On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:29:29 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>This thread is certainly providing me with things to think about.
>Perhaps I am reading too much into the words, but "little . star" and
>"willing" strongly suggests that these kp viewers would indeed be
>looking for a .ual encounter with this child. Which does completely
>justify them being seen as a real risk to children, until proven otherwise.
>I had been working on the premise that they presented no such risk - so
>they had nothing to gain by having her round and every possibily that
>their guilty little secret would come out. eg someone else that had seen
>the pictures would possibly think he was involved in taking them.
I find that it is quite often necessary to use arguments that assume
the beliefs of the other person even though I do not have those same
beliefs. The purpose is to show the other person that they are
holding two contradictory beliefs. So you can believe that a kp
collector is likely to have an interest in .ually abusing a child,
and you can believe that a kp collector would be repelled by the
thought of having a child in his house who featured in a kp image, but
you surely cannot hold both those beliefs at the same time?
You can also either believe that almost everyone convicted under
Operation Ore was intentionally collecting child .ography, or you
can believe that most collectors of child .ography are
significantly likely to have abused a child - but you cannot believe
both at the same time because investigations did not show any
significant amount of abuse being perpetrated by the Ore convictees.
So perhaps a good starting point would be to first decide on the
things that you *do* believe most likely to be true, and ensuring that
none of those beliefs are contradictory (in the sense that they would
be *unlikely* to both be true rather than it is impossible that they
are both true).
In addition, do not make the mistake of thinking that all the posters
who are posting views on a particular "side" of the argument
necessarily have the same views about *all* aspects of the subject.
--
Cynic
|