5 ms·

Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance? The gallantry and defense of children is because men

by mjolk 11y ago

Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance? The gallantry and defense of children is because men that are in charge are predominantly straight and have children. Not everything is a charade.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aw3c2 11y ago
A pedophile is not by definition a child molester/abuser. I wish they would get help and be redeemed from their abnormal urges.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  to clarify this comment: "pedophile" refers to someone with primary sexual attraction to children, whether or not they act on that attraction. Terms like "predator", "molester", and "abuser" refer to someone who takes sexual actions against children. There is overlap between the groups, but they're not identical. There are celibate pedophiles, and pedophiles who have ordinary adult relationships and keep themselves away from children. And there are predators who aren't specifically attracted to children, but instead are attracted to the power imbalance.
  - jarfil 11y ago
    I get the feeling that some people want others to focus on the thought instead of the action, because their own actions are deplorable and they're just trying to convince everyone that their thoughts are pure.
    - mjolk 11y ago
      Yes, that's been the case since the predominant alma mater of Hacker News became either Wikipedia State or Reddit University. It's no longer a place for discourse, but instead for people trying to get internet points based on falling back to general, unoffensive platitudes.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      I think people draw the distinction because there's a huge difference between finding someone sexually attractive, and sexually assaulting them. (This applies to attraction to adults, not just children. "I find that person attractive" is very different from "I'm going to have sexual contact with that person without their consent".)
- mjolk 11y ago
  Paedophiles only enter popular conversation in response to one doing something unredeemable (acting on their urges). Of course I'd people to get treatment before someone is hurt.
ATsch 11y ago
…as oposed to the women who, if there were more of them in significant political positions, would not be predominantly straight and have kids and therefore would not be so defensive of children?
- mjolk 11y ago
  No, not opposed to those women, but the wording would be "family" instead of "women and children."
bsder 11y ago
> Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance? No, but you went to a straw man very quickly. In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics. First, DNA is often far from definitive. So, if the error rate is 1 in 30,000, you're very likely to get quite a few hits of innocent people when the perpetrator isn't in the database. Second, people who use "women and children" or "pedophiles" as justifications can generally be considered to be engaging in dishonest behavior. Something that has a logical justification doesn't have to hide behind emotional appeals. Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender). Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.
- Gotadime 11y ago
  > In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics. Yep. This person you're responding to just doesn't understand statistics. Not any specific data that you presented. Just statistics in general. Wait a second...did you even present any data (or "statistics") in your original comment at all? What "statistics" were there to be misunderstood? How can you say that this person doesn't "understand statistics" when you presented no statistics at all? "it's clear you don't understand statistics." I think I said this exact thing in an argument that I had during my sophomore year of college. It was a good way to make it seem like I had some type of reliable data to back up my claim when really I was just suffering from a superiority complex because I thought I thought I was "educated".
  - mjolk 11y ago
    You're replying to someone who replied to statements that I didn't make and hoped to argue using both using emotional appeals ("our rights as people) and against emotional appeals -- "those statistics I read on wikipedia 'win the conversation' because I brought them up first (even though they're not related to your point), which means it follows that I can state my opinions as fact."

by mjolk 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

aw3c2 11y ago

A pedophile is not by definition a child molester/abuser. I wish they would get help and be redeemed from their abnormal urges.

lotharbot 11y ago
to clarify this comment: "pedophile" refers to someone with primary sexual attraction to children, whether or not they act on that attraction. Terms like "predator", "molester", and "abuser" refer to someone who takes sexual actions against children. There is overlap between the groups, but they're not identical. There are celibate pedophiles, and pedophiles who have ordinary adult relationships and keep themselves away from children. And there are predators who aren't specifically attracted to children, but instead are attracted to the power imbalance.
- jarfil 11y ago
  I get the feeling that some people want others to focus on the thought instead of the action, because their own actions are deplorable and they're just trying to convince everyone that their thoughts are pure.
  - mjolk 11y ago
    Yes, that's been the case since the predominant alma mater of Hacker News became either Wikipedia State or Reddit University. It's no longer a place for discourse, but instead for people trying to get internet points based on falling back to general, unoffensive platitudes.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    I think people draw the distinction because there's a huge difference between finding someone sexually attractive, and sexually assaulting them. (This applies to attraction to adults, not just children. "I find that person attractive" is very different from "I'm going to have sexual contact with that person without their consent".)
mjolk 11y ago
Paedophiles only enter popular conversation in response to one doing something unredeemable (acting on their urges). Of course I'd people to get treatment before someone is hurt.

ATsch 11y ago

…as oposed to the women who, if there were more of them in significant political positions, would not be predominantly straight and have kids and therefore would not be so defensive of children?

mjolk 11y ago
No, not opposed to those women, but the wording would be "family" instead of "women and children."

bsder 11y ago

> Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance? No, but you went to a straw man very quickly. In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics. First, DNA is often far from definitive. So, if the error rate is 1 in 30,000, you're very likely to get quite a few hits of innocent people when the perpetrator isn't in the database. Second, people who use "women and children" or "pedophiles" as justifications can generally be considered to be engaging in dishonest behavior. Something that has a logical justification doesn't have to hide behind emotional appeals. Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender). Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.

Gotadime 11y ago
> In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics. Yep. This person you're responding to just doesn't understand statistics. Not any specific data that you presented. Just statistics in general. Wait a second...did you even present any data (or "statistics") in your original comment at all? What "statistics" were there to be misunderstood? How can you say that this person doesn't "understand statistics" when you presented no statistics at all? "it's clear you don't understand statistics." I think I said this exact thing in an argument that I had during my sophomore year of college. It was a good way to make it seem like I had some type of reliable data to back up my claim when really I was just suffering from a superiority complex because I thought I thought I was "educated".
- mjolk 11y ago
  You're replying to someone who replied to statements that I didn't make and hoped to argue using both using emotional appeals ("our rights as people) and against emotional appeals -- "those statistics I read on wikipedia 'win the conversation' because I brought them up first (even though they're not related to your point), which means it follows that I can state my opinions as fact."