Truthful indoctrinations

If you're going to engage in personal attacks please don't beat around the bush with them Dante. You've accused me of being an indoctrinator. Lovely. The problem with this is I am making people realize that words they are using have very specific and limited meanings.

People come here believing, society, PJ, YOU, etc. thinking that being attracted to people under 18 makes them a pedophile. People deserve to understand that this is not a definition for it used by law enforcement psychiatry. The only indoctrination you can accuse me of is informing people of this, and informing them that they may be sending a message that they are something they may not be based upon their statements.

Oxford English Dictionary? Dictionaries are for casual reference to the layman, they are not what we consult when we want to argue about proper terms for things. You would not consult a dictionary to learn about a subject. Paedophilia is a subject. It has ceased to become some broad unimportant word which can be used interchangably with a variety of synonyms. It is now the name of something classified as a paraphilia which can cause sexual disorder.

So long as it holds this authority in most societies, it is incredibly important to inform people about this usage, and not to skim over it and say 'oh, you like kids? pedophile' kinda stuff. Dictionaries suffer from requiring words to define other words, meaning that as you analyze the vague meanings of those words, it becomes a complex issue which is no longer simple.

Sexual attraction is not simple. Nor is 'children' a word that is universally defined, nor does it have a single definition.

GC's free speech (like, aside from the occasional 'spam' banning, in letting me criticize its members) is certainly a saving grace which puts it above a lot of other sites opposed to it, like PJ. However, it does not excuse leaving new visitors uninformed and allowing them to be targetted by terrorists. Old posters here have known about this a long time, yet there is simply not enough stress placed, even now, upon warning people. There is reliance upon people heeding obscure warnings without explanation or proof given as to WHY people should follow them.

People simply do not understand the scope of the danger. Warning against danger is useless without illustrating to the person you are warning just how dangerous it is. There are many people who overreact to small dangers, and as such, newcomers can be used to this and think that it is an overreaction. That it is not, is not their fault. It needs to be illustrated to them through showing them what has happened to innocent people just for calling themselves something.

If people understand what specifically happens to people for calling themself something they will do more research into what that word means before doing it. People otherwise will not do that for words which are used casually and interchangably. Words are being used in this fashion here when they should not, because it gives a misleading impression about their meaning (too expansive) and their importance (unimportant).