But why note something which in and of itself doesn't harm people? Them being a pedophile doesn't cause harm, them being a rapist does though. It'd be like hearing a news report where they go "A man was recently arrested for stabbing a woman to death with a coat hanger. He also really likes salt water taffy." It's an arbitrary detail that doesn't change what the actual crime was.

1. Buy a ****ing dictionary.
2. Read it.
3. Don't return to discussion until both 1 and 2 are completed.

You aren't a murderer until you commit murder. You can still be homicidal. You aren't breaking paedophilia related laws until you abuse a kid but you can still be a paedophile.

the media would not know a person is a pedophile unless they were already caught committing the crime in the past. in which case why should they not be labeled as such in the present?

people are NOT publicly labeled as pedophiles until they commit the crime. how is that complicated? yes their condition exists prior to their actions but who knows about it besides the individual? try looking away from the dictionary long enough to use common sense.

i understand what you're saying but it's irrelevant within the context of the initial issue. it's entirely justified for the media to state that a child was abducted by a pedophile if that happens to be the case.

the ONLY way people find out who a pedophile is, happens AFTER they commit a crime against a child. again, how is that complicated? if the media is reporting that a pedophile abducted a child then it is not the first crime that person has committed. how else would they know they're dealing with a pedophile?

I'm not saying the media can't or shouldn''t call them whatever they want to call them. I'm for freedom of the press, and I'm against censorship 100%. However, why is it used negatively? It isn't really insulting or bad to lust for something.

Again, agreed. However, its an arbitrary detail. "Man robs candy store, he likes jelly bellies."

But why does it matter if the person is a pedophile? I have no problem hanging out with pedophiles, or even having a pedophile for president. What someone thinks about when they touch their parts is their own business and has no effect on the people around them. However, I'd never vote for a kidnapper. See the difference?

the difference is in order for a person to be labeled as a pedophile in the media means that they have been previously convicted of that crime. it's not an arbitrary detail but a reflection of the increased danger posed to the child because they've been kidnapped by someone who has previously been convicted of abusing children.

the media cannot arbitrarily label people at their leisure. think of the ensuing litigation if that were the case... their broadcasting license would be revoked so quickly it wouldn't be funny. to report the increased level of danger an abducted child is in, is NOT an arbitrary detail to most people.

i don't care what turns a person on, but NO ONE calls themselves a pedophile prior to being convicted of the crime. see the difference?

no you're poop disturber on the net :p:

are you actually defending pedophiles? are you one yourself?

most child abductions are by pedophiles are they not?

Apart from that poor Shannon girl when it was her ****ing nutjob mother.

Being a pedophile is not just about wanking over kids, child porn is absolutely criminally horrific how can anyone rape a child?

And often those 'feelings' get too strong and they carry out their fantasies. Sick ****s who should be exterminated.

oh and even though I am 17 I hate talking to men over 21 in case they are thinking about me in a gross way.

Examples?