On May 14, 10:16 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:28:06 +0100, Cynic
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:57:08 +0100, Alex Heney
> >wrote:
>
> >>>I'm not sure that you realise it, but you have just employed circular
> >>>logic.
>
> >>Of course she doesn't "realise" something that is untrue.
>
> >It is perfectly true - as you have shown below.
>
> Rubbish.
>
>
>
> >>> Your argument makes no sense unless you *start* with the
> >>>assumption that a person who does not look at child . but would
> >>>like to is less likely to abuse a child than a person who does look at
> >>>child ..
>
> >>That is a reasonable assumption.
>
> >I do not accept that
>
> I know you don't. That, I believe is based on your own personal
> circumstance, rather than on any generality.
>
> >- but do you not see that that assumption is
> >*exactly* what Sue had set out to "prove" with her post?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >>If they would like to do it but can resist, then they are more likely
> >>to be able to resist temptation in more serious areas too.
>
> >What evidence do you have that that is likely to be true at all?
>
> None
>
> But I am quite sure of it.
>
> >People do not only refrain from doing things because of the law or the
> >fear of punishment, but also because of their personal morals.
>
> have I ever suggested otherwise?
>
> I quite deliberately did NOT mention "the law" in the above paragraph.
>
> >Most people fantasise about doing things that they would never dream
> >of doing in real life - in fact that's how Hollywood makes its money.
>
> No shit Sherlock!
>
> >It is perfectly feasible that a paedophile will have a *desire* to
> >have . with children whilst at the same time knowing that it could
> >cause so much harm to the child that they would not do so.
>
> I am absolutely certain that a large majority of paedophiles fall into
> this category.
>
> >Nevertheless, a fantasy about doing so will do no harm, and neither
> >will looking at images to fuel such a fantasy. Thus the person will
> >have no scruples about looking at illegal images because it does
> >nothing against his personal set of moral values, whilst at the same
> >time abhoring the actual .ual abuse of children.
>
> here I disagree quite strongly.
>
> *Some* will certainly fall into that category, but many more will not.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> >Much the same as it is possible to enjoy watching a war film whilst
> >being totally against the idea of war. It can appeal to base
> >instincts that you know must be kept suppressed in the real World.
>
> I have never suggested otherwise.
>
> Your argument here is fundamentally dishonest, because you are
> presenting an argument against something that has never been
> suggested, while trying to make it appear you are arguing against the
> point that was made.
>
> NOBODY has suggested it isn't possible to look at these images as a
> substitute, while never actually being likely to carry out the acts.
>
> Your whole argument seems to be based on the fact that most people who
> look at these images will not carry out actual acts. Which is an
> absolute given, that nobody has disputed for one moment.
>
>
>
> >>>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.
>
> >Many teenagers look at
> >.ography even though they are not old enough to watch 18
> >certificated material and know that their parents would punish them if
> >they found out. That does not mean that they would condone committing
> >a hands-on .ual crime, let alone carrying it out.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> But the ".ual crime" bit is irrelevant since the .ography they
> watch will normally not involve any .ual crime.
>
> Would they carry out the (legal) acts portrayed, given the chance? I
> bet most of them would.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>Out of all the many people convicted of child .ography offences
> >>>during Operation Ore, only one was found to be a hands-on child
> >>>abuser. I suspect that is a lower percentage than the amount of child
> >>>abusers that would be found in a *random* sample of similar size.
>
> >>I am pretty well certain you are wrong on this.
>
> >>1400 convictions, one of whom (assuming you are right about that) was
> >>also found guilty of actual child .ual abuse.
>
> >>There are not 1 in 1400 of the general population have been found
> >>guilty of actual child .ual abuse.
>
> >People in the general population do not have all their relationships
> >with children examined under a microscope. The majority of low level
> >.ual abuse goes unreported. Thus the number of abusers will be far
> >greater than the number convicted.
>
> >But in any case, 1 abuser in a sample of 1400 cannot be extrapolated
> >upwards because the incidence within the sample is too small. All it
> >tells us is that the probability of a person with CP being an abuser
> >is low.
>
> It doesn't even tell us that.
>
>
>
> >>>Which casts a great deal of doubt on the assumption that .ographers
> >>>are more likely than average to be abusers.
>
> >>It wouldn't cast very much doubt, even if true.
>
> >It certainly shows that a .ographer is *unlikely* to be an abuser.
>
> You didn't mean ".ographer" there.
>
> A child .ographer is *certain* to be an abuser.
>
> A user of child .ography is unlikely to be an abuser. That I fully
> accept, and have never suggested otherwise.
>
> But they are IMO *less* unlikely to be an abuser than those who
> *don't* use it.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
[None
But I am quite sure of it.]
There speaks the expert of the crab and the pedo :)
WM |