no danger to real world kids. Nobody is arguing that. Discussing whether hypothetical non criminals shoud be treated as criminals does not have any relevance to child abuse in the real world. In the imaginary situation specified the point was that child abuse was not happening.

The discussion in the thread was on the accuracy of language. The point that was under discussion was that the word "paedophile" does not mean exactly the same thing as "child molester". Then you came in and apparently started responding to vile arguments from child rape apologists that hadn't actually been made.

Given that I'm one the posters who acknowledged the academic difference between the meaning of words, it's hard not to take your words about "not withdrawing my statement" as being directed at me. And I know it's just words on the internet but I find it to be actually a bit annoying to be called a "paedophile apologist" based on posts in this thread.

Let me try once more to make the position clear:

People who abuse children - whether physically or sexually, are comitting crimes. Peadophilia may be a motive for some of them, it is never an excuse nor does it diminish their responsibility in any way for their choices and actions.

Now for what seems to be the tricky part: paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. They are not necessarily child molesters (although many are) therefore the word "paedophile" is not synonymous with the words "child molester"

There is no way you can translate that position into any sort of real world support or excuse for any sort of child abuse. Equally, it is not an assertion that paedophiles who have not molested children will not in the future.

Do you mind explaining what exactly in this thread lead you to conclude that anyone was trying to reduce criminal responsility for child molesters or attempting to push the idea that hitherto non criminal paedophiles were automatically safe around children?

 

[cullennz]

Again, nobody is arguing that child molesters are not criminals or are not responsible for their actions. Nobody is arguing that.

Likewise nobody is arguing that people who have not commited a crime but are sexually attracted to kids are no danger to real world kids. Nobody is arguing that. Discussing whether hypothetical non criminals shoud be treated as criminals does not have any relevance to child abuse in the real world. In the imaginary situation specified the point was that child abuse was not happening.

The discussion in the thread was on the accuracy of language. The point that was under discussion was that the word "paedophile" does not mean exactly the same thing as "child molester". Then you came in and apparently started responding to vile arguments from child rape apologists that hadn't actually been made.

Given that I'm one the posters who acknowledged the academic difference between the meaning of words, it's hard not to take your words about "not withdrawing my statement" as being directed at me. And I know it's just words on the internet but I find it to be actually a bit annoying to be called a "paedophile apologist" based on posts in this thread.

Let me try once more to make the position clear:

People who abuse children - whether physically or sexually, are comitting crimes. Peadophilia may be a motive for some of them, it is never an excuse nor does it diminish their responsibility in any way for their choices and actions.

Now for what seems to be the tricky part: paedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. They are not necessarily child molesters (although many are) therefore the word "paedophile" is not synonymous with the words "child molester"

There is no way you can translate that position into any sort of real world support or excuse for any sort of child abuse. Equally, it is not an assertion that paedophiles who have not molested children will not in the future.

Do you mind explaining what exactly in this thread lead you to conclude that anyone was trying to reduce criminal responsility for child molesters or attempting to push the idea that hitherto non criminal paedophiles were automatically safe around children?

Basically you are agreeing pedos aren't safe around kids.

While arguing a lot of them are safe

 

[Carnivore]

No, that's crap. If you had acted on your urge to kill and someone defend you because you had a mental disorder then they would be a "murder apologist" The difference between what I said and how you read it is slightly colossal.

Go back and actually read what I wrote.


You said "That doesn't mean that they should be placed in positions where they may be unduly tempted to act on their urges"

Now ask yourself why should they not be placed in such positions? When you get your answer, you will understand the meaning of what I wrote, and you will also understand that my thinking is practical, not emotional.

See, this is what the miscommunication is. Comparing apples to oranges. Specifically an imaginary situation where a crime does not occur to the real world need to protect children from abuse.

Luchog describes a situation where a crime has not occured. You talk about a different situation where a crime does occur. They are not the same thing and different responses are appropriate.

 

[theprestige]

I'm arguing that it is profoundly, anti-socially wrong to demonize people who have not acted. I think it is very important that in the real world, we make a clear distinction in our speech--especially in our hate speech--between those who act and those who do not.

I will continue to argue this as long as you, smartcooky, and others insist on blurring the line between those who act and those who don't, and using the language of hate to describe them.

 

[luchog]

There is a difference between one off urges and sexual craving

I get sexual cravings all the time, have since puberty, mostly women, sometimes guys, sometimes whatever is in between; but I don't go out groping, molesting, or raping people all the time. Guess since I claim that I can control my urges, that makes me a rape/molestation apologist.