On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:58:10 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>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..
I see you still don't have a clear idea as to what the 'problem' is -
if indeed there is a 'problem'.
Keep thinking - you might twig it in a hundred years or so - or not.
--
Dissenter |