16 months for having a "full-blown sexual relationship" with a 15-year-old

Amp34 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:01

Dis86 said:
I've repeatedly given the linguistic definition of a child. Do I have to give it again?

And it’s irrelevant, because it’s not the right definition for that term. Or are you willing to contact psychology today and tell them their definition of child is wrong?

Care to answer any of the questions in my first post?

The only argument you have is you’re using the colloquial term, rather than any correct definition.

Sasahara · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:02

Dis86 said:
I've repeatedly given the linguistic definition of a child. Do I have to give it again?

Your definition of a child includes 16 and 17 year olds. Which going by your definition makes paedophilia legal in that age range. Which in turn makes a mockery of the term.

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:08

Amp34 said:
And it’s irrelevant, because it’s not the right definition for that term. Or are you willing to contact psychology today and tell them their definition of child is wrong?

Care to answer any of the questions in my first post?

The only argument you have is you’re using the colloquial term, rather than any correct definition.

Your questions are moot. We can clearly see that all UK law agencies call a 16 year old a child and, in some circumstances anyone under the age of 18. We all agree that paedophilia is the attraction to (and in this case action of) children. Yet you and multiple others are sat here trying to argue that a child isn't what the law says it is. I don't need to contact psychology today - you need to contact the UK government and law enforcement agencies as clearly, according to you, they're wrong.

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:08

Sasahara said:
Your definition of a child includes 16 and 17 year olds. Which going by your definition makes paedophilia legal in that age range. Which in turn makes a mockery of the term.

Not my definition sunshine, the UK legal definition. Do you want me to post the link to the legislation which specifically includes the word 'child' again?

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:10

Dis86 said:
I've repeatedly given the linguistic definition of a child. Do I have to give it again?

And as I've said, the definition varies enormously between dictionaries. Some are broad, some more specific. Are you really trying to contend that anyone under 18 is a child? Where does that leave the age of consent?

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:11

Dis86 said:
Not my definition sunshine, the UK legal definition. Do you want me to post the link to the legislation which specifically includes the word 'child' again?

Ooh, go on, post the legislation.

For the record, it doesn't matter what the law says a child is as the law doesn't say anything about what paedophilia is.

Bassmansam · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:14

What if you had sex with someone who is 15 years old, 364 days and 21 hours? Would be a bit silly to brand that person a pedophile.

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:14

Vonhelmet said:
Ooh, go on, post the legislation.

You really are hard of reading. I've literally just posted it.

But I'm patient - so do you think you'll be OK reading this?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9

9 Sexual activity with a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual, and

(c)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

Efour · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:15

Nicccccce

Doogles · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:15

Not only that but Johnson pickup up that girl from a bar allegedly not know her age this woman knew exactly what she was doing.

FoxEye · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:16

Dis86 said:
Von, honestly - are you a bit special? I'll paste the dictionary definition again for you ok?

"a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"

I've even underlined and emboldened it again. Or are you, and please be clear in this, saying that the dictionary definition is wrong and you're right?

He's entirely correct tho.

The dictionary definition of pedophile does not explicitly/exclusively refer to the legal definition of child.

Interestingly, the dictionary definition of child also includes "a son or daughter of any age". As in, I am the 37 year old child of my mother.

Does that make everybody a pedophile, since we're all somebody's son or daughter? Plainly not.

An alternative definition of child (from the same dictionary) is "a pre-pubescent, or a person below the legal age of majority".

As you can see, attempting to use the legal definition of "child" exclusively to define "paedophile" is something you are choosing to do, but is by no means the only definition of "child", and the definition of "paedophile" does not actually explicitly state which definition of "child" it refers to.

However other dictionaries define pedophile as "attraction to pre-pubesent children". Thus removing all ambiguity.

Sasahara · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:17

Dis86 said:
Not my definition sunshine, the UK legal definition. Do you want me to post the link to the legislation which specifically includes the word 'child' again?

Can you stop changing your position, one minute it's the dictionary definition of a child and when that doesn't work you switch to the legal definition?
Please pick one and stick to it?

UK law has many categories of a child which has already been stated by many people here and you keep ignoring it.
And there is no legal definition of paedophilia.

There are a couple or words that describe your actions, peremptory and obdurate.

silverblack · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:18

Doogles said:
Not only that but Johnson pickup up that girl from a bar allegedly not know her age this woman knew exactly what she was doing.

I thought he met her outside the ground as she wanted a shirt autographed :confused:

Doogles · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:19

silverblack said:
I thought he met her outside the ground as she wanted a shirt autographed

Maybe I was wrong after all I read it from The Scum and Daily Fail... Point still stands that this case is worse than the Johnson one but she gets almost one fifth of the sentence!

Amp34 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:19

Dis86 said:
Your questions are moot. We can clearly see that all UK law agencies call a 16 year old a child and, in some circumstances anyone under the age of 18. We all agree that paedophilia is the attraction to (and in this case action of) children. Yet you and multiple others are sat here trying to argue that a child isn't what the law says it is. I don't need to contact psychology today - you need to contact the UK government and law enforcement agencies as clearly, according to you, they're wrong.

So if I contact the Uk government and ask them if paedophilia is illegal then what would they say?

We already know the answer to that. It’s not, because paedophilia isn’t a legal construct.

No one is arguing the governments definition of a child is wrong, they are pointing out that the legal/government definition of “child” and the psychological definition of paedophile cannot just be interchanged randomly.

So you can keep quoting definitions of “child” from every government institution under the sun, it’s irrelevant as legally there is no definition in law of paedophile.

How about you have a read of this and the terms linked in it. Hopefully you’ll then understand what’s actually being argued.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia

It’s a lot more detailed (as is the psychology today article I linked to earlier) than the one line dictionary definition your misconstruing.

I’m not sure why you’re not getting this concept. You yourself have linked to multiple different definitions of what a child is depending on the context. The NSPPC define a child differently to the dictionary definition you provided, which defines a child differently to the government legislation you linked to. So which definition do you want to use? Or perhaps you’ll use a specific definition based on th context it’s being used in?

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:20

FoxEye said:
However other dictionaries define pedophile as "attraction to pre-pubesent children". Thus removing all ambiguity.

No they don't.

Oxford, Cambridge, dictionary.com all state;

"someone who is sexually interested in children" or a rephrasing thereof.

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:22

Amp34 said:
It’s a lot more detailed (as is the psychology today article I linked to earlier) than the one line dictionary definition your misconstruing.

Blah blah blah.

I've made the argument on here before that being a paedophile isn't illegal so you can shove that one. My point is you can be a paedophile and not act on it, she is a paedophile and did act on it.

More definitions for you from multiple different establishments are stated in my reply to Foxeye above. I can't quite see how you can misconstrue that single sentence...

Jokester · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:24

I think you're being too literal with the word child Dis86.

Oh and niiice.

Dis86 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:25

Jokester said:
I think you're being too literal with the word child Dis86.

Oh and niiice.

Then why does the criminal legislation use the word child and not any other term?

Amp34 · 7 Oct 2017 at 19:26

Dis86 said:
Blah blah blah.

I've made the argument on here before that being a paedophile isn't illegal so you can shove that one. My point is you can be a paedophile and not act on it, she is a paedophile and did act on it.

More definitions for you from multiple different establishments are stated in my reply to Foxeye above. I can't quite see how you can misconstrue that single sentence...

Except the definition of paedophile is someone attracted to a pre pubescent child.

It doesn’t matter what different establishments define child as, if they aren’t defining it in the context of the psychological disorder known as paedophilia.