Anonymous #3 1w

You’d be right. #1 is a good example of this.

7

Anonymous #2 1w

He’s been defending pedophiles for the past hour. Really terrible

7

Anonymous #3 1w

You can call them whatever you want in my books, i don’t care

8

Anonymous #1 1w

He’s right actually!

1

Anonymous #1 1w

You should stop trying to defend pedophiles by policing language. Words have meanings and they are used for a reason. You’re fucked up dude.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes words have meanings and YOU are misusing the word

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Wrong.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

Please stop defending pedophiles btw it’s been an hour this is really weird

6

Anonymous #2 1w

You are referring to all sex offenses involving the legally underaged as pedophilia which is incorrect. And you are taking offense that someone would make that distinction but you're still wrong.

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Wrong. Stupid pedophile 🤭

5

Anonymous #1 1w

Someone feels morally superior than your definition of pedophiles because you’re attracted to teens in high school and not younger children, I think that’s what’s going on here

4

Anonymous #1 1w

Technically the psychiatry definition cuts it off at 13 but colloquially it’s until 18. Colloquial use as validity

5

Anonymous #1 1w

You can’t be too strict because I’d imagine you wouldn’t say a 50 year old being attracted to 14 year olds is not a pedophile. That’s obviously a technicality

4

Anonymous #5 1w

Ok wait no I was wrong, actually: “The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder.”

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I had no idea they could diagnose 16 year olds with it. Makes sense but never thought about it before.

4

Anonymous #5 1w

Anyway thank you for being smart enough to understand that the colloquial definition is valid lol

4

Anonymous #5 1w

As much as I hate to say it, I think this guy isn’t *technically* wrong. I mean I think the intention here is obviously bad and that’s the issue.

-1

Anonymous #5 1w

But I mean there was evidence for pre pubescent children in the files so yes they do fit the technically correct definition

8

Anonymous #5 1w

He said this. He’s objectively wrong. Trust.

7

Anonymous #2 1w

Well yes that’s wrong. His definition is not objectively wrong though. Just his intent and the other stuff he said. Again, read my comments in their entirety

-2

Anonymous #5 1w

I mean it doesn’t really matter if he’s *technically* correct because that’s clearly not what he’s trying to accomplish here

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I mean one could also argue that the definition should be adjusted

1