• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is one of those technical distinctions where if you’re making the distinction, you’re already on the wrong side of everything.

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Psychology and precision in language using the diagnostic terminology of the DSM V is on the wrong side of everything?

      No one is excusing or belittling anything. People who hurt children must fry.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, if you’re quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you’ve crossed the rubicon of decency.

        • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          I’m not defending anyone from anything. Your repeated, blatent and misguided attempts to mischaracterise what’s being said makes me think “He doth protest too much.”.

          It’s the litteral terminology from the diagnostic manual from the APA. You may want to book an appointment.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            I’m not suggesting you’re doing it specifically. I’m saying generally if you feel the need to make that distinction in your normal day to day life, you’re almost certainly a sexual predator.

            • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              Or any number of psychology related or adjacent professions, or just well read.

              What is really really weird is that you seemingly equivocate ephebephilia and hebephilia as some lesser crime. They are all equally child abuse. There is no lesser crime being implied here. All punishable the same. All irreperably damaging to the victims.

              You got some serious issues to work out. Imagine a courtroom where the lawyer present evidence of the accused stabbing someone, then you stand up in the gallery and scream accusing the lawyer of being a murderer because he said the accused stabbed the victim, rather than shot the victim. Ridiculous right? That’s what you’re doing.

              Your saying generally that being correct, accurate and precise with the nature of the crime means the lawyers, judge, medical practitioners testifying and anyone with a loose awareness of standards and terminology are murderers in my analogy.

              Did you know there is an entire section in wikipedia on various forms of chronophilia You better report the researchers, the writers of the articles, the publishers of textbooks, the entire psychology profession and anyone who clicked that link for sex crimes against children.

              Your bigotry is insane. Get help.

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Ok, you caught me. I’m prejudiced against pedophiles and pedophile enablers, and I’m not sorry. If that offends you, I assume you’re a member of one of those two groups, and I don’t want to continue talking with you. I suppose that’s a sort of bigotry, but I’m not really worried what you think or what offends pedophiles and pedophile enablers.