On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:26:35 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>> I do not believe that the probability is any greater of a person who
>> looks at child . committing an actual .ual assault than a person
>> who looks at adult ..
>I find it hard to accept that you believe that.
>Were looking at images of child abuse to be permitted by law, the pool
>of those doing so would certainly increase.
Yes, I agree that that is quite probably true.
> Thus, at the moment, the
>/percentage/ of child abuse image viewers that go on to commit offences
>must be higher than the percentage of adult . viewers who go on to
>commit assault.
I do not see how that statement follows. It assumes that people who
don't view . do not abuse children.
>There is a greater probability of a child abuse viewer
>going on to commit actual abuse than there is of an adult . viewer
>going on to commit an actual assault.
>Only if both . and child abuse viewing were legal would the
>probabilities equalise.
I'm not sure that you realise it, but you have just employed circular
logic. Your argument makes no sense unless you *start* with the
assumption that a person who does not look at child . but would
like to is less likely to abuse a child than a person who does look at
child ..
The reverse may even be true - i.e. the . is used as a *substitute*
for hands-on assault, and so people who would like to look at . but
don't are more likely to carry out a physical assault.
Out of all the many people convicted of child .ography offences
during Operation Ore, only one was found to be a hands-on child
abuser. I suspect that is a lower percentage than the amount of child
abusers that would be found in a *random* sample of similar size.
Which casts a great deal of doubt on the assumption that .ographers
are more likely than average to be abusers.
--
Cynic
|