My position is that whether or not QTop is a pedophile is irrelevant to whether his statement was bad. It should be easy to acknowledge the immorality of the statement and its implications without quibbling over definitions of pedophilia. Many academics use the 'pre-pubescent' definition and they don't go around agitating for adults to sleep with 15 year olds. And the negative connotations come from the abhorrent nature of the act of child exploitation, not from the p word itself. Jamaal reads out to Everyday Atheist the DMS V definition of pedophilic disorder (not pedophilia), a part of which EA then misinterprets to fit his own understanding of the term pedophilia. Jamaal concedes this point because he also doesn't understand the diagnostic criteria he's reading. EA is appealing to a colloquial usage of the term that many - perhaps most - people use and which encompasses both abusers of and anyone attracted to a minor under 18 or 16, according to which QTop is of course a pedophile. That's completely fine, but it does not really reflect the academic usage of the term nor that of the DSM's pedophilic disorder. QTop, assuming he's attracted to 15 year olds minimum, would most probably not have pedophilic disorder according to a DSM V definition (nor would he be a pedophile). This does not speak to the morality of an adult having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old, which is bad; the DSM is not a code of ethics. So the argument simply boils down to different understandings of the term 'pedophile'/'pedophilia', and nobody can fathom a person having a different, common understanding of its meaning due to the inflammatory nature of the topic. But from the perspective of EA and anyone who holds to his definition, it appears that anyone quibbling over the definition comes across as defending the statement. To be fair, that is sometimes the case (and it may be here, I only listened to a few minutes and don't know Jamaal) given that the academic definition is rarely used in common parlance and rather is often sought as a means of defending behaviour. Regardless of whether a person is well-intentioned or not (in the same way that arguing against a case being first degree murder does not imply you think they are innocent), people consider statements like "he's a pedophile" to imply "he's a baddy" and consequently the counter "he's not a pedophile" to amount to the antithesis: a total defence of his behaviour.
Ultimately it's a red herring to be like, "This clinical definition doesn't fit the exact letter of your claim" when the spirit of the claim is, as you said, he's a baddy. And the only reason to employ such tactics is to defend such awful behavior.
![Wolfram Physics Project: Working Session Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2020 [Empirical Physical Metamathematics]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VlqerIL2kl8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lord of Spirits - The Book of Jubilees [Ep. 92]](/img/n.gif)
My position is that whether or not QTop is a pedophile is irrelevant to whether his statement was bad. It should be easy to acknowledge the immorality of the statement and its implications without quibbling over definitions of pedophilia. Many academics use the 'pre-pubescent' definition and they don't go around agitating for adults to sleep with 15 year olds. And the negative connotations come from the abhorrent nature of the act of child exploitation, not from the p word itself.
Jamaal reads out to Everyday Atheist the DMS V definition of pedophilic disorder (not pedophilia), a part of which EA then misinterprets to fit his own understanding of the term pedophilia. Jamaal concedes this point because he also doesn't understand the diagnostic criteria he's reading. EA is appealing to a colloquial usage of the term that many - perhaps most - people use and which encompasses both abusers of and anyone attracted to a minor under 18 or 16, according to which QTop is of course a pedophile. That's completely fine, but it does not really reflect the academic usage of the term nor that of the DSM's pedophilic disorder. QTop, assuming he's attracted to 15 year olds minimum, would most probably not have pedophilic disorder according to a DSM V definition (nor would he be a pedophile). This does not speak to the morality of an adult having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old, which is bad; the DSM is not a code of ethics. So the argument simply boils down to different understandings of the term 'pedophile'/'pedophilia', and nobody can fathom a person having a different, common understanding of its meaning due to the inflammatory nature of the topic.
But from the perspective of EA and anyone who holds to his definition, it appears that anyone quibbling over the definition comes across as defending the statement. To be fair, that is sometimes the case (and it may be here, I only listened to a few minutes and don't know Jamaal) given that the academic definition is rarely used in common parlance and rather is often sought as a means of defending behaviour. Regardless of whether a person is well-intentioned or not (in the same way that arguing against a case being first degree murder does not imply you think they are innocent), people consider statements like "he's a pedophile" to imply "he's a baddy" and consequently the counter "he's not a pedophile" to amount to the antithesis: a total defence of his behaviour.
Ultimately it's a red herring to be like, "This clinical definition doesn't fit the exact letter of your claim" when the spirit of the claim is, as you said, he's a baddy. And the only reason to employ such tactics is to defend such awful behavior.