I just want to know a few things...

I agree with this bit:

322 wrote:I am sure if you got rid of all males, the number of child abuse would go down.

but not this:

322 wrote:Therefore, males=child molesters.

Surely I don’t have to explain why? I think we all know that “not completely different” is not the same as “equals”.

322 wrote:The problem is people cannot accept the opposite, that pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters.

Who cannot accept the opposite? Who are these "people"? This is another generalisation. What does it prove? Did Skimmer say that she cannot accept that paedophiles are not necessarily child molesters? Did I say that?

Does it help you to believe the world is more against paedophiles than it is? I would think the reality is tough enough, and that there is no good reason to make it look worse.

322 wrote:He should of stayed out of it.

Why? This thread was started by AnonymousAndy and asked questions about why victim readers read the Paraphilias forum. Who better to respond than a victim reader?

Alevi wrote:Hence, why I think being precise is a good thing in this context.

I totally agree Alevi.

But this is not an isolated case. Not all criminals are psychopaths. And not all psychopaths are criminals. Psychopathy is but one cause of criminal behaviour. Some psychopaths may never break a law in their life. But of course people are going to make sweeping generalisations about how terrible psychopaths are, and how they cause violent crimes and clog-up jails. People are not always precise with their language.

If you feel a generalisation is incorrect, why not query the writer to ask what they meant? That's what I did when 322 wrote things that I personally did not think applied to me.

Or you could explain why their generalisation is false. Some people may not know that "paedophilia" refers to the paraphilia not the act of child molestation. You can argue that they should know, but that doesn't change the fact that many do not know.

I doubt anybody gets a lawyer to check their posts before submitting them. We can all make typos or choose the wrong word. We can make generalisations and over-simplifications because it is quicker than defining everything. Let's not pretend that a generalisation is a personal attack.

There is an instance of formal fallacy and an incorrect premise in the assumption that all paedophiles molest children (if anybody is naïve enough to make that assumption).

Firstly there is the formal fallacy, known as affirming the consequent:

If I molest children, I am a paedophile
I am a paedophile
Therefore I molest children

Which can be distilled to:

If Y, then X
X
Therefore Y

In cases of affirming the consequent, the reasoning does not hold because it neglects to consider that there may be other causes for Y than X. Furthermore, as someone pointed out, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

Secondly there is the incorrect premise: If I molest children, I am a paedophile. Strictly speaking, an argument can (if it is devoid of formal fallacies) be valid (which is used here as a technical term with a precise meaning), but not sound (which again is a technical term meaning valid plus true premises). In other words, if the premises are not true, then the argument will fail. Here it is neither sound (due to the first premise being untrue) nor valid (due to the formal fallacy).

GinaSmith wrote:There is an instance of formal fallacy and an incorrect premise in the assumption that all paedophiles molest children (if anybody is naïve enough to make that assumption).

Where is this instance? Do you mean in this thread?

I think just about everybody reading this knows that not all paedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are paedophiles. They are not completely different, because some child molesters are paedophiles, but they are different. We can harp on about this point forever, but I think (hope!) we all get it.

That of course doesn't mean everybody in the world knows there's a difference between the two terms. And you know what; they're never all going to understand the difference. It sucks, but that’s the reality of the situation we’re living in. Let's accept that fact, and move on.

Platypus wrote:

GinaSmith wrote:There is an instance of formal fallacy and an incorrect premise in the assumption that all paedophiles molest children (if anybody is naïve enough to make that assumption).

Where is this instance? Do you mean in this thread?

No, not the thread per se, but the assumption ("...in the assumption that..."). The assumption has been alluded to in this thread, but not (as I understand from cursory reading of the post) actually espoused by anyone.

Platypus wrote:That of course doesn't mean everybody in the world knows there's a difference between the two terms. And you know what; they're never all going to understand the difference. It sucks, but that’s the reality of the situation we’re living in. Let's accept that fact, and move on.

I'm not sure we have to. As a gay woman, I'm lucky to have been born into a time when homosexuality has become more generally acceptable in the West. For a long time there would have been people saying that homosexuality would never be understood and accepted, but in the end homosexuals did not accept the fact and move on. I do think comparison with the history of acceptance of homosexuality is instructive and helpful, though I'm not an expert on this subject.

Platypus wrote:That of course doesn't mean everybody in the world knows there's a difference between the two terms. And you know what; they're never all going to understand the difference. It sucks, but that’s the reality of the situation we’re living in. Let's accept that fact, and move on.

I don't think it is helpfull to just ignore and accept serious misconceptions, no.

I think in cases like this, it is important to shed some light on what the issue is about, as well as what the issue is NOT about.

That way, it will be so much easier for people to relax and come to terms with things, which also will help those with these kind of issues, to seek some help or just talk about whatever one feels a need to air and discuss a little.

Alevi wrote:I think in cases like this, it is important to shed some light on what the issue is about, as well as what the issue is NOT about.

But the thing is, there is no misconception in this thread from what I can see.
So where is the case that you are going to shed light on? You may have a valid argument, but it seems misplaced to me. Why preach to the converted?

I suspect we (I, Alevi and Platypus) may be talking at cross purposes. I think Alevi and I are referring to the wider issue rather than specifically this thread.

There is one comment I noticed that is off the mark and I think rather sexist....

322 wrote:I am sure if you got rid of all males, the number of child abuse would go down. Therefore, males=child molesters.

I for one have first hand experience and knowledge of the fact that women also molest children, and there is also this factor to consider as well..... not all rapists are men, it is just that more rapes of women by men are reported than rapes of men by women primarily for a couple of reasons -

1 - society tends to have a very hard time believing that women can in fact rape men however with a lot of drugs these days women can also have power over the men.

2 - the abuse and stigma a male would face if he reported that he was raped by a women would in fact be worse than that suffered by the ladies.

skimmer wrote:Just as you are allowed to go to any forum and post your thoughts and feelings and respond to others posts, so am I, and so are others.

It may not say it in the rules, but I don't think I could -- because of unwritten rules -- go to any forum I want and write anything I want. However, even if I wanted to do so, I'm not so self-centered that I would just assume that it's okay, either. I wouldn't go into a victims forum and just start talking about my pedophilia. Why? Because it could potentially upset them if I talk about child abuse in any detail, I'm sure, and I don't want to trigger anyone. I hope the same courtesy would be extended here. It may not be what you want to hear, but some victims' attitudes here trigger the pedophiles. It may surprise you, but even pedophiles have feelings.

I'm always surprised how pedophiles are just supposed to drop all their feelings and struggles for others and be so empathetic, yet others can not give two pieces of dog poo about people, thinking only of their own pain and hurt, and it's perfectly fine.

skimmer wrote:It sounds like you are feeling guilty/defensive about what the victims are saying in their posts. I would think, as a pedohphile, you would be interested in our point of view. After all we were your prey... we were who you wanted to get close to, bond with, have fantasies about. I'm not trying to incite here, but lets get everything out on the table. Pedophiles want to have or fantasise about having sexual relationships with children. Children do not understand or want these relationships. If it bothers you to hear what we have to say, once we are old enough to have a voice... I think that speaks more to you than to those vitims that post here.

Well, since you already have me figured out and know me so well, I guess responding might be pointless. However, as I'm sure you know, I was abused by my own father for 10 years, and then lost my entire family to go live with another psychological and emotionally abusive family for another 8 years -- so I think I know your point of view just a little. Of course, I'm sure you don't even believe me or care -- since I'm not the right "kind" of victim to you, am I?

I do feel guilty about my feelings -- in fact, I've tried to kill myself multiple times before so I don't hurt any kids. I'm not sure what else you would like me to do?

You throw around terms like prey and predator -- and expect us to believe that you don't consider us somehow less than you. You don't even know if I have or haven't done anything, you just assume by lumping us all together in your own mindframe...that's okay, I know we're not allowed to do that, only you are.

skimmer wrote:But, to expect that inappropriate posts, disclosures of criminal behaivor, or serious threats of criminal behaivor will not be noticed, removed and or reported is foolish.

I've said this about 4 times in this thread, but I'll say it again since you missed it. I have nothing against reporting, and I think they should, too, I just hope the mods just don't do it with the excitement and vigilantism that I got from previous postings.

skimmer wrote:I can empathize with your frustration, but not your words- In your stereotyping of victims who come to this forum and post, you have treated us exactly the way you don't want to be treated. You minimize our contributions, you attempt to shame us into not participating and you vilify us for pedophiles social stigmas and treatment.

I just want to know why it's okay for population A to stereotype population B (you know, as I hunt for my prey in the dark of night), but when B does it to A it's wrong. I'm confused.

skimmer wrote:I believe pedophiles need to hear what we have to say.

And I believe society needs to hear what pedophiles say. I don't see a lot of people lining up for that, either.

skimmer wrote:Some pedophiles actually post that they are the ones that need sympathy and not the childeren.

I believe all human beings deserve sympathy, not just the ones I hand-pick to be worthy. I would really like to know how you'd handle life in these pedophiles' shoes. Can I assume you'd think and do everything perfectly? If you don't think you could, I suggest not judging the ones here, either.

skimmer wrote:It may be in vain, but it's what I can do.

Terribly vain...