An apt criticism

I agree with you there, the media calling someone a 'convicted pedophile' is certainly silly if that is not the name of a crimme. It's like calling a murderer a 'convicted manic-depressive' or something. It's okay to mention any prior or latter diagnoses that might be theorized to lead to a crime (as I'm sure has been the case with child molestation and pedophilia) but it makes more sense to label someone based on a crime first, and any diagnoses later. Diagnostic assessments are professional opinions, and not as (hopefully) directly evidence-based as criminal convictions are.

I don't recall putting confidence in media stories about Aztram. However, it did give me cause for concern that those pieces were citing police officers and the officers saying what they found. Papers have reputations to consider, and falsifying a police testimony is going damage them. Similarly, if a police officer were to lie to the press about what he found when searching an apartment, it would damage his and his department's reputations. So, with checks like that in place, it does give me cause to seriously doubt the innocence of Aztram. But, again, I will wait until the court decides something in a fair trial first, as anyone should.

I don't see the problem. Oil companies and defense contractors are pretty powerful too. If someone were going to post on a board where people would use the powers of these guys to hurt them, I would consider it important to warn them and keep out the vulnerable as well.

Certainly here is a good place to learn the controversy (though I'd start with Wikipedia). However, the problem is, coming here is dangerous for people. Thus, I'm not saying to keep people out, but to adequately 'armour' them prior to letting them talk so they can hurt themselves for others' amusement or grand schemes.

I'm not sure why you mention this, I never said people can't learn here, just that it's dangerous and people should know the controversy before coming in with recognizable pseudonyms and recklessly being encouraged to self-label by the people here. If this board were merely about informedness then there wouldn't be a problem, but this board has a predominant social component that people are peer-pressured to fit in with, which can hurt them.

Pre-dating is fine if you are a linguist who wishes to argue that the APA change the name of their classification. The words for illnesses areconstantly being amended in the APA. 'Multiple personalities' is now known as 'Dissociative Identity Disorder' for example. Pedophilia could easily be renamed too.

There's a difference between responsibly using your knowledge of language to change that error, and simply throwing what you think is right out there so that people will use it and cause confusion from those who consult professionals for their medical diagnotics.

The problem here is that the definitions for pedophilia are very close to each other, in assessing people. It is not an apt comparison to use things like 'distant' or 'cancer' which are obviously metaphors. The different uses of pedophilia are not metaphors.

You have asked for me to supply proof people here are pretending. You know well that proving pretending is pretty tough. Generally, it is a suspicion. If you really hate that, then I believe people are overlooking it there in their casual use of it. People feel very strongly about it being there, yet still choose to use it without discussing it every time they do, which is confusing to people who do not have their familiarity with the controversy.

1) A person like that would be a homosexual bisexual. A bisexual in that they like people of both sexes to some degree, but homosexual in that their direction and preference is homosexual. I have no reason to believe there are any absolute 100% hetero/homo sexuals in thought so as such, the only use I have for that term is to discuss the idea of 100%ness (exclusiveness), or a sexual preference, or to describe someone's activity. Describing activity is an odd thing though, because in that regard all virgins would be asexual, having not fucked the same or opposite sex.

2) No, I was not familiar with it, just looked it up, it's sort of interesting I guess. It's 0-4, I am more thinking of the 0-6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale which describes hetero-homo range rather than asexual-sexual response range. Together they seem like good tools for discussing intensity and direction.

3) I was not aware of this term, I have not seen it before. I will try to remember it. If you could make an entry on urban dictionary or something like that it might be helpful. As it is, I don't fully understand what that word means. Does it mean a pedophile who is bisexual, or is it some kind of reference to liking both prepubescents and pubescent/postpubescents? Seems incredibly new to me. Again, you can't expect people to know all the words people make up here (just as I can't expect people to remember the ones I make up, which is okay since I usually forget them) unless they are all collected on some kind of page or maybe a wiki. PJ is actually rather good for making their 'pedospeak' page, more work than I've seen people here doing to help define words.

4) I am aware of exclusive and non-exclusive. A non-exclusive pedophile is still someone who prefers prepubescents, but also experiences an attraction to people who have experienced the onset of puberty. I don't believe exclusive pedophiles exist any more than I believe exclusive heterosexuals exist. I believe that preferences can range from slight to strong, so I guess strong is what most people call 'exclusive' (silly absolute term) and weak is what people call 'non-exclusive' even though EVERYONE is nonexclusive in my eyes. To me, a reaction does not have to be conscious to be counted.

Now, I will tell you now, you are NOT a non-exclusive pedophile if you find prepubescents attractive. Pedophile still implies a focus, a preference. So, if I am correct in understanding that this 'bipedo' term means attraction that is inclusive, attraction inclusiveness does not imply any sort of preference for people on that basis, merely a lack of excluding them.

5) I don't understand this statement very well. What you call a 'pedophilic element' is this something like people who have a psychological response to neoteny?

I do not appreciate your calling my concern for semantics 'games'. That is insulting. I believe proper language is very important. I am aware that semantic games exist, and on occasion I DO play them, but I do not fool around when it comes to serious issues like this. Again, you're assuming the worst. I attempt to give the benefit of the doubt here, and I ask people also attempt to do this.

Now, if you want something to criticize me on, find instances where I do not give people the benefit of the doubt. I do voice suspicions about bad desires people may have, but unlike how you speak here, I do not assert them as reality. I might ask 'are you playing semanic games' rather than state 'you are playing semantic games'. Do you see the difference here? It is okay to voice a suspicion and say why you think something might be, but to state your suspicion as reality is incredibly rude, and wrong to do.