[celticmusic]

so elementary teachers are all pedophiles since they're around underage girls all the time?

A pedophile is a very specific thing. It's someone who is sexually aroused by underage children. More specifically, it's someone who acts on those desires.

that's it. That's the end. There are no other possible ways to get into that club.

If someone goes to lunch with a pedophile, knowing they're a pedophile, to try and get $60,000, they're morally corrupt. They're a shitty person. But until they start abusing these underage girls, they're not pedophiles themselves.

This is not a hard concept. There are 5 categories of people who went to that island.

1. unaware of his predilections

2. aware, and morally corrupt

3. pedophiles who were unaware of his predilections

4. pedophiles who were AWARE of his predilections

5. pedophiles who went to have sex with underage children.

The argument here is that the only reason you would ever go to that island is if you were 5. This is unreasonable, and it makes you kind of dumb.

[dragonwriter]

> A pedophile is a very specific thing. It's someone who is sexually aroused by underage children.

Specifically, it's someone aroused by prepubescent children.

> More specifically, it's someone who acts on those desires.

No, someone who acts on those desires (for underage children, whether a pedophile in the strict sense or not) is a child sex abuser. A pedophile is a pedophile whether or not they act on their desires, and it's possible to act on sex desires that make you a child sex abuser without being a pedophile at all.

> If someone goes to lunch with a pedophile, knowing they're a pedophile, to try and get $60,000, they're morally corrupt.

I disagree, whether using either the actual definition or yours of “pedophile”.

Now, if you know that he's a child sex trafficker (and thus that in some way the funds would originated from the sexual abuse of children), then, sure, there's a good argument.

[celticmusic]

"well akcshually...".

Lets not, sex with a 13 year old post-pubescent child will get the same laws slammed at you. The technical definition is irrelevant for this conversation.

[dragonwriter]

> Lets not, sex with a 13 year old post-pubescent child will get the same laws slammed at you.

In many jurisdictions and details of the other corcumstancesthat's not true, it will get a subset of the same laws slammed at you, because their are additional offenses defined for crimes against younger children. But, in any case, I'm not the one who started the terminological games (“a pedophile is a very specific thing...”), just the one who insisted that if you are going to insist on the “very specific” meaning of terminology, you do it right. If you want to say “child sex abuser”, do that; don't use “pedophile” and insist that it has a very specific meaning which is both broader (by targeted age) and narrower (including only active offenders) than “pedophile” actually is, and exactly matching what “child sex abuser” is.

[malvosenior]

No one made that argument. I said:

> Not everyone who went there is guilty, but given everything we now know it's not unfair to question their presence in Epstein's orbit.

That's it. I'd also argue that 1. doesn't exist because Epstein and his properties highly advertised his lifestyle.

> This is unreasonable, and it makes you kind of dumb.

You're responding to an argument no one has made.

[celticmusic]

> You're responding to an argument no one has made.

You say while simultaneously arguing 1 doesn't exist, which is the entire point of my argument.

I certainly had no idea who the fuck epstein was before all this went down.

[malvosenior]

We’re talking about people invited to his island and people he invested in. Not random members of the public.

It’s all in the MIT report. They knew everything about him yet continued to work and socialize with him.