On the whole I think we should stop using the term "pedophiles" because it just means lovers of children. Never discuss pedophiles but call them only "Child sexual abusers."
It said "natural sexual orientation." Loving a child because it's a child and having a sexual orientation or lust to crave an adult craving for them are two different things. They're fucking demons.
Get the rope, the guillotines and the bullets ready!! Anyone verify?
I understand your proposal from a technical standpoint as the phile post-fix means a love of, ex: audiophile, anglophile.
While in essence that is true. Unlike the previous two phile examples I gave, society on a whole recognises this one as peverse and not an appreciation or reverence like the others.
Changing the common language around it isn't much different from what lefties do too. The other element is that any change in the language introduces possibilities in the change of understanding.
The ABC news in Tasmania, Australia recently tried their hand at this. You can guess what reception the idea has received:
I disagree about how changing language is just a leftist tactic. It is the right of everyone to change the narrative as they see fit. As I speak so I create. There was a comment above that I'd like to change my term to "Child rapists" because that is the most clear and concise description. There is no love involved, it is rape.
On the whole I think we should stop using the term "pedophiles" because it just means lovers of children. Never discuss pedophiles but call them only "Child sexual abusers."
Never thought of it that way. You're right, but at this point I think the term is generally interpreted to mean “child molester.”
Or "predator"
"Child sex abuser" makes it sound like there's a way to have sexual relationships with children that are not abuse. I prefer the term pedophile.
Child rapist.
So, using this logic, does "Child sex trafficker" also sound acceptable to you?
It said "natural sexual orientation." Loving a child because it's a child and having a sexual orientation or lust to crave an adult craving for them are two different things. They're fucking demons.
Get the rope, the guillotines and the bullets ready!! Anyone verify?
I understand your proposal from a technical standpoint as the phile post-fix means a love of, ex: audiophile, anglophile.
While in essence that is true. Unlike the previous two phile examples I gave, society on a whole recognises this one as peverse and not an appreciation or reverence like the others.
Changing the common language around it isn't much different from what lefties do too. The other element is that any change in the language introduces possibilities in the change of understanding.
The ABC news in Tasmania, Australia recently tried their hand at this. You can guess what reception the idea has received:
https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-call-predators-pedophiles%E2%80%99-abc-tells-reporters-leaked-email
EDIT: Just wanted to clarify that in no way am I insinuating you are a lefty in the 3rd paragraph.
I disagree about how changing language is just a leftist tactic. It is the right of everyone to change the narrative as they see fit. As I speak so I create. There was a comment above that I'd like to change my term to "Child rapists" because that is the most clear and concise description. There is no love involved, it is rape.