On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:20:51 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>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.
Of course she doesn't "realise" something that is untrue.
> 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 ..
>
That is a reasonable assumption.
If they would like to do it but can resist, then they are more likely
to be able to resist temptation in more serious areas too.
>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.
>
I doubt there are many rational people who believe that to be likely -
when the . is also illegal.
>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.
I am pretty well certain you are wrong on this.
1400 convictions, one of whom (assuming you are right about that) was
also found guilty of actual child .ual abuse.
There are not 1 in 1400 of the general population have been found
guilty of actual child .ual abuse.
>Which casts a great deal of doubt on the assumption that .ographers
>are more likely than average to be abusers.
It wouldn't cast very much doubt, even if true.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can, do. Those who can't, supervise!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |