[DarkAngelEdge]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

The only thing you struck is a false note. "Child rapist" - that is clueless. You don't know what you are talking about here. You are just like Dahlia on this topic, treating teens as "children" in the context of cultures which obviously do not do so. Vedderman tried to straighten her out, but she ignored him. If you want to educate yourself go see Vedderman's red letter post to Dahlia on page 2 of the thread: "Girl shot to death + Innocent Bystander hit by stray bullet." You could learn something useful.

And if you want to learn something useful you can pull your head out of your ass and realize you are not going to change my opinion on the matter, semantics be damned.

[SimoneFlen']

Originally Posted by DarkAngelEdge ↗

And if you want to learn something useful you can pull your head out of your ass and realize you are not going to change my opinion on the matter, semantics be damned.

You can't argue with stupid. Myself + others have had many arguments with that freak (most end up deleted). He can't seem to understand that a child is anyone under 18 years old. This girl was 15 years old, that's a child, so yes, child rapist.

Don't waste your time on sickos like him.

[philovan]

Originally Posted by DarkAngelEdge ↗

And if you want to learn something useful you can pull your head out of your ass and realize you are not going to change my opinion on the matter, semantics be damned.

No need to learn something that I already knew. My sole point was to correct your inaccurate terminology. Mission accomplished.

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by DarkAngelEdge ↗

And if you want to learn something useful you can pull your head out of your ass and realize you are not going to change my opinion on the matter, semantics be damned.

The legal and accepted definition of 'child' is frequently applied to anyone under the age of majority. In this particular case, in the country in question, this 15 year old is under the age of majority and thus a child in any legal or even semantic sense for these purposes. On that point, both you and Dahlia are correct.

However, there is not a single pedophile in the entire world who would have any interest whatsoever in a 15 year old girl. That is not a matter of opinion, yours or anyone else's. You're just flat-out ignorant if you choose to believe otherwise.

Pedophilia is a deviant paraphilia wherein an adult is sexually attracted to A PRE-PUBESCENT CHILD.
Any 15 year old that is pre-pubescent has a serious hormonal disease and needs to see an endocrinologist immediately. And judging by the photos, it is clearly not the case here.

Understanding the actual definition of a word before you use it in public will get you far in life. Or at least make you look less foolish. You misused the word pedophilia and were called out for it. It isn't semantics. It's blatant ignorance and it irritates me to see it espoused in this forum.

I have no problem with people using loaded words for emphasis when they're trying to evoke an inflammatory response, but you have to actually make sure that the word you're using means what you think it does.

[DarkAngelEdge]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

The legal and accepted definition of 'child' is frequently applied to anyone under the age of majority. In this particular case, in the country in question, this 15 year old is under the age of majority and thus a child in any legal or even semantic sense for these purposes. On that point, both you and Dahlia are correct.

However, there is not a single pedophile in the entire world who would have any interest whatsoever in a 15 year old girl. That is not a matter of opinion, yours or anyone else's. You're just flat-out ignorant if you choose to believe otherwise.

Pedophilia is a deviant paraphilia wherein an adult is sexually attracted to A PRE-PUBESCENT CHILD.
Any 15 year old that is pre-pubescent has a serious hormonal disease and needs to see an endocrinologist immediately. And judging by the photos, it is clearly not the case here.

Understanding the actual definition of a word before you use it in public will get you far in life. Or at least make you look less foolish. You misused the word pedophilia and were called out for it. It isn't semantics. It's blatant ignorance and it irritates me to see it espoused in this forum.

I have no problem with people using loaded words for emphasis when they're trying to evoke an inflammatory response, but you have to actually make sure that the word you're using means what you think it does.

Fine. He was a fucking ephebophilia diseased individual. Lets move on.

[philovan]

Yes, let's move on. Opinions on this topic are hardened (as we've seen from the extensive debate on the WC), and it would be pointless to debate them again on this thread. Just one more technical, terminological note: ephebophilia is a descriptive classification and not a pathological one. That is, ephebophiles are not classified as "diseased" in any sense by professional psychologists. You can check the DSM-5 if you doubt this. This is, of course, a separate matter from the legal situations, which vary widely from country to country.