This newcastle

[Brigadier]

Anything that distracts from the real issue.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's you who is doing that.

 

[Brigadier]

I'm not ranting on about dictionaries....

 

[blightymam]

It only 'evolves' because a majority use it wrongly and that becomes the accepted meaning.

That's right - and it's how language has worked for a long long time. Same as new, made up words. I don't have a problem so much with paedo being used in this way. If I hear about a paedo, I instantly know that is sex with a child. The age isn't so important for me to know because it's a child.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's right - and it's how language has worked for a long long time.

It has only worked like that because of ignorance.
No one decides to use a word for other than its meaning on purpose out of knowledge.
If I say "Edinburgh is in Wales"; which is the wrong word?

Same as new, made up words.

Nothing wrong with new words.

I don't have a problem so much with paedo being used in this way.

Well, you should. That is not what it means.
The next time a true paedophile case arises then, if the term has been used wrongly, for anyone under sixteen, you will not be able to tell.

For me, language is about communication first and foremost.

Of course it is. How can you communicate if the words are not being used correctly? - or I could have said -
Of course it isn't. How can you communicate if the words are not being used wrongly?

No one accepts simple words like those being used incorrectly; it is only complicated words where ignorance comes in to play and then people make excuses that it's evolution.

So if I hear about a paedo, I instantly know that is sex with a child. The age isn't so important for me to know.

Of course it is. That's nonsense. You're being idealistic. Sixteen is an arbitrary numerical age.
Do you not want to distinguish between victims who will be sixteen in a couple of weeks and an eight year old.

Do you think Paediatricians should treat adults?

You commented recently on the woman teacher who had sex with a fifteen year old boy. Would you call that paedophilia?

I am pleased the teacher was punished but on the grounds of equality - it should work both ways.
We don't know but the fifteen year old boy may be a six feet 4 rugby player - just not reached the magic number yet.

 

[JohnD]

I wonder how much truth is in this story

"LISTEN: Historic child abuse panel member: “I was silenced by Theresa May’s advisors to ensure she became PM”"

"It became very clear to myself and Graham when we went round to listening meetings, and were being given very serious allegations about very public figures, which we took back to the inquiry and nothing was being done about. Months in, they couldn’t actually tell us how the information was going to be used.

I was chairing the panel on one day, and I suggested that we wrote to Theresa May, who was the Home Secretary, to express our concerns. At the end of the day I was taken to one side and it was made clear to me – this is what I was told – that Theresa May was going to be Prime Minister, that this inquiry was going to be part of this, and that if I didn’t toe the line and do as I was told, if I tried to get information out I would be discredited by her advisors."

http://evolvepolitics.com/listen-hi...enced-theresa-mays-advisors-ensure-became-pm/

 

[blightymam]

It has only worked like that because of ignorance.
No one decides to use a word for other than its meaning on purpose out of knowledge.
If I say "Edinburgh is in Wales"; which is the wrong word?

Did you know the word 'silly' has changed in meaning over time? It started off to describe being happy or blessed. Then it changed to mean innocent or something that deserves compassion. And then it changed again to mean childish and then to the meaning we have now. I wonder if it will change again? And I wonder if it upset people as the word went through each change? If so, didn't stop it happening

So no, I don't have a problem with language changing, ignorance or not. It doesn't matter and that's what I meant by communication is the most important thing in language - to communicate, to be understood. If the next generation or two of people adopt words and change their meaning to the degree that it is used commonly, then that changed meaning has to be acknowledged. The word 'gay' is an all too obvious recent change. Who now thinks gay as happy? My mum grew up with the happy word and yet I grew up seeing the word being used differently. Perhaps this is becoming true of the word paedophile. It's irrelevant if the cause of words changing is down to laziness, ignorance or sensationalism journalists, if the word is changing then it's changing.

The next time a true paedophile case arises then, if the term has been used wrongly, for anyone under sixteen, you will not be able to tell.

And does it matter if I can tell? I'm not a judge or a lawyer. If I wish to find out more I could listen or read the news - ages tend to be given. But the essence is the same - someone has had sex with a child. It's illegal and in most cases it's punishable.

Of course it is. That's nonsense. You're being idealistic. Sixteen is an arbitrary numerical age.
Do you not want to distinguish between victims who will be sixteen in a couple of weeks and an eight year old.

Sixteen is an arbitrary age, then so is 13 for the cut-off for being a peado.
Problem is that kids develop at different speeds, physically as well as mentally so these numbers are safety nets.
I seriously do not see the problem as paedo's being called as such for having sex with children. At the end of the day they are children and I don't feel much difference in levels of disgust based on their age.

Do you think Paediatricians should treat adults?

Although it may be the case, please don't talk to me like I am an idiot, thanks
As you're trying to play on the word, why is that paedophile is to be used in connection with a child that has yet to go through puberty and yet the word paedo- is just relating to a child, no age or puberty status given. And a -phile describes someone with a fondness or attraction of something. So putting the two together and getting paedophile, strictly speaking, should just mean fondness of children and it's described simply in dictionaries as just that..

 

[EFLImpudence]

Did you know the word 'silly' has changed in meaning over time? It started off to describe being happy or blessed. Then it changed to mean innocent or something that deserves compassion. And then it changed again to mean childish and then to the meaning we have now. I wonder if it will change again? And I wonder if it upset people as the word went through each change? If so, didn't stop it happening

Do you think the changes were intentional or the result of wrong usage?

So no, I don't have a problem with language changing, ignorance or not. It doesn't matter and that's what I meant by communication is the most important thing in language - to communicate, to be understood. If the next generation or two of people adopt words and change their meaning to the degree that it is used commonly, then that changed meaning has to be acknowledged. The word 'gay' is an all too obvious recent change. Who now thinks gay as happy? My mum grew up with the happy word and yet I grew up seeing the word being used differently. Perhaps this is becoming true of the word paedophile. It's irrelevant if the cause of words changing is down to laziness, ignorance or sensationalism journalists, if the word is changing then it's changing.

I find that a deplorable and irresponsible attitude.
Wasn't gay chosen to mean homosexual for whatever reason, I don't know why; it did not just happen.

And does it matter if I can tell? I'm not a judge or a lawyer. If I wish to find out more I could listen or read the news - ages tend to be given. But the essence is the same - someone has had sex with a child. It's illegal and in most cases it's punishable.

If you feel like that there isn't much point replying.

Sixteen is an arbitrary age, then so is 13 for the cut-off for being a peado.
Problem is that kids develop at different speeds, physically as well as mentally so these numbers are safety nets.
I seriously do not see the problem as paedo's being called as such for having sex with children. At the end of the day they are children and I don't feel much difference in levels of disgust based on their age.

I didn't choose the ages; they vary in different countries - so ...
You are calling them children by the legal definition. Puberty is the beginning of adulthood and varies with individuals.

Although it may be the case, please don't talk to me like I am an idiot, thanks

I'm not.

As you're trying to play on the word, why is that paedophile is to be used in connection with a child that has yet to go through puberty

That is what it means.

and yet the word paedo- is just relating to a child, no age or puberty status given.

After puberty they are not cildren - other than stated by the law.
You might call them adolescents.

And a -phile describes someone with a fondness or attraction of something. So putting the two together and getting paedophile, strictly speaking, should just mean fondness of children and it's described simply in dictionaries as just that..

Do they define child in the way you are using it?
I note you have not responded to the 6'4" rugby player; is he still a child - really?

 

[Judy in the sky]

yet the word paedo- is just relating to a child, no age or puberty status given. And a -phile describes someone with a fondness or attraction of something. So putting the two together and getting paedophile, strictly speaking, should just mean fondness of children and it's described simply in dictionaries as just that..

Almost sounds like you're trying to defend em blighty... (just saying)

 

[noseall]

Almost sounds like you're trying to defend em blighty... (just saying)

You wouldn't be 'Judy in the sky' if you didn't. It is typical RWR behaviour and is expected.

 

[blightymam]

Almost sounds like you're trying to defend em blighty... (just saying)

Then you've misunderstood yet another comment. (Just sayin').

 

[blightymam]

I find that a deplorable and irresponsible attitude.

If you feel like that there isn't much point replying.

Fine by me!

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Not real Muslims because they drink and smoke?
How about not being real Muslims because they rape children?
You're part of the problem here, your prejudice is showing. Accept the truth, learn and solve.

Precisely. Though they may profess their religion to be Muslim, Catholic, or whatever, they are hardly good examples of any religion. So to assume that they are typical of their religion, or that the religion teaches such behaviour, is a prejudicial approach......
It is now recognised that it is not a religious problem, but a cultural problem. It may be more to do with the misogynist approach of South Asian males (and others) or the preponderance of the profession of these perpetrators. (Which also applies to other cases, e.g. priests, DJs, pop stars, doctors, etc.)

The truth is not always the easiest assumption, but to adopt the easiest assumption, especially one born out of prejudice, to work on that assumption (albeit an incorrect assumption) is to create new problems.

So religion plays absolutely no part in culture......?

Would it be acceptable to blame Catholicism for the abuse of children?
Or perhaps the profession provides the opportunities?

The commission heard that 7% of the nation's Catholic priests abused children between 1950 and 2010.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40920714

 

[Corgigrouch GTi]

.

 

[noseall]

.

3/4 of all paedophiles are white male.
Ard you saying that the authorites should ignore these people in favour of a small number of Muslim offenders?