You can argue semantics all you like but same thing to me. No sympathy over here - I'm not saying you should have sympathy but you should be mindful of your terminology.
Imagine a 15yr old boy who is discovering he is sadly attracted to children. He wants help but is fearful. He starts to look online to see if there are other people like him, people who have this attraction but do not want to offend. Yet all he sees are comments stating that whether he offends or not he is still a disgusting person worthy of the same kind of hatred as those who do offend. What message do you think it sends to that person? I have spoken to non-offending paedophiles, many stated that in their teens they attempted or considered suicide .... I'm sure some people will think 'great' .... but what if it was your child, your nephew or niece? People, especially parents, are scared their children will be the victim of a paedophile ... but what if your child became a paedophile? Would you not want them to be able to seek help? to be able to come to you for support? or would you rather they just kill themselves and be done with it?
If we want to get rid of child abuse then surely we need to start by dealing with the root cause, which is the sexual attraction to young children, but how can that ever happen when even non-offending paedophiles cannot come forward for help or research?
FWIW I'm not saying this man is an 'innocent' person, I have no idea, certainly some of his comments are extremely questionable. That's not to say that there aren't paedophiles out there who don't offend, there are possibly thousands upon thousands, and those people, in my opinion, need help and support rather than villification - I honestly don't see how treating them the same as offenders will help prevent child abuse.