Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 8

message: This entire article is nothing but PR for child molestors.  These people are criminals, end of story.
: How can we be criminals if we don't do anything criminal? Most childlovers never molest children. I myself am pushing thirty, have never laid a hand on a boy in anything but friendship, and am intent to die as a virgin. Not because sex is ultimately wrong, but because this society is mad and would hurt the boy if it found out. If a person breaks a law, you can call him criminals. Otherwise, get real. Clayboy 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, Clay: A childlover would never molest a child. A childlover, and the ideals behind pederasty, are that the child is in control of their mind and body. Thus, the child would be the one to make the decision as to what sexual encounters they choose to participate in; thus, it is not molestation, period. Ya almost had it right. :) --Rookiee 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophile Propaganda 

message: I don't want to start any kind of flaming war here. I am fundamently against pedophilia as I'm sure most are. But the point is, this article is not "PR for child molestors" as you say. The point is to show that a) there are groups and people out there whose opinions are not those of most of society, and b) that attraction does not equal pedophilia. If I think to myself "I'd sure love to rob this bank and have a million dollars", which I have done, surely that does not make me a bank robber? Since I would never do such a thing, and could never bring myself to a) take the risk of being sent to jail for doing so, and b) take other people's money etc, I wouldn't consider myself a bank robber. Surely the same consideration should be given here.
And, before some "witty" person responds, no I don't think we need an article on "people who imagine themselves as bank robbers" as opposed to an article on "bank robbers". I'm just saying. This article also deals with the movement itself, the ideas of openness etc etc. As someone posted upthread, what constitutes a pedophile changes the world over as ages of consent are raised and lowered in different countries (and even STATES in the U.S.!) all the time. 
The age of consent goes down to 13 in some countries, and up to the 20s, according to that article!
I don't condone any of this, I'm just saying that there are shades here that support more than just a deletion and "My thoughts are right, these people are wrong" philosophy.
 Daydream believer2 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is the sexual and/or romantic attraction to children -- so attraction does equal pedophilia. If I were to say that a person cannot be gay unless he has sex with another man, people would say I were obviously wrong. By the same logic, a person can be pedophile and not have sex with children. Pedophilia is not an action, it is an attraction. Clayboy 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Aside from the term "pedophilia as a crime", since pedophilia is not a legal term for any crime, I would most definitely agree with that -- just see my user page. Clayboy 18:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophilia is a state of being; a label. Pedophilia is in no way a crime, unless you're one of these guys. Blurring of "action" and "state of being" is easily conjured by those with anti-pedophilia sentiment. Also, since a crime and the immorality behind it are directly related, when a society deems any thought or action as "immoral" or socially innappropriate (even if it is based on a false premise such as sexual innocence), it becomes categorically "criminal". Homosexuality, differing religions, beliefs, etc., are all prime examples of how one group of people can become victims of an ignorant society, blind to reality, and the persecution of thought. --Rookiee 22:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I don't think merging is a good idea since this article is about a political/social movement and not pedophilia itself. Such a merge would be akin to merging capital punishment with homicide. 60.234.208.238 07:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree with your analogy.  I'd say it's more like merging social equality and the civil rights movement.  In any case, I agree that they shouldn't be moved.  One is a social movement, the other is a psychology term.  Related no doubt, but not the same.  Pedophilia has existed for a long long time, but, a childlove movement to accept adult-child relations has not. gren グレン 08:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to keep separate the movement from the condition than we could move all of the movement related material to this article. Right now the two topics seem muddled. -Willmcw 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that'd require moving the NAMBLA page also? It's rather large on its own... · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but there's an advocacy section in Pedophilia. That might be moved over here, for example. -Willmcw 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with paedophilia 

message: I nominated the article for deletion, because it's obvious to me that as long as it's here, it will do nothing but discredit wikipedia.  Pedophiles have their own sites to propagandize for their proclivities, let them do so with their own resources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
: You might do better by dropping the hostility and trying to engage people in discussion about such changes. There are people here, such as myself, that will back you up if I feel they are justified. Lone wolf editing, especially by an anon, is often doomed when done with emotion. Try getting an account and discussing the changes, and try be as civil as possible (see Wikipedia:Civility). People pay a lot more attention to you if you are polite (not saying you're impolite, just mentioning). --DanielCD 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: I haven't actually read the article in full detail, so I'm going through and doing some copyediting as I go. Some of the sentences read funny, possibly remants of past edit-wording wars, and I think the readability can use some improvement. Trying to be as neutral as possible, so talk to me if I do something that upsets someone for whatever reason and we'll see if we can fix it as nPOV as possible. --DanielCD 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit