• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

Argumemnon said:
It's not correct in a pedantic sort of way. It's just correct.
Click to expand...

I thought that, strictly speaking, paedophilia only applied to people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Hebephiles OTOH are attracted to adolescents

Ehebophiles are attracted to young, sexually mature, people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

If that's the case the person is, strictly speaking, not a paedophile and is instead a hebephile or ehebophile.
 
The Don said:
I thought that, strictly speaking, paedophilia only applied to people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Hebephiles OTOH are attracted to adolescents

Ehebophiles are attracted to young, sexually mature, people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

If that's the case the person is, strictly speaking, not a paedophile and is instead a hebephile or ehebophile.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Saying that he's not a pedophile is not a distraction or a pedantic argument: it's actually correct, and it doesn't mean that the person making the distinction is somehow supporting the rape of the 15 year-old.

I think I've been pretty consistent over the years about the need for precise language, even though I'm sometimes guilty of messing it up myself.
 
Argumemnon said:
Exactly my point. Saying that he's not a pedophile is not a distraction or a pedantic argument: it's actually correct, and it doesn't mean that the person making the distinction is somehow supporting the rape of the 15 year-old.

I think I've been pretty consistent over the years about the need for precise language, even though I'm sometimes guilty of messing it up myself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, misread/misunderstood your previous post :o
 
Much like one can't be racist against Jews, because Judaism is a religion, not a race.

Much like it, and just as nonsensical.
 
The Don said:
I thought that, strictly speaking, paedophilia only applied to people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Hebephiles OTOH are attracted to adolescents

Ehebophiles are attracted to young, sexually mature, people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

If that's the case the person is, strictly speaking, not a paedophile and is instead a hebephile or ehebophile.
Click to expand...

What happened to "kiddie diddler?"
 
pgwenthold said:
Much like one can't be racist against Jews, because Judaism is a religion, not a race.

Much like it, and just as nonsensical.
Click to expand...

You can be ethnically Jewish. Racism against Jews tends to be directed at Jews for their heritage, not the tenets of their religion (should they even follow it).
 
Argumemnon said:
I think I've been pretty consistent over the years about the need for precise language, even though I'm sometimes guilty of messing it up myself.
Click to expand...

May a I respectfully point out that I think you may be on something of a fool's errand there? That is, I agree that it would be nice, but I'm also pretty sure it is not possible. The meaning of words and phrases constantly changes over time, that is the natural trend of language.

Thus, while I understand the difference between that various "philes" mentioned upthread, for instance, I don't believe that a rigid insistence on those definitions is useful for the purposes of more precise conversation. In fact, if often leads to the opposite. To all practical purposes, words mean what people think they mean, not what the dictionary says they mean, and I don't see any likelihood of that changing.


tl/dr: langauge is messy, and the mess can't be cleaned up.
 
baron said:
You can be ethnically Jewish. Racism against Jews tends to be directed at Jews for their heritage, not the tenets of their religion (should they even follow it).
Click to expand...

"You can be ethnically [Mexican]. Racism against [Mexicans] tends to be directed at [Mexicans] for their heritage, not [whether they are from Mexico]."

In fact, we know that Trump's "bigotry" against Mexicans is directed at them for their heritage. Recall the "Mexican" judge who was born in Gary, IN, for example. Ethnically Mexican.

Yet, Trump went after him. Thanks for proving my point. It works the exact same way.
 
beren said:
May a I respectfully point out that I think you may be on something of a fool's errand there? That is, I agree that it would be nice, but I'm also pretty sure it is not possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah I feel like Sisyphus here.

The meaning of words and phrases constantly changes over time, that is the natural trend of language.
Click to expand...

Sure. However the problem I see is not that languages evolves, but that language is misused in a way that makes it very confusing. When someone who likes 15 year olds is called a pedophile, it effectively lumps all of them together, but the causes of their "preferences" and the treatment are different, when they're needed at all. I'd also argue that one's more dangerous than the others.

In other words the word didn't change meaning. It means all sorts of different things depending on the emotional state of the person you're talking to.

So yeah, Sisyphus.
 
pgwenthold said:
"You can be ethnically [Mexican]. Racism against [Mexicans] tends to be directed at [Mexicans] for their heritage, not [whether they are from Mexico]."

In fact, we know that Trump's "bigotry" against Mexicans is directed at them for their heritage. Recall the "Mexican" judge who was born in Gary, IN, for example. Ethnically Mexican.

Yet, Trump went after him. Thanks for proving my point. It works the exact same way.
Click to expand...

I haven't proved your point, I proved that you were wrong when you said you can't be racist against Jews because Judaism is not a race. That is all I commented on and it has no relationship whatsoever with Trump. You were wrong, end of story.
 
Argumemnon said:
Using the wrong term doesn't address the problem either, and creates more problems, so I don't see why it's such an insightful post.
Click to expand...

It effectively hilites the absurdity of the objection.

"I may be guilty of raping a child, but at least I'm not a pedophile."
 
baron said:
I haven't proved your point, I proved that you were wrong when you said you can't be racist against Jews because Judaism is not a race. .
Click to expand...

Um, that is a claim that I called nonsense.

I agree. Racism against Jews is based on them being ethnically Jewish, and irrespective of religion. And it is still considered racism.

Similarly, racism against Mexicans is based on them being ethnically Mexican (as Trump's attack on the "Mexican" judge proves).

Therefore, "it's not racism" applies equally the same to Jews and Mexicans. Either it applies to both, or it applies to neither.

My position is that it applies to neither. There are indeed those who claim that hatred of Jews is not racism because Judaism is religion not a race, but they are just as wrong as those who claim that hatred of "Mexicans" (including those of Mexican heritage) is based on where they are from and not a race.
 
uke2se said:
It effectively hilites the absurdity of the objection.

"I may be guilty of raping a child, but at least I'm not a pedophile."
Click to expand...

But that isn't the objection we're discussing. We're discussing someone saying:

- "Hey, this guy raped a 15 year old! *********** pedophile!"
- "Careful, now. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. This asshat is a rapist but he's not a pedo."
- "Well, I guess you see no problem with this guy raping children!"
 
Argumemnon said:
But that isn't the objection we're discussing. We're discussing someone saying:

- "Hey, this guy raped a 15 year old! *********** pedophile!"
- "Careful, now. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. This asshat is a rapist but he's not a pedo."
- "Well, I guess you see no problem with this guy raping children!"
Click to expand...

That's not what I am discussing, nor what the original comment was discussing. It was an analogy about someone claiming Trump isn't a racist because mexicans aren't a race. Similarily saying someone who rapes a child isn't a pedophile because the child was 15 is technically correct, but completely misses the point.

Not to mention the fact that colloquially, pedophile is often used to describe people attracted to minors of any age, while racist is used to describe someone who is bigoted towards someone for their ethnic or religious background.
 
Last edited:
When and where I was a kid, "Mexican" meant "Hispanic". There was no such word as "Hispanic". If you were from Guatemala, you were "a Mexican". Trump is older than me, and may have experienced similar common use of the word and never gone past that. I still hear some older people use the word that way, in various parts of the country.
 
uke2se said:
That's not what I am discussing, nor what the original comment was discussing. It was an analogy about someone claiming Trump isn't a racist because mexicans aren't a race.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if he's a racist but he sure seems like a bigot.

Similarily saying someone who rapes a child isn't a pedophile because the child was 15 is technically correct, but completely misses the point.
Click to expand...

If it's said without going further and addressing said point, sure. But the mere act of clarifying and correcting the mistake does not make one miss the point.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, I don't know if he's a racist but he sure seems like a bigot.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that.


Argumemnon said:
If it's said without going further and addressing said point, sure. But the mere act of clarifying and correcting the mistake does not make one miss the point.
Click to expand...

The hilited was the way it was originally said.

In another thread, by a poster we all know and love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom