Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

quadraginta said:
If a pedophile's urges make them do something wrong and illegal then it is the urges that must be criminalized. The thought is the act, apparently.

If a heterosexual's urges make them do something wrong and illegal ... well that's okay. It's normal.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Again, you are just twisting what I said to make it read how you want so that you can argue against it.
 
cullennz said:
Homosexual men who are into consenting adults are a danger to no one.
Click to expand...

How do you know they are into consenting adults since you're all lumping them into a single category?

Pedos it's kids who have zero say or control.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. With homosexuals you are assuming that they are not acting on their urges, but with pedophiles you are instead assuming that they are. What is your basis for this?

Seriously it ain't that hard to work out
Click to expand...

Indeed. One wonders why you're having such a hard time with it.
 
smartcooky said:
Only if the "other men" are unwilling.
Click to expand...

NO! Being homosexual has NOTHING to do with consent. It's a thought. You are failing to make the distinction between ACTION and THOUGHT. Again!

And of course, if the "other men" are children
Click to expand...

You make it sound like imagining the rape of an adult is ok. So long as they don't molest children, pedophiles are at the level of "thinking about it", just like you think about having sex with, someone I suppose. Unless you can show that they are more at risk of acting on their urges than "normal" people, you have no argument.

And you can tell me a few more dozen ways if you like; it won't make any difference either BECAUSE I DON'T BLOODY WELL CARE!
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't care about getting your facts straight.

You seem to be trying to say that pedophile who molests children is not a pedophile. Really? You really believe that?
Click to expand...

Wow, that is a level of misunderstanding that boggles the mind. How the hell do you get so far from reality? Read what I said again before you say stupid things.
 
Argumemnon said:
How do you know they are into consenting adults since you're all lumping them into a single category?



This is very interesting. With homosexuals you are assuming that they are not acting on their urges, but with pedophiles you are instead assuming that they are. What is your basis for this?



Indeed. One wonders why you're having such a hard time with it.
Click to expand...
Because I typed "who are into consenting"
 
jimbob said:
That they haven't acted on their impulses.

Of course, if they put themselves near children, then they are a horrible person.
Click to expand...
Fair call.

But hypothetically if to stop acting on their urges it takes jerking off to kiddie porn then they are a horrible person
 
cullennz said:
Fair call.

But hypothetically if to stop acting on their urges it takes jerking off to kiddie porn then they are a horrible person
Click to expand...

Definitely. Child pornography requires a victim. I suppose that it might be technically possible to create computer-generated child porn, but see the bit I've highlighted about that in the answer below:

ETA: Viewing child porn *is* acting on their impulses

jimbob said:
quadraginta said:
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?
Click to expand...

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...
 
cullennz said:
Because I typed "who are into consenting"
Click to expand...

Again: you can't know that. Better be safe than sorry and isolate men from women, just in case. Then isolate the gays from other men and the lesbians from other women. Then isolate...

...or, alternatively we can punish and isolate people based on their actions, not their thoughts.
 
Argumemnon said:
Again: you can't know that. Better be safe than sorry and isolate men from women, just in case. Then isolate the gays from other men and the lesbians from other women. Then isolate...

...or, alternatively we can punish and isolate people based on their actions, not their thoughts.
Click to expand...
I know it because I typed it. You seem to lack the skills to comprehend it.

Normal people can have legal sex with consenting adults to satisfy their urges.

Please tell me what pedos can do
 
cullennz said:
I know it because I typed it.
Click to expand...

If I say that "cullennz is a thief", does it make it true because I typed it? Your answer is complete nonsense. Heterosexuals have sex with unwilling partners all the time.

Normal people can have legal sex with consenting adults to satisfy their urges.

Please tell me what pedos can do
Click to expand...

The same thing. The problem here is that you have no clue what pedophiles are.
 
Argumemnon said:
If I say that "cullennz is a thief", does it make it true because I typed it? Your answer is complete nonsense. Heterosexuals have sex with unwilling partners all the time.



The same thing. The problem here is that you have no clue what pedophiles are.
Click to expand...

I give a scenario

You ignore the scenario

Yes there are rapists

This does not change the fact that pedos should'nt be near children alone

Yes or no?
 
cullennz said:
I give a scenario

You ignore the scenario

Yes there are rapists

This does not change the fact that pedos should'nt be near children alone

Yes or no?
Click to expand...

You're completely, as usual, ignoring everything that everybody tells you. It follows that you think you cannot learn anything from anyone and thus that you think your knowledge is perfect.

Since you're obviously wrong on this, why don't you make any effort to learn?

I've told you already, but I'll put it in bold you have a harder time ignoring it: you are conflating attraction with action, and with consent.

- A heterosexual may act on his urges. He also may not.
- A homosexual may act on his urges. He also may not.
- A pedophile may act on his urges. He also may not.

Now, you're right that, if the pedophile actually goes through with it, he necessarily has an unwilling victim, since children cannot consent. However, if he does NOT go through with it, then there are no victims and you are wrong to say the risk is higher unless you can show that pedophiles are less likely to control their urges. Can you do this?
 
Argumemnon said:
You're completely, as usual, ignoring everything that everybody tells you. It follows that you think you cannot learn anything from anyone and thus that you think your knowledge is perfect.

Since you're obviously wrong on this, why don't you make any effort to learn?

I've told you already, but I'll put it in bold you have a harder time ignoring it: you are conflating attraction with action, and with consent.

- A heterosexual may act on his urges. He also may not.
- A homosexual may act on his urges. He also may not.
- A pedophile may act on his urges. He also may not.

Now, you're right that, if the pedophile actually goes through with it, he necessarily has an unwilling victim, since children cannot consent. However, if he does NOT go through with it, then there are no victims and you are wrong to say the risk is higher unless you can show that pedophiles are less likely to control their urges. Can you do this?
Click to expand...
Would you trust a pedo to look after kids alone?

Yes or no
 
Argumemnon said:
Don't ignore what I told you. Respond to it and stop acting like a petulant child who needs to be right.
Click to expand...
I know everyone else can rape or not rape and pedos don't always carry out urges.

Because it is bleedn obvious.

Would you trust a pedo looking after kids alone.

It ain't that hard a question
 
cullennz said:
I know everyone else can rape or not rape and pedos don't always carry out urges.

Because it is bleedn obvious.

Would you trust a pedo looking after kids alone.

It ain't that hard a question
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to your condemnation of pedophiles who don't ever touch children?

cullennz said:
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
Click to expand...

Calling child molesters "pedophiles" only serves to stigmatize pedophiles and may deter them from seeking help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom