Personally, I haven't heard of LGBTQ groups comparing themselves to paedophiles (links would be good if you have them).

I think in rhetoric "semantics" means a distinction that is minor or irrelevant, possibly to deliberately distract from the point or matter at hand.

When you define it as a sexual orientation, and compare paedophilia to homosexuality as many people have done in this thread (from the perspective that homosexuality used to be seen as a mental disorder and isn't any more, and that the same may be true of paedophiles) then it is at the expense of the LGBTQ community.

I'd also like to expand a bit that (as well as legitimizing it as an orientation) the comparison that people often make between paedophiles and homosexuals (and how they've been labelled as having a disorder in the past) is...deeply offensive.

I don't think you have to sympathise, or that they are entitled to your sympathy after what you've been through. So I don't think you have to force yourself to try and square that (I'm not sure it can be squared).

Good point.

Interesting article.

right.

Sure, but it's not casual (the relationship with the animal is not causing disassociation with humans) - the preference is presumably due to other pre-existing factors or other 'lack'.

Um. Granted, I hadn't considered the shit stained connotation. Does look a bit like they've tracked through some deep cowpats.

Sure, why not. It looks a bit silly, but the fake mud will help hide the real mud. (maybe I can clean it less!)

I think this probably sums up my position better than I can:

agreed.

Ok, and that's all fine and completely your right to feel however you want to feel - you don't need to justify it, that wasn't what I was getting at.

I don't know, I should have disclaimed (as I did later) that in the parks here they just share the same space. Dogs are mostly on leads (especially in areas where there's wildlife) but there's usually areas to let them off as well. Some (but not all) would have specific areas for kids too, where there'd be swings etc…

Heh. Well, my folks are a little bit like this really - quite precious about their cat. In fairness she is very temperamental/skittish and has to have pills every day, so she probably wouldn't do well in cattery or someone coming in to feed her. (So the excuse I get for them not visiting is "we can't leave the cat")

Oh, that's not ok :S I can understand paying for a pet if they're taking up a seat that could've gone to a paying customer, but if they're not in a seat a separate ticket is ridiculous.

For your amusement.

Oh, and also I'm not sure it's necessarily naturally thin women getting upset when a body is celebrated that isn't theirs (which, I can understand, would be a bit hypocritical - you've had most of the body celebration! well. aside from gossip mags picking them apart as anorexic).

Sure, but I think the problem comes in when her own perspective meets when she addresses the audience (the shift change). I think you're right in that the overall song is from her own perspective and is positive and self-affirming, the potential for misunderstanding (or negative connotation) comes from the tense…