On May 15, 1:38 pm, Palindrome wrote:
> Cynic 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".
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It is a bit tough on the many that don't present a threat are caught up
> in the net trying to protect children from the few that are. But they
> deserve no sympathy if they have deliberately broken the law in the full
> knowledge of the consequences if caught.
>
> --
> Sue
[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. ]
The majority who carry out .ual offences against minors are not
paedophiles, nor do they own indecent images of children - not that it
would mean anything significant if they did.
I should think there would be something very wrong, if a substantial
number (if not the majority) of MAAs had an interest in images of
minors.
This has little to do with causality or further outcomes.
Because, as we know, as .ography has increased in availability
(massively) and intensity, contact .ual offending has decreased,
substantially (even with massive increases in morally-driven laws),
but, of course, I cannot prove this is a causality ;)
[If it was a legal activity,
it could be dismissed as harmless curiosity.]
It was, until very recently in human history (i.e mid 1970s
onwards)... notice the confluence with feminism.
It is a bit tough on the many that don't present a threat are caught
up
in the net trying to protect children from the few that are. But they
deserve no sympathy if they have deliberately broken the law in the
full
knowledge of the consequences if caught.]
But, they were not given a life sentence, or they may have had their
'money's worth'. ;)
WM[ |