Fair enough. I'd urge you to be just as sensitive with your own language then (e.g., allude to Nazis as someone you have compassion for but sex offenders as "**** swine"). Remember, many of these folks may have been victims of physical and sexual abuse themselves during childhood (which I recognize you said you don't care about).
Pragma, I was going to say that I already did elaborate that I can "humanize anybody" which you have overlooked...and leave it at that. Upon further reflection, however, I do think that me saying what I said, even if out of anger, does come across as rather extreme and cruel. I then tried to imagine reading somebody saying something similar after some publicized trial, somebody saying I have no f***g sympathy for women, communists, gays, terrorists, warmongers, dictators, Jews, Arabs, feminists, blacks, mass murderers, Americans, Nazis, rapists, soldiers, animal abusers, torturers, psychopaths, etc. It didn't sound good. It sounded as if some people are not people merely because they have done things or believe things that some or all of us find terribly repulsive, horrifying, or extremely harmful.
So I like to apologize for potentially upsetting you or other people. This is my bias, yes, which is why I can't yet work with pedophiles. And I do acknowledge that some were indeed abused as children themselves though I don't know much about those studies or if past abuse was seen as causative. When I was speaking of pedophilia, or animal abuse for that matter, I made some lazy generalizations, and it would have been more helpful to focus on a particular subgroup of abusers instead.
Regardless, I hope we can still debate this matter, in particular the issue what kind of abuse is "worse." Because personally I don't buy into this view that suffering is suffering and hence abuse is abuse and that they're all equal. I do think there must be a way to compare them, and I think this is essential when we need to decide how to allocate money/resources/time to this cause vs another.
).
