Likely true, but irrelevant.
None of us can in truth tell that paedophilia is completely biological, or completely sociocultural; neither can anyone in truth say how much of each counts, or because of what factors of each does one "become" a paedophile.
The point is that for the great majority of us, there is no life "before" being paeds, same as there is no life "before" our gender identity or our native language. It might not be genetic, or even biological, but it is, for the most of us, determined so early that the difference doesn't matter in our practical life.
Otoh, there usually is life "before" cancer.
Using common definitions while 'being able to' admit others exist is negligent and careless for others.
It would be awesome if just by looking at each and every word, a popup would appear with all the possible definitions. It just isn't possible, at least not yet. And I don't see how that is negligent - why should anyone be forced to explain exactly which meaning they are assigning to each and every word in every given sentence?? Do you even realise how that would be impossible with most of the English verbs and all of its prepositions that I remember off the top of my head???
By the way, where i just wrote "head" it does not mean "leader", "individual animal", "top", "pundit", "glans", "blowjob" or "beer foam".
And, how is it negligent not to be extensive??
In my opinion, it requires intention to be able to choose to talk this way, and for what purpose, I don't know, so I theorize.
Actually, most people talk this way.
Linguists call it "context".
What I mean by software/security not being an issue, is that giving tips on it is a non-issue, a non-protector, if people are not sufficiently motivated to use them. That is the purpose of warning, to motivate people to take precaution, not to simply mention that precautions exist and give a vague idea of why which people won't even understand the importance of. This is not enough of a warning, is what I'm saying.
The astonishing successes of abstinence education and drug awareness programs prove beyond all doubt that no warning will ever be enough against recklessness, naïveté or "it won't happen to me".
It's not different here.
Is it a bad thing??? Of course it is!!!
But it's not avoidable without gross prevention of the exercise of freedom.
You yourself offer proof of the above:
You say the mods remove 'compromising' stuff, however that is simply not enough to protect people. Stuff can remain up for short periods that way, enough for them to be 'quoted'.
Unless all posts have to be pre-approved, which would greatly slow discussion down, this will never be avoided.
Furthermore, stuff like people calling themselves pedophiles is not removed, nor should it, as many people may have a legitimate reason to call themselves that.
Unlike what you seem to think and Babble Club's webbies certainly thought (btw, where is it now??), I see no reason why censoring anyone from calling themselves paedophile somehow protects them. Can you explain to me why???
From Simply interacting with... to ...accountability for it.
I don't disagree.
The problem is that, still, no matter how many intermediate steps you take, you still cannot prevent recklessness, naïveté and "it won't happen to me".
The Famous Poster Outed in August was no CL-community newbie.
Neither was Flickorna - who had been active since the ASGL-L days.
Cangee was even a GC moderator for a time.
You cannot claim they were at all unaware.
They weren't.
They simply all fell victim to some combination of recklessness, naïveté and "it won't happen to me".
Same, for that matter, as Lux and Taffy, and if they, who did knew a lot, fell, then I do really shudder to think how much more in danger most of us are...
Normally, I wouldn't mind people who don't take extra steps to protect people, but here it is not tolerable, because this is a community being painted as a place for people to share sensitive aspects of themself, where people can avoid hatred and persecution. People who are often depressed or unstable or lonely, and knowing this, precautions should be taken to safeguard their persons when they are invited here.
Oh they will avoid hatred and prosecution here. But the site is public, so they are not avoiding prosecution from those who lurk with less than friendly intentions, least of all those who may be posting as we speak who are not who they say they are.
Those warning are responsible if their warning is rejected if their warning is half-assed and doesn't address the fact that people think they're being warned about one thing (being a MAA, often called a pedo) and are 'really' (though they don't know it) being warned about being called a psych/criminal pedo. They're being warned about the 'common' use of the word without knowing that people will paint it, so they could evade that danger.
...and Taffy's own success proves that it matters little what we call ourselves when someone is intent on destroying us, brother