Re: Legal Pedophile
Key word: probable. He has stated that he has no intention to ever harm a child, never has harmed a child, and there is no evidence that he has harmed a child, therefore I don't think "probable" applies there. "Possible" is better.
But at this point that's just getting into different interpretations of definitions of words, and that never leads to anything productive.
And I still can't find a good way to phrase my thoughts, but I'll try and make do. Try and understand what I'm trying to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. If that makes any sense.
It seems to me like this man recognizes that there is a "problem" (term used loosely) with him that others would not like. Because of that, he let everyone know even though he was under no obligation to do so, with the hope that the people would come to accept he would never intentionally harm a child. While this is noble in theory, it was probably a pretty stupid move.
People make assumptions and believe that a "pedophile" is someone who wants to sexually abuse children. "Ped-" means "child" (as in pediatrician), and "phile" is related to pleasure or compatibility (as in bibliophile, someone who loves books). Thus, "pedophile" does not inherently mean a desire to abuse children, but rather an attribute that makes one attracted to children. It's up to the person to decide how to act based on that attraction.
One thing I don't agree with is his posting of certain information on the Internet, but I can't even convince myself why I shouldn't agree with it. At the same time, I can't convince myself why I should agree with it. All I know is that for some reason unbeknownst to me, I don't think he should be posting the information that he does on the Internet (this is one of the reasons I was averse to posting).
At this point, I've lost my train of thought.
Key word: probable. He has stated that he has no intention to ever harm a child, never has harmed a child, and there is no evidence that he has harmed a child, therefore I don't think "probable" applies there. "Possible" is better.
But at this point that's just getting into different interpretations of definitions of words, and that never leads to anything productive.
And I still can't find a good way to phrase my thoughts, but I'll try and make do. Try and understand what I'm trying to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. If that makes any sense.
It seems to me like this man recognizes that there is a "problem" (term used loosely) with him that others would not like. Because of that, he let everyone know even though he was under no obligation to do so, with the hope that the people would come to accept he would never intentionally harm a child. While this is noble in theory, it was probably a pretty stupid move.
People make assumptions and believe that a "pedophile" is someone who wants to sexually abuse children. "Ped-" means "child" (as in pediatrician), and "phile" is related to pleasure or compatibility (as in bibliophile, someone who loves books). Thus, "pedophile" does not inherently mean a desire to abuse children, but rather an attribute that makes one attracted to children. It's up to the person to decide how to act based on that attraction.
One thing I don't agree with is his posting of certain information on the Internet, but I can't even convince myself why I shouldn't agree with it. At the same time, I can't convince myself why I should agree with it. All I know is that for some reason unbeknownst to me, I don't think he should be posting the information that he does on the Internet (this is one of the reasons I was averse to posting).
At this point, I've lost my train of thought.
Comment