Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness adhere to legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it (EDIT: unless they want help, which is fine)? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness adhere to legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it (EDIT: unless they want help, which is fine)? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it (EDIT: unless they want help, which is fine)? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it (EDIT: unless they want help, which is fine)? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it should be socially acceptable too.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we accept it? If not, then why make such statements? If pedophiles don't advertise themselves, nobody has a problem with them. What is the purpose of advertising themselves than to want acceptability for it? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

u/Adagio Nuanced enough?

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable either.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the first, and sparing the second. They're implying that since the second is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable either.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it ought not to be socially punishable either.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slopes is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slope is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former. Hence the part about slippery slope is relevant.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements is what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness. Hence, the statement about slippery slope. You're focused on the latter, while not addressing the former.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction, that didn't exist in the minds of people, between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. Thus. drawing the people's hatred to the second, and sparing the first. They're implying that since the first is not legally punishable, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well.

Firstly: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

Secondly: Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues. We should aim to treat it.

The intent behind making such statements what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. By making such distinctions, implying the first should not be socially punishable (as it is not legally punishable) and the second should (as it is legally punishable). Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of unresolved mental issues.

Here's the thing: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

The intent behind making such statements what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness.

Now what's the purpose of distinguishing between the two (sex crime against children vs attraction to children) by the media, other than to normalize attraction to children? Normalize it by creating a distinction between the actual molestation (sex crime) and the attraction that leads to it (pedophilia), first being legally punishable and the second not. By making such distinctions, they are implying since it is legally not punishable to be merely attracted to children, it shouldn't be socially punishable as well. Should we normalize it? If not, then why make such statements? I think it's not a normal condition by any means, and indicates some kind of mental issue.

Here's the thing: Once something is socially acceptable, then the laws can be amended accordingly. Why should social and moral correctness follow legal correctness, and not vice versa?

The intent behind making such statements what people here are concerned with, and not its correctness.