That you keep disagreeing, made me doubt, maybe I am using the word wrong. So I looked it up.
You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear.
And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball".
Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans.
I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up.
"Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"
The "cutoff" is normally considered to be puberty. At puberty the human form starts to change, which is what we consider significant. That doesn't magically happen on your 13th birthday. Not having reached puberty by the age of 13 would be statistically unusual, though. I guess that is what you mean?
But, sure, pedophilia might even apply to a 14 year old in some extreme cases. Regardless, it is quite apparent that Trump's ilk like those who at least show some "development". If they are closeted pedophiles, they have certainly done well to keep that from the limelight.
> Guess I was wrong.
Arbitrarily defining a word doesn't make you wrong. All words are ultimately randomly made up on the spot. That is how natural language works. However, the behaviour that followed was, let's say... interesting. I specifically asked in the very first sentence if you meant ephebophilia to clarify your intent. Rationally, that is where one would say: "Oh yes, that is what I am talking about", "I define pedophilia as...", or at very least "I am not familiar with ephebophilia. What is that?" so that we could converge on a shared understanding. Instead, we got a wild train ride to nowhere, only now finally getting an answer to the original question.
It seemed like you were questioning the definition of pedophilia, so I literally gave you a definition with a link. Republican arguments do typically include wanting to lower the age to match up with puberty. But that seems like a pretty unseemly argument. If Trump was having sex with 14 year olds, but they were 'developed', so it is not technically pedophilia, so can't call him a pedophile. Is a pretty weak argument.
I mean, isn't it a pretty common joke that pedophiles like to argue this point:
"hmm, indubitably, my good sir, it is actually ephebophilia, completely different, totally ok. A common mistake I often have to explain to my 14 year old's girlfriends parents that keep calling the police on me. Why just look at her, very developed, very mature, not a child at all".
But have to agree. Not sure what you are trying to say at this point, or what is the argument?
What argument are you talking about? As I said before, I am trying to understand you. For some reason you continually speak in weird logically fallacies and made up stories that don't make any sense, even though you seem to have genuine intent and are trying to add positive contributions. In the interest of good faith, it is worth trying to figure out what you actually mean.
Yes, you eventually delivered the necessary clarification that allows us to better understand what you were trying to say, but what the hell was that in between?
If you really want to disect where things got off track. I think it was here.
My original comment >>>
"I was just referring to the predominant number of cases where Church officials, and Republicans are caught in under-age scandals. It seems like it is coming out of the shadows now, and Republicans are just openly going with it, they like em young and illegal. Epstein is just the case where the 'right' bothered keeping up tabs on it, so now they are clutching their pearls."
I think is in line with my most recent comment. I think the direction is clear.
When you replied with this >>>
"But even that is characterized by the "choir boy", not the "baby being baptized". Where is this pedophilia idea coming from?"
I was lost on what was being asked. I didn't understand the choir boy reference, or why pedophilia was a question, since it seemed my point was pretty pointed.
You are technically correct. If Trump was sleeping with 14 year old, and the cutoff for Pedophilia is 13. Then, guess he is in the clear. And Gaetz, paid for sex with 17 year old. So guess again, you could argue 17 is "old enough to play ball".
Guess I was wrong. 14-18 is ok for Republicans.
I'd say the Church steers younger, but I'm sure you can look that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
"Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13"