Objecting to your own conflation

"And I totally took issue with his assertion that Lewis Carroll and Michael Jackson were paedophiles (child abusers)."

I can find no evidence that ToC believes that Lewis Carroll was a child abuser.

If you can, please be kind enough to cite.

What I do see is your conflation of Pedophile with Abuser/Molester. ( Terms regarded as legitimately distinct by authorities as varying as Kenneth Lanning and EE. ) That you know O'Carroll makes the distinction too, and that you both refuse to recognize the distinction AND hold the conflated idea against him makes your claim disingenuous.

At this point you've made it clear that you are opposed to Pedophilia and to child exploitation and to child abuse. But you have failed to offer any working definitions or even any substitute words to allow others to continue to make valid distinctions.

I prefer to go where the waters are less muddied in order to see clearly what I am talking about. I would prefer to disagree over the different ideas rather than remove the vocabulary that allows us to distinguish them.

Until then, I "get it." You conflate what others see as distinct, and then object to your projected conflation even in those who clearly don't subscribe to it. But in creating imaginary gangrenous monsters to attack you do nothing for Pedophiles or for girls.

Dante