On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:36:00 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>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.
Why have you stupidly written "On the contrary"?
I really do get annoyed with your dishonest "debating".
I am not going to bother responding to your arguments against
something I have not suggested.
>>>>>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.
Yet again, you claim things that I have NOT said, and argue against
those.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I had my coat hangers spayed.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |