"Cynic" wrote in message
news:aa0qu3970a8hjvv56b6s4emd8458cfeu4g@4ax.com...
> 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.
I can do no better than refer you to what you previously said, namely that
the child had been abused & was "the victim". You appear to have done a
complete about-turn by now stating that
he "has a subject that he knows has been willing".
I suggest the reason for your about-turn is quite obvious in that, by now
claiming the child was a willing participart in whatever might have been
depicted in these hypothetical images you hope to provide an excuse, in
fact you are *desperate* to excuse, what you previously said i.e. "There
*is* a danger - that the paedophile will be prompted to approach the child
he has seen in the .ography and get in on the act.", because you now
realise that un-guarded remark totally destroys the central plank of your
argument.
> Unless it was images of forced
> ., the child has carried out *apparently* consensual .ual acts
> for the camera without reporting it to the authorities.
Three things there. Firstly there is no such thing as forced .. . is
by definition *always* a non-consensual act. Secondly, in law a child can
never carry out consensual .ual acts with an adult as a child cannot give
informed consent to the act/s. Thirdly, a child is not complicit to the act
by failing to report it to the authorities. As a matter of fact Cycnic I'm
quite stunned & taken aback by what you say in that one brief paragraph
alone!.
> 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.
I fail to see the connection between adult . acttresses & children who
are subjected to .ual abuse. Could you please explain the connection
between these two disparate subjects ?
>> 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
I see. So now you are offerring the concept of a person (the paedophile) who
is .ually attracted to children but who would not dream of .ually
abusing them. .ual contact constitutes abuse - the two cannot be
dis-entagled.
> 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.
Yes but not every soldier. I suggest that some have a proclivity where
others don't.
>>> 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.
Nope.
> Sorry if I mistook what your views
> are.
No problem, it's quite a long thread & not difficult to become confused.
--
Joe Lee
|