Albror wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:05 pm

CaptainCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:10 am
Can't say I agree with your play on words .... If you can vote and they can't you're a pedophile .... Simple .... I don't differentiate .... Of course diddling a very young child is 'more horrendous' but you're still a pedo if you fuck minor's and should be labeled accordingly. No quarter.

Words have definitions so look that up to prevent misuse.

I know that it does not change anything if its right or wrong so im not defending the action here but you really can not use the same word for someone who rape a 2 month old babie and someone who have consensual sex with a 16 year old.

0-16 pedofile
16-18 hebefile

Is that so hard?

CaptainCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:21 pm
I said what I said .... If you fuck a minor when you're an adult, you are a pedo, plain and simple .... Call it consensual sex if you want but I will not use a word like 'hebefile' created by folks who wish to find a way to protect the 'integrity' of a someone who uses youngsters for their sexual gratification ... You sir are welcome to use any word or phrase you choose, but I will remain steadfast in the belief that fucking minor's, whether they say they've consented or not, makes that person a pedophile.

Newinkow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:42 pm Let me just start by saying: I think all pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

Now that's out of the way.
.

pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:56 pm

Newinkow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:42 pm Let me just start by saying: I think all pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

Now that's out of the way.
.

Not quite. And the dangerous view.

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse are 2 different things. Confusing them is harmful to children.

Adult sexual contact with an underage minor is a crime and a serious moral wrong. Pedophilia, by contrast, is a psychiatric disorder involving sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, which — if acted on — is a crime and a serious moral wrong.

Conflating pedophilia and child sexual assault is not a good idea.

Confusing psychiatric disorders (requiring treatment) and sex crimes (which may or may not follow from such disorders) may actually increase harm to children.

Consider the following: many people with pedophilia; (1) hate their desires;
(2) do not act on them for moral reasons (and should therefore plausibly be praised rather than vilified), and yet;
(3) often do not seek treatment precisely because they are aware that people in general cannot seem to tell the difference between;
(a) feeling involuntarily sexually attracted to young children (not wrong in and of itself), and;
(b) molesting or sexually assaulting children (very wrong in and of itself, no matter the reason).

And failing to seek treatment for (a) is precisely the sort of thing that makes (b) more likely to happen.

The latter, not the former, is a sex crime and a serious moral wrong. If the goal is to protect children from harm, as it should be, then we should stop stigmatizing pedophilia and start stigmatizing (or keep stigmatizing) those who actually sexually abuse children for whatever reason, whether they happen to be pedophiles or not.

In other words, non-offending pedophiles should not be stigmatized so long as they do not offend, nor mistaken for sexual abusers. Instead, they should be encouraged to seek treatment for their disorder before they cause harm to children — which will only happen if we can keep clear about the difference between (a) and (b).

Generally, pedophilia is attraction to someone under age 13 if one is 16 or older AND at least 5 years younger.

Therefore 17 and 15, or 14, or 13 is not pedophilia.

Statments like

pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

is the major cause of child sex crimes. As are the people that verbalise them.

Sorry to be harsh, but it needs to hit home through thick heads, because I can't think of any crime that needs to be stopped more.

Freightdog wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:54 pm I wonder how folk with absolute rigid opinions on subjects reconcile the inconsistencies across borders.

If the age of consent, without close in age considerations, in one country is lower than its neighbour, where do folks stand?
Asking ‘cos I’ve got no friends (or none that might admit to it)

Are you a paedo for simply crossing the border, legally, morally, or what? Or were you paedo prior? Legally, morally, etc.
It’s been the source of a few prominent controversies over the years.

Meanwhile, considerations of such things really started in earnest in the Victorian era. Much of the Muslim world has a very hard clash between secular and non secular views- and cherry picking of the results.
But before anyone gets too excited, one state in the US had a particularly low age for a while…

CaptainCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:08 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:56 pm

Newinkow wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:42 pm Let me just start by saying: I think all pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

Now that's out of the way.
.

Not quite. And the dangerous view.

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse are 2 different things. Confusing them is harmful to children.

Adult sexual contact with an underage minor is a crime and a serious moral wrong. Pedophilia, by contrast, is a psychiatric disorder involving sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, which — if acted on — is a crime and a serious moral wrong.

Conflating pedophilia and child sexual assault is not a good idea.

Confusing psychiatric disorders (requiring treatment) and sex crimes (which may or may not follow from such disorders) may actually increase harm to children.

Consider the following: many people with pedophilia; (1) hate their desires;
(2) do not act on them for moral reasons (and should therefore plausibly be praised rather than vilified), and yet;
(3) often do not seek treatment precisely because they are aware that people in general cannot seem to tell the difference between;
(a) feeling involuntarily sexually attracted to young children (not wrong in and of itself), and;
(b) molesting or sexually assaulting children (very wrong in and of itself, no matter the reason).

And failing to seek treatment for (a) is precisely the sort of thing that makes (b) more likely to happen.

The latter, not the former, is a sex crime and a serious moral wrong. If the goal is to protect children from harm, as it should be, then we should stop stigmatizing pedophilia and start stigmatizing (or keep stigmatizing) those who actually sexually abuse children for whatever reason, whether they happen to be pedophiles or not.

In other words, non-offending pedophiles should not be stigmatized so long as they do not offend, nor mistaken for sexual abusers. Instead, they should be encouraged to seek treatment for their disorder before they cause harm to children — which will only happen if we can keep clear about the difference between (a) and (b).

Generally, pedophilia is attraction to someone under age 13 if one is 16 or older AND at least 5 years younger.

Therefore 17 and 15, or 14, or 13 is not pedophilia.

Statments like

pedophiles should be locked up and the keys thrown away.

is the major cause of child sex crimes. As are the people that verbalise them.

Sorry to be harsh, but it needs to hit home through thick heads, because I can't think of any crime that needs to be stopped more.

And one wonders where terms such as MAP originate .... In verbal diarrhea like the above.

Imagine the ignorance of mind needed to state that 'the major cause of child sex crimes is the verbalizing of the opinion that pedophiles are abhorrent and should never see the light of day' .... For shame.

I have a better solution .... You fuck a minor, you get a 22 slug in the back of the head ..... Pedophilia is recognized by every mental health professional worth their salt that it is incurable short of chemical intervention .... Check the recidivism rate of child sex offenders ... If you're still willing to defend their humanity you're not someone I'd break bread with.

The rule of law states vigilante justice is verboten for both the offender and their protectors ... What a pity.

Freightdog wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:12 pm It’s worth taking the time then to establish what constitutes being a Minor, and whether that correlates with legal age of sexual consent. A quick study will show some considerable disparity, with Canada not being excluded from this, I believe.
As such, a minor may well be different in adjoining states, bringing in all sorts of issues like labour law, legal driving age as well as other considerations.

The spread in age constituting being a minor is <15 to >21, worldwide. Meanwhile the legal age of (sexual) consent ranges from 11 to 20. So, if the definition that one person has is that minors are anyone under 21 and everyone else is a paedophile if they believe and act otherwise, you may have a moral high ground, but you almost certainly are on shaky legal ground.

And if the word minor is to be used so casually, and aspersions made, I think it worth establishing the actual number to go with that absolute rigid stance.