Comment

Calling a paedophile (someone sexually attracted to children) a paedophile, is calling the disorder by its name. It's not ad hominem in any manner.

But the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between a paedophile (a person afflicted by a disorder they usually do NOT want, someone who deserves appropriate psychiatric help), and a child rapist (someone who has raped a child, and deserves no empathy, but appropriate steps to ensure they never harm a child) is quite telling.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos.

And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so

That is literally an ad hominem you dunce. Your basis for calling them a “pedophile” is nothing but them making some agrument about the topic

source
- fonix232@fedia.io ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Wow. Your cognitive skills definitely need honing buddy.
  
  First of all, no, that's not what an ad hominem is. Me calling you an idiot would be one. Do try to keep your fallacies in line.
  
  Second... why do you think that calling someone who supports the continuation of CSAM (even if it's "just" drawn) a paedophile? Why would anyone who doesn't consume such material, support its continued creation?
  
  This is kind of like the "not a Nazi" argument. I'm sorry but if you're doing Nazi shit, and supporting other Nazis in doing Nazi shit, you're a Nazi. Same with paedos. If you want to enable them, then you're just as bad, and thus deserve to be labelled as such. Period.
  
  And thus, calling them out is still not an as hominem.
  
  source