Not really. What the other 2 posters were advocating for us the execution of people who have not committed any crime.
But until the public accepts the difference between simply having the desire and actually acting on it, you're stuck using their own term of convenience.
Either way, I know what you're getting at and you know what they're getting at...
Now, if they had said anyone convicted of child abuse offences, that is different.
Not every paedo is a child abuser, and not every child abuser is a paedo... or hebe... or any of the other -phillias, if you want to get
really pedantic about it.
I'm also sure you have a source for that stat you have posted a couple of times as, for the purposes of discussion, it's quite important?
None that I saved and none that I'm willing to seek out on the computer from which I'm typing this, but you'll find plenty of data on the NPCC's website, the Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme and various studies on all the usual places, if you care to Google them. Look for 'virtuous paedophiles' and 'percentage of paedophiles that do not commit an offence', too.
Studies assert that non-offenders only represent 8-10% of the overall paedo population. Hence approximately 90% who do offend.
A rapist is a rapist due to the crime of rape carried out... Are you saying someone is only a paedophile if they have committed a sexual crime involving kids?... You really sure about that one?
He's wrong about it being a crime in itself... but in both DSM-5 and ICD-11, one of the criteria for diagnosing paedophilia is that the individual has somehow acted upon their urges. Doesn't have to be an actual crime, but does mean they've taken steps... If they do commit a crime, then it gets upgraded to 'pedophilic disorder'.
