On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:43:33 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:
>>>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"?
Because I was making a statement that was the opposite of what you
asserted. Is that not an appropriate time to use the expression?
>I really do get annoyed with your dishonest "debating".
How on Earth is it in any way dishonest? You stated that most people
do not share my belief that photos of harmful acts are not themselves
harmful. I disagreed with that statement and gave my reasons.
>I am not going to bother responding to your arguments against
>something I have not suggested.
What do you claim you have not suggested? The first quote in this post
is *yours*.
>>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.
I was certain that you had claimed that the reason for your belief is
that a person who is willing to break one law would be more likely to
break a different law. So to clarify - is that or is that not your
belief?
I really do get annoyed when you say things that you don't mean and
then protest that it is *my* fault that I have misunderstood you
--
Cynic
|