Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
Also there isn't much need to care about the distiction between offending pedos & non-offending pedos. Their rights are protected, they are not arrested for mere thought crimes and I'm keeping my kids the hell away from both.
Pre-crime is coming, be it for paedophiles OR everyone else…
I’m not saying that we should cut the paedos ANY slack, but if you think that “thought crime” isn’t the future, unless we stop it before it happens, well… You got another thing coming, unfortunately…
They'll use pre-crime to say pedos are good because they thought about doing the crime but didn't, but when we thought crime it will be bad because reasons.
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
Troons. See, it's very problematic to call a troon a pedophile, even if we would have no problem doing so if he wasn't dressed up in drag. There's something magical about a wig and dress, at least if you're a leftist retard.
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
Lots of people. Circumsizing priests, imams, rabbis, and doctors are sexually harming infants without any sexual desire. Leftists who give children trans meds without informed age-of-maturity consent are chemically sexually abusing children, possibly with no pheliac elements, but instead some deranged Manchausen Sydrome By Proxy.
But USA Today I think would be supporting those people, not speaking against them. Assumption given they're a mass media outlet that makes that kind of post, admittedly, I don't know for sure.
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
I suppose if you're sexually abusing kids purely for the psychological thrill instead of a sexual one you're not doing it based on a sexual desire for the child but out of a general desire to hurt people and you're just using sex unerotically as your method to cause harm...
But I think we can we can ignore the semantics and just call them fucking pedos.
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
Criminals who only make profit, and criminals and war criminals who use it as just a method of torture (let's say, a broomstick handle up a Muslim boy's ass as humiliation, or forcing father watch his daughter being raped by another prisoner at gunpoint).
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
I suspect it's a sophist's setup where the rebute with a term like sadist because people are defined by their thoughts, not actions, or some other stupid shit like that.
In a technical sense, they could be responding to a paraphillia that isn't related to their youth, its only incidental. Its not really relevant because sexual abuse of a child is criminal regardless of it they are a pedo, but its certainly possible.
Also there isn't much need to care about the distiction between offending pedos & non-offending pedos.
Their goal though is clear.
It's another attempt to police language to worm in their real agenda. Same happened with "racism" and wanting to shift to only mean "systemic racism".
It's a very deliberate act to normalize the thought of pedophilia.
Also keep in mind who this is coming from. You don't know my sexuality, I don't know your sexuality, because we both don't define ourselves via our sexuality. Thus we don't need to run around proclaiming who/what we are attracted to.
But they are different. They run around and have to tell everyone what they want to fuck and what they think they are. Or whatever one of the thousand genders they are.
Pedophilia fits in quite well there. "I'm pedo, but I don't act on it! LOOK AT ME! WORSHIP ME!" is their goal.
Who is sexually abusing kids that aren't pedophiles?
Also there isn't much need to care about the distiction between offending pedos & non-offending pedos. Their rights are protected, they are not arrested for mere thought crimes and I'm keeping my kids the hell away from both.
*Yet.
Pre-crime is coming, be it for paedophiles OR everyone else…
I’m not saying that we should cut the paedos ANY slack, but if you think that “thought crime” isn’t the future, unless we stop it before it happens, well… You got another thing coming, unfortunately…
They'll use pre-crime to say pedos are good because they thought about doing the crime but didn't, but when we thought crime it will be bad because reasons.
Troons. See, it's very problematic to call a troon a pedophile, even if we would have no problem doing so if he wasn't dressed up in drag. There's something magical about a wig and dress, at least if you're a leftist retard.
It's primarily fags. You cannot support fags without also supporting pedophilia, as it is how they recruit.
Lots of people. Circumsizing priests, imams, rabbis, and doctors are sexually harming infants without any sexual desire. Leftists who give children trans meds without informed age-of-maturity consent are chemically sexually abusing children, possibly with no pheliac elements, but instead some deranged Manchausen Sydrome By Proxy.
But USA Today I think would be supporting those people, not speaking against them. Assumption given they're a mass media outlet that makes that kind of post, admittedly, I don't know for sure.
I suppose if you're sexually abusing kids purely for the psychological thrill instead of a sexual one you're not doing it based on a sexual desire for the child but out of a general desire to hurt people and you're just using sex unerotically as your method to cause harm...
But I think we can we can ignore the semantics and just call them fucking pedos.
Criminals who only make profit, and criminals and war criminals who use it as just a method of torture (let's say, a broomstick handle up a Muslim boy's ass as humiliation, or forcing father watch his daughter being raped by another prisoner at gunpoint).
I suspect it's a sophist's setup where the rebute with a term like sadist because people are defined by their thoughts, not actions, or some other stupid shit like that.
In a technical sense, they could be responding to a paraphillia that isn't related to their youth, its only incidental. Its not really relevant because sexual abuse of a child is criminal regardless of it they are a pedo, but its certainly possible.
Their goal though is clear.
It's another attempt to police language to worm in their real agenda. Same happened with "racism" and wanting to shift to only mean "systemic racism".
It's a very deliberate act to normalize the thought of pedophilia.
Also keep in mind who this is coming from. You don't know my sexuality, I don't know your sexuality, because we both don't define ourselves via our sexuality. Thus we don't need to run around proclaiming who/what we are attracted to.
But they are different. They run around and have to tell everyone what they want to fuck and what they think they are. Or whatever one of the thousand genders they are.
Pedophilia fits in quite well there. "I'm pedo, but I don't act on it! LOOK AT ME! WORSHIP ME!" is their goal.