Paedo drag queen murdered
Discussion
mick987 said:
JoshSm said:
Hardly excuses it but work out how old this person was when they committed their crime.
If my maths is right he was 13 when he committed his crimesIt s not statutory rape if they are both underage.. it s an actual rape. Don t know if the details of the victim are out there and don t care to look, but I d safely assume they were younger. Maybe much younger
mick987 said:
JoshSm said:
Hardly excuses it but work out how old this person was when they committed their crime.
If my maths is right he was 13 when he committed his crimesTbh, this article says more about what the Daily Mail wants their readers to think than about death case. Calling a teenager having sexual attraction to another teenager 'pedophile' makes almost every teenager a pedophile.
Edited by Bodo on Tuesday 3rd February 23:16
milesgiles said:
What an absolutely mixed up story.Decompiling that spaghetti is going to take more time than the story is worth. Mad.
Bodo said:
mick987 said:
JoshSm said:
Hardly excuses it but work out how old this person was when they committed their crime.
If my maths is right he was 13 when he committed his crimesTbh, this article says more about what the Daily Mail wants their readers to think than about death case. Calling a teenager having sexual attraction to another teenager 'pedophile' makes almost every teenager a pedophile.
Edited by Bodo on Tuesday 3rd February 23:16
milesgiles said:
said:
Check the dictionary
The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Similarly, the ICD-11 excludes sexual behavior among post-pubertal children who are close in age.
The court was probably judging based on laws made by people with knowledge of such scientific consensus; hence the report of conviction for rape, but not for paedophilia.
The Daily Mail controls what their readers will think.
His conviction is so old that it falls under the old sexual offence legislation.
This means males could not be victims of rape in law, so inaccurate from the DM - imagine that!
Depending on the circumstances it may not even be treated as a criminal matter these days e.g. two similar age children sexually active with one another. The old sexual offences are was blatantly homophobic.
Under 13 consent can't be given even if it is. And under the old legislation consent was irrelevant for some illegal same-sex acts.
Did this article pop up between you were searching for more immigrant stories to copy and paste in the hotel topic?
By definition if he is sexually active and the victim wasn t, through being too young.. yes, that s paedophilia.
Check the dictionaryA dictionary doesn't help comprehension in that case, though an encyclopedia would -
The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Similarly, the ICD-11 excludes sexual behavior among post-pubertal children who are close in age.
The court was probably judging based on laws made by people with knowledge of such scientific consensus; hence the report of conviction for rape, but not for paedophilia.
The Daily Mail controls what their readers will think.Same point I was going to raise. Also see WHO ICD-11.
This means males could not be victims of rape in law, so inaccurate from the DM - imagine that!
Depending on the circumstances it may not even be treated as a criminal matter these days e.g. two similar age children sexually active with one another. The old sexual offences are was blatantly homophobic.
milesgiles said:
Tbh, this article says more about what the Daily Mail wants their readers to think than about death case. Calling a teenager having sexual attraction to another teenager 'pedophile' makes almost every teenager a pedophile.
He wouldn t have been charged if it was consensual
Not true. He wouldn t have been charged if it was consensual
Under 13 consent can't be given even if it is. And under the old legislation consent was irrelevant for some illegal same-sex acts.
Did this article pop up between you were searching for more immigrant stories to copy and paste in the hotel topic?
Bodo said:
milesgiles said:
said:
Check the dictionary
The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Similarly, the ICD-11 excludes sexual behavior among post-pubertal children who are close in age.
The court was probably judging based on laws made by people with knowledge of such scientific consensus; hence the report of conviction for rape, but not for paedophilia.
The Daily Mail controls what their readers will think.
MrBogSmith said:
His conviction is so old that it falls under the old sexual offence legislation.
This means males could not be victims of rape in law, so inaccurate from the DM - imagine that!
Depending on the circumstances it may not even be treated as a criminal matter these days e.g. two similar age children sexually active with one another. The old sexual offences are was blatantly homophobic.
Under 13 consent can't be given even if it is. And under the old legislation consent was irrelevant for some illegal same-sex acts.
Did this article pop up between you were searching for more immigrant stories to copy and paste in the hotel topic?
By definition if he is sexually active and the victim wasn t, through being too young.. yes, that s paedophilia.
Check the dictionaryA dictionary doesn't help comprehension in that case, though an encyclopedia would -
The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Similarly, the ICD-11 excludes sexual behavior among post-pubertal children who are close in age.
The court was probably judging based on laws made by people with knowledge of such scientific consensus; hence the report of conviction for rape, but not for paedophilia.
The Daily Mail controls what their readers will think.Same point I was going to raise. Also see WHO ICD-11.
I was referencing the dictionary definition. You can’t say the Mail was wrong because I’m sure they were as well. If the victim was pre pubescent, that IS the definitionThis means males could not be victims of rape in law, so inaccurate from the DM - imagine that!
Depending on the circumstances it may not even be treated as a criminal matter these days e.g. two similar age children sexually active with one another. The old sexual offences are was blatantly homophobic.
milesgiles said:
Tbh, this article says more about what the Daily Mail wants their readers to think than about death case. Calling a teenager having sexual attraction to another teenager 'pedophile' makes almost every teenager a pedophile.
He wouldn t have been charged if it was consensual
Not true. He wouldn t have been charged if it was consensual
Under 13 consent can't be given even if it is. And under the old legislation consent was irrelevant for some illegal same-sex acts.
Did this article pop up between you were searching for more immigrant stories to copy and paste in the hotel topic?
Bodo said:
milesgiles said:
said:
Check the dictionary
The DSM-5 requires that a person must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child or children they are aroused by, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilic disorder. Similarly, the ICD-11 excludes sexual behavior among post-pubertal children who are close in age.
The court was probably judging based on laws made by people with knowledge of such scientific consensus; hence the report of conviction for rape, but not for paedophilia.
The Daily Mail controls what their readers will think.
milesgiles said:
I was referencing the dictionary definition. You can t say the Mail was wrong because I m sure they were as well. If the victim was pre pubescent, that IS the definition
A dictionary definition describes a word's core meaning. It's not sufficient to determine clinical classification.A dictionary definition of rape won't cover the full accurate legal meaning. By using your logic we can dismiss the parts in law the dictionary definition omits.
It also depends on the dictionary in this case:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophile
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophi...
Which both say adult.
MrBogSmith said:
milesgiles said:
I was referencing the dictionary definition. You can t say the Mail was wrong because I m sure they were as well. If the victim was pre pubescent, that IS the definition
A dictionary definition describes a word's core meaning. It's not sufficient to determine clinical classification.A dictionary definition of rape won't cover the full accurate legal meaning. By using your logic we can dismiss the parts in law the dictionary definition omits.
It also depends on the dictionary in this case:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophile
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophi...
Which both say adult.
Daily Mail might not always get it right they did here
Move on
MrBogSmith said:
milesgiles said:
First source I looked at includes adolescents as perpetrators
Which is why you look at the clinical definitions for the reason explained above.milesgiles said:
Daily Mail might not always get it right they did here
It appears not. Anyway, carry on with your expertise on diddling
milesgiles said:
Is this how you approach every topic? Only choose the source that agrees with you.
Yes, I approach topics by trying to draw logical, evidence-based conclusions and outlining the rationale. 1) Dictionaries define the core word and there's variance between different dictionaries.
2) When defining things like clinical terms / legal definitions, we should look to those for precise definitions. I provided the rape definition vs legal definition as an example.
You chose the dictionary definitions which omitted the word 'adult' - if that's not only choosing the source which agrees with you what else is it?
milesgiles said:
Anyway, carry on with your expertise on diddling
The implication is you think you're the expert given you seemingly think you know better than the fields of psychology / psychiatry. MrBogSmith said:
milesgiles said:
Is this how you approach every topic? Only choose the source that agrees with you.
Yes, I approach topics by trying to draw logical, evidence-based conclusions and outlining the rationale. 1) Dictionaries define the core word and there's variance between different dictionaries.
2) When defining things like clinical terms / legal definitions, we should look to those for precise definitions. I provided the rape definition vs legal definition as an example.
You chose the dictionary definitions which omitted the word 'adult' - if that's not only choosing the source which agrees with you what else is it?
milesgiles said:
Anyway, carry on with your expertise on diddling
The implication is you think you're the expert given you seemingly think you know better than the fields of psychology / psychiatry. But then you knew that
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff