Re: Semi-literate media? No

This is an example. People here give the impression that just because the media twists the definition that all people who use a definition differing from 'old english' must be wrong.

Depends on the context.

Even in the media, "convicted pedophile" is accurate if the convicted is a pedophile - but it is criticised because it gives the wrong impression on the reader / viewer. The "pedophile" piece of data is irrelevant to the conviction and could be done away with with no real loss of information, same as you don't need to know the convict's weight or height, even though the police have taken them too.

I'm not talking about the media. Never reference them again as an example. That's a straw man. I do not argue 'proper usage' on authority of the MEDIA.

Yet you believed the media stories about, say, Aztram. Reconcile, please.

I argue it on the basis of the APA and other major psychological organizations. Think of them what you will (I hear Scientology isn't fond of Psychiatry, personally I favour Psychology over Psychiatry and verbal therapy over drugs, but that doesn't mean they TOTALLY suck) they hold a lot of authority over the public. They have links to government, links to law enforcement. You can't glaze over their definitions for medical problems as being 'media'.

So do oil companies and defence contractors - see the problem yet???

If people want to pick 'pedophile' I think that's something they should keep to themself or that should only come up in extensive conversations where all people involved in them have addressed the myriad of meanings and understand the controversy. If people do not understand the controversies, they should not be given a broad definition.

I don't believe there is any better place than here to understand the controversies. Can you show me one???

Any of Taffy's threads on the issue have brought out the best amount of literacy from all sides, you should check them out.

They should be given the most conservative and specific and least-encompassing definition, which as far as I am aware, is the APA's. This is the first one they should learn. Learning about broader (frequently inaccurate) uses of the word which lack authority or consistancy should come AFTERWARDS.

Conservative: A person who agrees with the status quo or with an earlier status quo - or their ideology.
By that token, Greek "paedophilia" predates the APA.

Far: Distant.
By that token, it doesn't even go where you put it, because awareness is a mental property while distance is a physical property.

Authority: Capacity to make rules or give enforceable commands.
By that token, no definition at all has any authority.

Come: To move to a nearer position.
By that token, that also doesn't belong there, as learning isn't an object that can be moved.

Wanna continue playing your own game???

Even though pedophilia isn't anything like cancer, both are medical diagnoses. I would not consult Oxford for cancer even though the word is probably in there, so I would not consult it for pedophilia either.

"Jews are a cancer to Europe."
Discuss.

If you do not think it is a disease, that's fine, neither do I. I see it a fetish, and I don't think any fetishes belong on there. But they're still there, and people deserve to understand this, not be punished because a lot of people like to pretend it doesn't exist there.

We don't deny it is there. We criticise that it is there, or the exact definition - but we've never denied it is there - care to show proof that we have???

To use a comparison, back when homosexuality was on the APA's list, it would be irresponsible to go around saying "hey if you sometimes feel attracted to the same sex you're a homosexual!" Honestly, even now that it's been taken off, it's STILL wrong to do because it is inaccurate.

After all, homosexuality is a PREFERENCE for the same sex, not merely liking them without any major predominance over the same sex. That is more commonly referred to as bisexuality.

1) What about a person who prefers the same sex but non-predominantly likes the opposite sex?? Are you saying that that is a homosexual, not a bisexual???

2) Are you even aware of the H scale???

3) We have already invented the term "bipaedophile", abbreviated biped.

4) We have already invented the term "exclusive" and "non-exclusive", for those who won't use "biped".

5) Even for non-exclusives, and no matter if you want to make up new terms or how many of them you do invent; to actually deny that there is a paedophilic element even as there is a non-paedophilic element is as misleading as pretending that the existence of a paedophilic element makes one identical to an exclusive for prepubescents.

This is exactly the same issue. The difference between someone being inclusive of minors versus being exclusionistic towards non-prepubescents.

There can be an issue there - but your semantic games help nobody understand themselves better.