On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:38:46 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>> 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.
>Who has argued that they are "extremely likely".
I was referring to arguments that are frequently used by people in the
child protection industry, not arguments of any poster in this thread.
>The only arguments have been that amongst them are going to be those
>that are extremely likely and that proportionally more of them will be
>extremely likely than those without a collection of child abuse images.
In that case we are at cross purposes. I thought the argument was
between people with a collection of child .ography and people who
would *like* to look at such material but do not do so.
>Someone with a collection of child abuse images clearly has an abnormal
>and extreme interest in acts of child abuse. If it was a legal activity,
>it could be dismissed as harmless curiosity. But it is illegal and with
>very severe penalties. So such people must be extremely interested in
>acts of child abuse.
If, and only if the material in question was deliberately and
knowingly acquired. If it was downloaded without the downloader
realising that the material was likely to be illegal, then your point
does not follow.
--
Cynic
|