RE: Quick pet peeve
April 11, 2015 at 4:53 am
(This post was last modified: April 11, 2015 at 4:56 am by robvalue.)
OK, so you're saying you might not necessarily be "born that way" but that events in your life could lead to the condition? Maybe I am confused on that point. I thought it was as simple as being born homosexual. I admit I haven't looked into that very much so I've now made myself look very stupid
My overall point is still valid as, like you say, there is nothing that can be done about it once you've got it (currently anyway, I've heard of suppressants and such but these seem very severe) . Whatever you call it, it's something you have to live with. And I personally think people should stop using "paedophile" to mean "child abuser". If they mean child abuser, they should say child abuser. Because if you use this equivocation, what word is left for a non-harmful paedophile? It's going to only hurt them more if we have to add in the fact that they are "non harmful" rather than assume it like you would if you were talking about anyone else.
I'm not criticizing anyone on the forum or what has been said here! I'm aiming this at society in general. I think understanding is very poor (as I've proved myself!) and attitudes need to change. People should be able to "come out" as a paedophile, if they want to, without people going nuts on them.
I'm an extremely logical person, so I don't tend to have irrational emotional reactions to things. If one of my friends told me they were a paedophile, I'd think no less of them at all. I'd want to support them. If they also told me they are abusing children, then obviously that is entirely different.
My overall point is still valid as, like you say, there is nothing that can be done about it once you've got it (currently anyway, I've heard of suppressants and such but these seem very severe) . Whatever you call it, it's something you have to live with. And I personally think people should stop using "paedophile" to mean "child abuser". If they mean child abuser, they should say child abuser. Because if you use this equivocation, what word is left for a non-harmful paedophile? It's going to only hurt them more if we have to add in the fact that they are "non harmful" rather than assume it like you would if you were talking about anyone else.
I'm not criticizing anyone on the forum or what has been said here! I'm aiming this at society in general. I think understanding is very poor (as I've proved myself!) and attitudes need to change. People should be able to "come out" as a paedophile, if they want to, without people going nuts on them.
I'm an extremely logical person, so I don't tend to have irrational emotional reactions to things. If one of my friends told me they were a paedophile, I'd think no less of them at all. I'd want to support them. If they also told me they are abusing children, then obviously that is entirely different.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum