Hacker News Reader

Comment by uhtred | Hacker News Reader

Showing the world that you pay constant attention to the safety and well being of women and children is a good way to assert how much of a good, real, honest, straight man you are to society. Along with loudly proclaiming "they should all be shot" whenever the word paedophile is mentioned.

View on HN

Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance?

The gallantry and defense of children is because men that are in charge are predominantly straight and have children. Not everything is a charade.

> Did you just go from creating a straw man to a "well, actually paedophiles are kind of redeemable" stance?

No, but you went to a straw man very quickly. In addition, it's clear you don't understand statistics.

First, DNA is often far from definitive. So, if the error rate is 1 in 30,000, you're very likely to get quite a few hits of innocent people when the perpetrator isn't in the database.

Second, people who use "women and children" or "pedophiles" as justifications can generally be considered to be engaging in dishonest behavior. Something that has a logical justification doesn't have to hide behind emotional appeals.

Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender).

Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.

Please explain to me how I don't "understand statistics." In no way was I addressing or defending the wholesale scanning or mining of data; I was simply addressing uhtred's statement.

Politics is largely the use of emotional appeal in a democracy -- you don't get elected on a stance of "well, if we understand the data."

>Third, "pedophile" or "sex offender" are terms you can get saddled with very easily in the US for a whole range of behaviors including things like giving a child a lost child a hug to comfort them (oops: now you're a pedophile) or taking a whizz in public (congrats: you're a sex offender).

Please, link me to a case in which a person giving a lost child a hug led to charges. I would earnestly like to read it because I think you're being clumsily dishonest.

>Finally, even the worst and most guilty among us deserve to have their rights protected because those are OUR rights when WE get accused of something heinous of which we are not guilty.

And now you're just using a truism as frosting to your argument. You're framing this in a "either you care about paedophiles or you don't care about OUR rights."

>Please, link me to a case in which a person giving a lost child a hug led to charges. I would earnestly like to read it because I think you're being clumsily dishonest.

Pedophile isn't a legal term. Men get "straddled with the term pedophile" for simply being in a playground.

No one gets charged with being a pedophile because being a pedophile is not illegal.

>Pedophile isn't a legal term. Men get "straddled with the term pedophile" for simply being in a playground.

I sat on a swing earlier this summer and I've never been accused of such things.

You created this "man hugs lost child, gets labelled a paedophile" scenario that's just ridiculous.

I never mentioned hugs.

But if you want examples of men being accused of being pedophiles for being on playgrounds, or similar things check out these:

The first 7 are playgrounds/parks, and the rest are other similar situations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xhwt8/i_just_saw...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ayvaf/kicked_o...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/24npnm/men_in_what_...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaV4saiEHkQ

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xhwt8/i_just_saw...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/24npnm/men_in_what_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xhwt8/i_just_saw...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/24npnm/men_in_what_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xhwt8/i_just_saw...

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/05/11/creep-shamed-on-...

Youtube and reddit have a shaky relationship to reality.

"people on the internet aren't real"?

My own comments on the topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4133027

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6003797

A pedophile is not by definition a child molester/abuser. I wish they would get help and be redeemed from their abnormal urges.

to clarify this comment:

"pedophile" refers to someone with primary sexual attraction to children, whether or not they act on that attraction.

Terms like "predator", "molester", and "abuser" refer to someone who takes sexual actions against children.

There is overlap between the groups, but they're not identical. There are celibate pedophiles, and pedophiles who have ordinary adult relationships and keep themselves away from children. And there are predators who aren't specifically attracted to children, but instead are attracted to the power imbalance.

I get the feeling that some people want others to focus on the thought instead of the action, because their own actions are deplorable and they're just trying to convince everyone that their thoughts are pure.

I think people draw the distinction because there's a huge difference between finding someone sexually attractive, and sexually assaulting them. (This applies to attraction to adults, not just children. "I find that person attractive" is very different from "I'm going to have sexual contact with that person without their consent".)

Yes, that's been the case since the predominant alma mater of Hacker News became either Wikipedia State or Reddit University. It's no longer a place for discourse, but instead for people trying to get internet points based on falling back to general, unoffensive platitudes.

Paedophiles only enter popular conversation in response to one doing something unredeemable (acting on their urges). Of course I'd people to get treatment before someone is hurt.

…as oposed to the women who, if there were more of them in significant political positions, would not be predominantly straight and have kids and therefore would not be so defensive of children?

No, not opposed to those women, but the wording would be "family" instead of "women and children."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com