Barnard17

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.

mr dave

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 am the universe

The Unfan

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?