On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:16:11 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:
>While it is certainly not only the law that stops people, it does have
>a significant deterrent effect.
>And most people don't have your attitude that photos of harmful acts
>are not harmful.
On the contrary, most people do *not* believe that looking at
photographs of harmful acts is itself harmful. Except in the case of
an *extremely* small subset of image types where . is involved. And
I believe that people have been hoodwinked into believing that by
constant repitition from authority figures, and that looking at images
of .ual abuse is no more harmful than looking at pictures of
non-.ual crimes.
Do you believe that looking at images of harmful acts on the news is
harmful? If not, why should it be any different wrt any other harmful
act?
There is *zero* evidence that looking at .ography increases the
probability that a person will commit a .ual crime - apart from
excuses made by people caught committing such crimes, which I think
you will agree is extremely unreliable evidence.
>>>>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.
>>
>>I do not see how the legality or otherwise of something can affect
>>whether or not is satiates a desire.
>
>Neither do I. Why would you make that statement?
>
>I was not suggesting ANYTHING about whether the . would satiate the
>desire.
But *I* was. If a desire is satiated via .ography rather than
hands-on abuse, it will quite obviously decrease the amount of child
abuse.
Your contention is that people who would like to look at child .
but do not are less likely to abuse than people who look at child
.. The only basis for that assertion is that you have a completely
unsubstantiated feeling that a person who is willing to break one law
is more likely to break a completely different law.
To counter that, it may also be that people who would like to look at
child . but do not because they are not confident that they will
not get caught turn to hands-on abuse as an alternative way of
satiating their desire.
I suspect that many people would be more confident of getting away
with abuse than illegal online activities - for the simple reason that
they understand people better than they understand how computers and
the Internet works.
>>But in any case, 1 abuser in a sample of 1400 cannot be extrapolated
>>upwards because the incidence within the sample is too small. All it
>>tells us is that the probability of a person with CP being an abuser
>>is low.
>It doesn't even tell us that.
I am certain that it does. 1400 is a large enough sample that the
number of abusers in that sample is almost certain to be indicative
the proportion present in the total number of people who have child
.ography. It is possible that the number of abusers is
under-represented in the given sample, but not by an enormous factor.
And of course it could equally well be *over*-represented.
The figure absolutely proves that the idea that people who look at
child .ography are extremely likely to abuse children is false -
and that is a contention that is *still* perpetuated by those who
should know better.
--
Cynic
|