I feel like it needs to be placed bluntly

If you're trying to say that any of the aforementioned are our equals, then yes. That is moral and ideological weakness and cowardice.

I'm saying that both people and morality are complicated, and neither are one dimensional. A paedophile who gets help and never touches a kid might be a better person than me - inasmuch as it's even possible for one person to be 'better' than another.

There it is, the faux-morality bullshit that I just despise.

? Explain?

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

To the person downvoting this ^^ within a minute: you're pretty heavily doing the blue pills, dude. How about reading the article I linked? I mean, I don't know what's driving you. If it's about accusing people and running around with digital torches and pitchforks, keep on doing what you're doing. Or you may try figuring out shit you don't know yet. Up to you.

So, your argument is that we should use correct labelling for wether they're a pedophile or a hebephile? That's kind of irellevant considering it's all damaging to a child.

You know it isn't, don't you, so what the fuck? Obviously my point is that a person should be charged for harming someone and not for having the wrong desire. A pedophile wants to have sex with a minor. Acting out on this is a crime, but not every pedophile is acting out on it. How hard is that?

Yes. That was blatantly clear considering you cited an article talking about proper terms before it mentions anything else. You also said "way morechild molesters are NOT pedophiles" so, yes. Quite clear you weren't harping about "terms" and that you agreed that active pedophiles are the issue. Good job communicating that.

It must take too strong an effort to arrive at such a level of ignorance to be really ignorant, so what are we talking about here? Look at the title: it says pedophiles are bad people. What I'm saying is that some pedophiles harm children, some don't. How can we not agree there's a difference between pedophiles who don't harm children (= pedophiles) and pedophiles who harm children (= child molesters)? This is not _just_ about words, cause words have meanings and consequences in real life.

But that's exactly the point I initially made...? Then you said way more child molesters aren't pedophiles. Which sounds a bit far fetched to me. I read your article and they didn't cite any sources on that, would love to read those studies.

I'm done with you. Once again you come in and confuse the issue. Enjoy ranting to yourself darkness.

Mia, an assessment is not a study, that's why I used that word. The article pretty clearly shows how a lot of child molesters are not pedophiles. I wasn't trying to contradict or even comment you.
.
Adam, you're done with logic and facts anyway, that's nothing new. You're welcome to ignore me.

But it's just an article...? I could also write an article like that. I think sources are necessary for such a bold statement.

You have seen what sort of Platform that is? Trying to protect children is their one and only Agenda.. smh

Uhm yes but... I just want sources man. ^^'
Especially since I've never heard of this platform before. I understand that protecting children is their agenda but that doesn't mean I'll have to believe everything they state without questioning it. Anybody can claim anything. I'm not saying they're lying, I just wanna know what they're basing these claims on?

That certain link is to a blog post, so they don't have sources there, like they have on other pages. In case you have a university account, you might look into this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924933814777314 - their study found about 1 in 6 child molesters is a pedophile as per the DSM-IV definition. Thjs is mentioned in the abstract.