A mixture between me upvoting that in both r/me_irl and r/ComedyCemetery
People get angry with stuff, angry people get violent, that's how wars and genocides happen. Nothing new here.
It's just sad they don't make an effort to understand it. That statement, even if it was morally right just hurts everyone involved. It's like someone telling me that pitbulls kill people, then I go out and kill all of them. it's just sad.

pedophile ≠ sex offender.

how prevalent is that idea among all of you? Would that be something you think if this were brought up in conversation?
Alacaster said:
how prevalent is that idea among all of you? Would that be something you think if this were brought up in conversation?
For really obvious reasons, I don't think all pedophiles are sex offenders. That said, I do think some of the high-profile campaigners for more acceptance, the kind of people this is possibly a reaction to, do more harm than good. There's a fine line between "this is how some people are, they need to be supported to help them be happy without needing to act on their urges" and "this is how some people are, it's natural and they should be allowed to act on their urges", and when that line is crossed by someone waving our banner, it hurts all of us. Society, already inclined to look at us in the most uncharitable light, is now presented with a person, claiming to speak for all people attracted to children, saying that children should be legally molestable. What do you expect them to think?
Alacaster said:
pedophile ≠ sex offender.

how prevalent is that idea among all of you? Would that be something you think if this were brought up in conversation?
I think everyone here agrees with it, but maybe mean different things.

Sumire-chan said:
There's a fine line between "this is how some people are, they need to be supported to help them be happy without needing to act on their urges" and "this is how some people are, it's natural and they should be allowed to act on their urges", and when that line is crossed by someone waving our banner, it hurts all of us.
I'm part of the "activism" community since 2015, even though I'm not really a pedophile, so I guess I have a say on this topic. This "fine line" you refer to is the difference between tye anti-contact(ac), sexual contact with children is wrong, and pro-contact(pc), sexual contact with children is good, ideologies. Pc is what everyone thinks pedophiles are, with groups like NAMBLA and shit, but recently the ac community arrose from virped.org, and is where I'm sided usually.

Both ideologies think that pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, but pc thinks it's because pedophiles can have sex with children without it being rape, while ac think is because not every pedophile has had sexual interactions with children(it should be obvious).

I've been thinking constantly about this shit for about 4 years now, if anyone wants to discuss any related topic with me I would be glad.
Alacaster said:
It's just sad they don't make an effort to understand it. That statement, even if it was morally right just hurts everyone involved. It's like someone telling me that pitbulls kill people, then I go out and kill all of them. it's just sad.

pedophile ≠ sex offender.

how prevalent is that idea among all of you? Would that be something you think if this were brought up in conversation?
as long as we never act on it iss all good