Dissenter wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:46:16 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>> Dissenter wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:46:30 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>>>> It is a deliberate act against the law as
>>>> much as driving past a speed camera is a deliberate act. There are no
>>>> other higher principles at stake. They want this form of entertainment.
>>>> This form of entertainment isn't available to them legally. So they
>>>> choose to break the law.
>>> That's like saying that . is just a form of entertainment. It's much
>>> more than that, unless you are too old to remember. Whether you regard
>>> paedophilia to be a 'perversion' of the . drive (as homo.uality
>>> was not so long ago in this country) is beside the point - . is ..
>>> What can substitute for it? Well, . is one possibility, but that is
>>> banned too.
>>>
>> I would suggest that *nothing* can substitute for it, not for very long,
>> that is. Which is rather the problem, isn't it?
>
> So do you withdraw your repeated remarks that child . is merely
> 'entertainment' that can reasonably be forsworn?
>
Which image do you prefer -
Someone with no real interest in such images, but was just curious as to
what they were like? Isn't that the standard excuse? The reason why they
pose no threat to children? The reason why they shouldn't end up on the SOR?
Or someone who cannot help himself in spite of the risk, who finds it a
poor substitute for having a real child to abuse? And, sooner or later,
will find himself with the opportunity as well as the temptation?
I hadn't thought that anyone was suggesting that the latter isn't a real
risk to children. That he shouldn't be on the SOR, etc.
The problem is determining whether the individual with kp is one such
person, or not..
--
Sue
|