On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:55:23 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>> That was a reply to the highly unlikely scenario where a person who
>> collects the images actually recognises a child in an image as being a
>> local child he knows quite well. In that situation he may well be
>> tempted by having a subject that he knows has been willing.
>I hadn't seen any mention of the child being "willing".
Then choose a more suitable word. Unless it was images of forced
., the child has carried out *apparently* consensual .ual acts
for the camera without reporting it to the authorities. I'm sure you
would not have quibbled with the use of the word wrt an adult .
actress, even if it was quite possible that she was forced by
circumstance or something else to take part.
> Are you simply creating a scenario in order to disguise the fact that you
>do actually know or suspect there is a real danger that some of those who
>possess & collect images of child .ual abuse will want to "get in on the
>act" as you put it ?
What on Earth makes you think that I, or anyone else for that matter
would *know* any more than you do? I have pointed out several times
that there is insufficient research or evidence to draw *any* hard and
fast conclusion.
>If not, it seems a remarkably odd comment to have made.
Why? I believe it perfectly possible that a paedophile who in the
normal course of events would not dream of actually abusing a child
may well do so if he was subjected to abnormal temptation and
opportunity. Such is simply human nature - anyone is capable of
committing almost *any* crime in the right circumstances. Men who
would never have dreamed of raping a woman in normal circumstances
have done so when sent as a soldier to a foreign country, for example.
>> Your idea that a person who downloads kp is significantly likely to
>> abuse a child is pure speculation
>I'm not aware of having said that but feel free to correct me if I have.
I thought you had implied as much. Sorry if I mistook what your views
are.
--
Cynic
|