Since paedophilia is deemed to be an orientation, while molestation is more of a choice (as rape is a choice), does sentencing in the States reflects this difference? In other words, are paedophiles - assuming an expert witness confirms this condition in court - likely to get more lenient sentences than molestors?
Mmmm… nope. Sorry, it’s still irrational.
Technically, I’d say that’s logical. It’s also incorrect, because the logic is based on irrational base assumptions (“I was raped by a gay man, therefore all gay men are rapists”).
Can you elaborate on this? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I think this says more about you than it says about homosexuals or pedophiles.
You’re right - you’d still be a moron even if you were heterosexual. My bad.
The average twelve-year-old could probably tell you that if two terms are not interchangeable, then they do not describe the same thing. <Vader> Your failure of comprehension is complete, old man. </Vader>
[quote=look!ninjas* Gay men do not rape little boys, full stop.[/quote]
Imaginary. Right.
Well, according to you I posted to agree with the specifics of a post I hadn’t read, then went on to address some imaginary statement that the person I was replying to really had made.
Who exactly is the moron here? Still you, I’m afraid.
And if it weren’t for the sterling efforts of gay rights activists like Peter Tatchell and stupid, whiny loudmouths like you, maybe they wouldn’t have to do it so much.
Evil Death. your tenacity is outshone only by your idiocy.
No such thing as correct or incorrect in language use, as I’ve said before on this board. That’s why I called it “idiomatic.” Remove “ma” as appropriate. But, given that every use of the phrase I looked up was in the sense of belittling the Holocaust, I believe that’s the way the phrase is used. There’s a tautology for you.
And as I said, it does nothing to advance Evil Death’s case, whatever that case may be.
Daniel
It’s not a crime to be a pedophile. It’s a crime to engage in sexual acts with children, or to possess or produce child pornography, but the desire to do these things (the “orientation”, as it were) is not in and of itself criminal.
It’s not until pedophiles make the choice to engage in behavior that is illegal that they can get in trouble with the law. The law is not much concerned with what their motivations were, nor do I think they should they be.
I remain unconvinced that “Holocaust apologist” is used in the sense that he claims rather than in the sense of being a Holocaust defender, but perhaps that uncommon phrase really has taken on a meaning other than the one I would infer from “Holocaust” plus “apologist”. I’m not sure this really matters though, as it’s not the phrase he originally used. He just said “apologist”.
I’m sure it doesn’t really matter :). To the extent that the phrase is used as “one who denies the Holocaust,” it’s used idiomatically, in a manner that’s not related to the denotations of the phrase. You can’t backform from that a new definition for “apologist,” or other idiomatic phrases.
Daniel
Correct as usual. Always a pleasure to have you involved in these linguistic discussions. 
Evil Death - You did notice that I brought up that very same quote in my last post on the subject, acknowledged that it was factually incorrect, and reframed my position, right? I was wrong. It isn’t impossible for a gay man to rape a little boy. It’s only really really really unlikely. So mea culpa.
Yes, I did. It’s not relevant to Sol’s slagging me off for drawing an “imaginary” inference from what you originally said, though.
I guess I’m just whining that the defintions aren’t as clear-cut as I’d like them to be. I’d like to have a definition that’s
– meaningful (i.e. groups similar people together in a category)
– as objective as possible (I don’t think “let the individual define him/herself” is very rigorous)
– as concise as possible (“one who is attracted to the same sex, but only for consensual, adult relationships” lacks here)
I guess I was just rambling that the English language isn’t perfect.
I don’t think that’s is untrue. But if enough people associate the term “homosexual” with “homosexual pedophilia”, the term will cease to have meaning just like “homophobe”.
Well, that’s better than anything I could come up with in response.
And look!ninjas – I just have to say I hope you’ve learned your lesson. You’ve got to stop being so mealy-mouthed and vague. I mean, saying the exact same thing three times and putting in italics? Just what exactly are you getting at, here?
I suppose it would help to have the word of one of the leading researchers in the field on this one. It so happens that RickJay is acquainted with just such a man, Dr. Bill Marshall. Once upon a time RickJay wrote a letter to the man and detailed the relevant info in a pit thread. I can’t find the original, but here is the redux. Note please the date on the thread (March of this year); it need not be resurrected.
Well, he posted before I did, though. If he skimmed and didn’t read the last line all the way through, he probably missed it. Anyway, it isn’t a big deal. What I’d like to know is what you thought of the rest of my post and my points and whether you still feel the way you did when we started this little hijack.
If you expect people to change their minds merely because you’re making sense at them, your tenacity is outshone only by your idiocy.
Sorry. I’ll stop making sense now.
This whole thread is a train wreck.