On May 13, 9:38 pm, Palindrome wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
>
>
>
> > You assume that all people who commit .ual crime will
> > also want to look at the type of .ography that suits their
> > prediliction.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Yet .ography is *not* invariably found at the homes
> > of .ual criminals.
>
> It doesn't need to be "invariably" - just "majority".
>
> > And yet again you assume the very thing you are
> > trying to "prove" - that people who are willing to commit one type of
> > crime will be more likely than normal to commit a different type of
> > crime.
>
> Nope. Try "people that won't risk a minor crime won't risk an extension
> of it into major crime".
>
> > The percentage of those convicted of
>
> > child abuse who also have child .ography is around 60% IIRC.
>
> OK, a majority. That will do. And what is the percentage of those that
> commit .ual assault that have adult .?
>
> > There are
> > people who have easier private access to children than to the
> > Internet. Unemployed single men willing to babysit for relatives, for
> > example.
>
> Yep. But that is subject to availability. Their own stash of child abuse
> images is always available - even if it has to be taken inside a
> newspaper to the loo..
>
> > In addition, the probability of being caught is probably
> > higher wrt downloading illegal images these days than with hands-on
> > abuse.
>
> If they are abusing children, they can take a camera. If they have a
> computer, they can create their own with a bit of cut and paste of legal
> images.
>
> > Unlike other things you do in the privacy of your home, your
> > online activities can all be monitored in real time, and logs and
> > other permanent evidence of the crime can be examined later.
>
> See above. Monitoring is not a significant risk unless they go to an
> entrapment site or are already suspected.
>
> > The
> > sentence likely to be imposed is also about the same for both
> > activities - in fact it is often higher for child . than with
> > actual child abuse.
>
> No iea if that is true or not. It appears incredible that images of chil
> abuse can fetch a higher penalty than carrying out that abuse.
>
> > I should think there are a *lot* of people who
> > would be more certain that they could persuade a child to keep a
> > secret than they would be confident of keeping their computer
> > activities secret, especially after all the high-profile media reports
> > of .ography convictions.
>
> There is a way of getting children to keep a secret? Do tell. Is there
> also a way of stopping them becoming adults and then telling?
>
>
>
> > My experience with hetero.ual .ography is that the people who use
> > it the most are the people who do *not* have an active . life.
>
> No idea. Is that relevant?
>
> > People who have a regular .ual partner are more likely not to need
> > it. I know several people who have an active . life but abhor
> > .ography (or at least they say they do). Why should it be any
> > different for paedophiles?
>
> Getting an adult .ual partner is considerably easier than getting hold
> of a child to abuse.
>
> > How can the "no inference can be drawn" in the above statement
> > co-exist with your position that a person with child .ography is
> > more likely to abuse a child?
>
> "Statistically insignificant". If an individual belongs to a set
> comprising millions of people with child abuse images that are not child
> abusers, plus hundreds that are, how is it significant that there is
> another set comprising millions of individuals without child abuse
> images that are not child abusers, plus tens that are?
>
> --
> Sue
All babies drink milk
All babies die, ultimately
Milk is a killer - 100%
That is all you and Alex need to remember, so as to deflate most of
your propositions (let alone the evidence and proof which does exist).
WM |