Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or YOU could have just recognized that when he referred to paedophile priests, he was referring to people who have acted on it instead of wasting three pages quibbling over it.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
And yet you wouldn't trust them alone with kids.
 
cullennz said:
Basically you are agreeing pedos aren't safe around kids.

While arguing a lot of them are safe
Click to expand...

Not even close. I'm really hard put to make it any clearer, but I'll try once more:

In the real world people who experience a strong craving to commit a crime should as a matter of common sense, keep away from triggers and opportunities to act on that craving. When that craving is the sexual desire for children and the crime is the abuse of children, the children's right to not be abused trumps some of the rights of the paedophile, even if they have not commited any crime. That means that someone attracted to children should be prevented from spending time alone and unsupervised with them, even if they are not a criminal.
 
Carnivore, I believe we might be on the same page, we just don't know it

If its an argument about language, then that does not interest me in the slightest, and it not what this thread is about. While using the terms "paedophile" and "child molester" interchangeably may not be etymologically/technical incorrect, it nevertheless been done for at least 40 years IME and, rightly or wrongly has simply become common use in language.

Those who bring up and agonize over such technicalities are IMO, grandstanding; derailing the topic simply to show how clever they think they are. The rest of us don't care about the language technicalities, we already know what we are discussing....kiddie fiddling priests!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...


I did, you're wrong, or you're very bad at expressing yourself. Particularly you're the only person in this thread insisting that a mental disorder could be conceivably used as a defense for child molestation.

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.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter what your "thinking" is, you're using emotionally-charged language and constructing witch-hunt straw men and equating paedophilia with child molestation. What you're saying is not what you appear to think you're saying.
 
smartcooky said:
Carnivore, I believe we might be on the same page, we just don't know it

If its an argument about language, then that does not interest me in the slightest, and it not what this thread is about. While using the terms "paedophile" and "child molester" interchangeably may not be etymologically/technical incorrect, it nevertheless been done for at least 40 years IME and, rightly or wrongly has simply become common use in language.

Those who bring up and agonize over such technicalities are IMO, grandstanding; derailing the topic simply to show how clever they think they are. The rest of us don't care about the language technicalities, we already know what we are discussing....kiddie fiddling priests!
Click to expand...

I think that's the source of the confusion. The difference between paedophile and child molester was brought up specifically in the thread by a poster who thought accuracy of the language used was important. The people who were discussing the difference seem to have been doing so in that context. I agree it's been a frustrating couple of pages off topic from Searson, Pell and associated scumbags.
 
Carnivore said:
Which guys? The imaginary non criminal paedophiles under discussion or the actual criminal priests that this thread was originally about for a couple of posts?
Click to expand...
I think the priests before the thread inevitably turned into some kind apologist, pedantic definition of potential/kiddie fiddlers
 
theprestige said:
If only there was a way to do that without demonizing everyone who suffers from the condition.
Click to expand...
I think you are relying on those people realising they do and it being wrong and being honest about it slightly too much
 
pgwenthold said:
Or YOU could have just recognized that when he referred to paedophile priests, he was referring to people who have acted on it instead of wasting three pages quibbling over it.
Click to expand...
Indeed
smartcooky said:
Carnivore, I believe we might be on the same page, we just don't know it

If its an argument about language, then that does not interest me in the slightest, and it not what this thread is about. While using the terms "paedophile" and "child molester" interchangeably may not be etymologically/technical incorrect, it nevertheless been done for at least 40 years IME and, rightly or wrongly has simply become common use in language.
Those who bring up and agonize over such technicalities are IMO, grandstanding; derailing the topic simply to show how clever they think they are. The rest of us don't care about the language technicalities, we already know what we are discussing....kiddie fiddling priests!
Click to expand...
Further to this, the specific term, "paedophile priests" has been used to describe kiddy-fiddling priests for at least 20-years (there was a semi-serious gag in an episode of Father Ted about this). If one wanted to communicate about a priest who was attracted to children but hadn't acted on it, then one would have to specify that. He would still be acting in bad faith though, as priests are in positions of authority and come into contact with children.

To make the analogy with an alcoholic more accurate, it would be like employing an alcoholic as the sole driver of a mobile bar (think an ice cream van with spirits instead of ice cream). It would be utterly irresponsible.
 
cullennz said:
I think the priests before the thread inevitably turned into some kind apologist, pedantic definition of potential/kiddie fiddlers
Click to expand...

"Potential kiddie fiddler" is exactly the kind of unnecessary hate speech that I'm talking about. Might as well say "potential rapist", or "potential murderer".
 
theprestige said:
"Potential kiddie fiddler" is exactly the kind of unnecessary hate speech that I'm talking about. Might as well say "potential rapist", or "potential murderer".
Click to expand...

It's accurate if they put themselves in contact with children.


If they don't, then I feel sorry for them.
 
theprestige said:
"Potential kiddie fiddler" is exactly the kind of unnecessary hate speech that I'm talking about. Might as well say "potential rapist", or "potential murderer".
Click to expand...
Slightly negated by you not putting them with kids.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways
 
theprestige said:
"Potential kiddie fiddler" is exactly the kind of unnecessary hate speech that I'm talking about. Might as well say "potential rapist", or "potential murderer".
Click to expand...

A paedophile has no business being a priest. This thread is about priests.

IMO, whether they act on their impulses or not, is entirely irrelevant. The point of contention in this discussion is ridiculous.

"OMG! Someone is using a word incorrectly on the internet! Let's derail the thread with a pedantic argument about semantics!"

I know ....... why am I surprised ........?

:rolleyes:
 
Shiner said:
It's accurate when applied to priests.
Click to expand...
You'd get no argument from me about that...


smartcooky said:
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Carnivore said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

ETA:
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The thread is about sick, kiddie fiddling, pedo priests.

Not lets discuss why some pedos are misunderstood
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom