On Mon, 12 May 2008 11:40:55 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:31:20 +0100, Alex Heney
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2008 01:26:51 +0100, Cynic
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:30:03 +0100, Alex Heney
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Do you *really* believe that looking at pictures is a similar crime to
>>>>>physical assault?
>>>>>
>>>>>Amazing.
>>>>
>>>>the way you twist what others say is indeed amazing.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you could expand on your logic. You say speeding is unlikely
>>>to lead to armed robbery, but looking at pictures is likely to lead to
>>>.ual assault. Why?
>>
>>I will not answer questions about things I have never suggested.
>
>So what connection *have* you suggested?
I have suggested only that *on average*, the type of person who is
interested enough to look at images they know to be illegal is *more*
likely to be interested enough to take the further step of what is *in
law* regarded as .ual assault.
That is NOT to say they are likely to do so, just a little less
unlikely, nor is it to suggest they are even more likely to carry out
what they would see as a physical assault.
But AIUI, in most cases of . with children, the adult concerned has
managed to believe that the child actually wants it, so they don't
think of it as "assault".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Bad breath is better than no breath.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |