On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:42:58 +0100, 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.
>
So why didn't you say so?
>>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.
I don't believe you.
That was *one* small strand of the discussion, and you know that full
well.
>
>>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.
Utterly irrelevant.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Lefties are the only ones in their right minds.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |