Cynic wrote:
> 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.
>
Later in the same post I went on to write:
"...if they have deliberately broken the law in the full knowledge of
the consequences..."
Those that really haven't much of a clue about computers and/or this
particular bit of legislation should be covered by, "Never treat
anything as enemy action that can be reasonably explained by incompetence."
--
Sue |