"You keep bringing in law enforcement. I'm not talking about law enforcement."

No. But you are making claims about preventing child-molestation and rape as if you cared.

Of course you would prefer for your unsourced beliefs, projection and speculation to carry some weight.

But when you speculate about the Deaf, I go to the deaf.

When you speculate about Gays, I go to the gays.

When you speculate about Science, I go to the scientists.

So you'll have to forgive me for preferring what criminologists have to say about child-molestation over what you do.

Pedos have no special insight because we have no propensity to be rapists and molesters. I can't say that any experience I have as a Ped gives me any insight. I'm male too and I still have no insight on rape.

But when a criminologist speaks about how men who rape think, act, and behave I may hope to gain insight into this other group. Since I know and love some women who've been raped, I care.

You have stated about what you hope to intercept through your PSAs. But it is a belief and an erroneous one at that.

For finding out what you might actually end up intercepting you'll have to leave us Peds and go study Child Molesters. That is, if you care.

"Profiling is what happens when law enforcement overuses statistics to treat individuals differently. But if someone says, "Poor people commit more crimes than middle class people", stating the statistic doesn't mean they are profiling."

That's what you believe, not what the DOJ believes.

Profiling is actually about the claim that a people have a greater propensity for crime. And about targeting the people, not the crime.

Further by introducing economic incentives to commit crime you really prove that you just don't get why profiling a people is counterproductive.

"say Pedophile when you mean it. Say Preferential Child Molester when you mean it. And not use the terms interchangeably."

"Uh, when have I used them interchangeably? I occasionally type the wrong word, but I'd like to see some references on this claim."

Erm. Everywhere and constantly.

Lets get this clear. Carjacking is an act, Polynesians are a people. So there is no such thing as a Polynesian carjacker. There are just carjackers.

"Maam, can you describe the perp?"

"Well, he was early 20s, wearing a red hoodie, walked with a limp and he looked like a Hawaiian or something."

"OK. Calling all cars, be on the lookout for a stolen '92 green Honda Civic, the driver may be early 20s, wearing a red hoodie, has a limp and may be Polynesian. He may still be armed, so approach him with caution if he matches the description."

That's not profiling.

"Calling all cars, be on the lookout for Polynesian males in their early 20s, one wearing a red hoodie may have stolen a green car. Repeat, we have a Polynesian carjacker, please canvas neighborhoods where Polynesian males gather, stake out Hawaiian grocery stores and compile a list of those with Polynesian surnames within the community. And since our Polynesian carjacker is armed, approach all Polynesians with your guns drawn.

Now that's profiling.

So for our purpose, Child Molestation is the crime. And all communities matter if we care about the crime. Hetero Child molesters, Gay ones, Pedo ones, Clergy, Office workers, anyone.

Its a variant form of White Privilege which believes that it isn't using hate speech when whatever demographic is assumed to be "least prone" can go without saying and only certain targets merit being flagged. Contrast the popular "Muslim terrorist and IRA bomber" with the unused "Catholic terrorist and Hezbollah bomber." In the preference religious motives count only when applied to "not us."

So, now that we can see ( or at least everyone else and the DOJ can ) that the crime and the community are different things, lets return to your question, "when have I used them interchangeably?"

All the time and everywhere.

"If I say that many pedophiles do not abuse children, that's a radical step."

You have told folks that only some are pedophile abusers. But since the DOJ and APA recommendations would tell you that the two must be disentangled; your APB for a Polynesian carjacker doesn't do the job.

The proper step ( and not even a radical one since it is accepted by those who care to make meaningful statements about either Pedophilia or abuse ) would be to say;

"Pedophiles are not child abusers."

There now. Full stop, no qualifiers.

To that you could add some equally independently true claims;

"Pedophiles come from all walks of life and have the same concerns and feelings as you, just a different sexual orientation. Despite myths and profiling, they have no greater propensity to be criminal than any other group.

Since many Pedophiles have neices, nephews and children of their own; child molestation and abuse upsets them the same way it does you.

Leading FBI experts in the understanding and prevention of child abuse and molestation understand that knowing that a person is a pedophile is meaningless in relation to whether they also belong to that small portion of society who are child-molesters and abusers.

For patterns of behaviour indicative that child abuse or molestation is going on please refer to the following LEA websites and sources..... "

If pressed to talk about the factually irrelevant to dispel popular myths you might say;

"Pedophiles come from all walks of life and are just like you except for a different sexual orientation. We recognize that statistically this means that a small portion of our people may commit crimes. We agree with the mental health field and criminologists that their crimes are not an expression of their orientation and demonstrate no propensity to crime. But when these crimes target the children we care about we are especially sensitive to both the victims of crime and to the reinforcement of ignorant stereotypes that can interfere with the apprehension and prevention of these crimes.

We look forward to the day when we can partner as equals with law enforcement and psychologist to do what we can to support their efforts to prevent child molestation and abuse."

And, if asked to clarify the stance on statutory rape;

"We believe that with law enforcement resources scarce and with so many types of crimes to contend with that we best support the police when the so-called victimless crimes are not draining attention and resources away from those whose victims cry out for justice. Already our parole system is overworked and violent felons are falling through the cracks due to all those on the Megan's Law registry who must be tracked and regularly reregistered for something as insignificant as looking at a cartoon image online.

Similarly we believe that the victim can best tell us if he or she requires assistance. Our modern society keeps adding new form of exploitation like identity theft. And allocating resources is best accomplished by removing antiquated laws such as "blue laws." Many students of law also question, as we do, whether criminalizing the consensual sexual activity of adolescents is really a good priority, and whether this "statutory rape" doesn't cloud the issue of nonconsensual rape. This is an ongoing debate with many perspectives and just like you, Pedophiles have diverging views from each other. Society deserves an open debate unclouded by ignorant stereotyping on either side or assumptions about the sincerity of any particular point of view."

"Surely you know about Venn diagrams and conditional probabilities and even Bayesian analysis. But sometimes I'd think you're forgetting the most basic stuff there."

I have never denied a non-causal irrelevant accidental overlap. The Venn diagram will also demonstrate the existence of the greedy Jew, the lazy Mexican and any other bigoted stereotype you care to try to validate through it use.

This still doesn't make the DOJ, FBI and the APA assertions any less true or useful.

Since Venn demonstrates anything, it demonstrates nothing. It is up to the experts to analyze significance and causation. And the experts have spoken. Why keep undermining their efforts to prevent child-abuse with your irrelevant self-esteem issues?

Dante