On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:22:25 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>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?
It would have been, if that was what you were doing.
You weren't, so that was why I asked.
>
>>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.
>
No you didn't.
You argued that *looking at* images of harmful acts is not harmful.
Which is very different to arguing that the photos are not harmful.
And of course, it goes without saying that we are only talking about a
subset of harmful acts. Namely (and I know you don't accept this to be
true of any significant number of images anyhow) those where the
harmful act occurred at least in part *in order to* create the photos.
I am firmly of the belief that *enough* of them are created to satisfy
the market for them, that it is reasonable to say the existence of the
images is harmful.
And I think that is very likely the way the majority of people think
about them - except that most people probably think that almost all of
them are created because people want them. I accept that a large
proportion are created as a by-product of acts that would have taken
place anyhow. I just don't believe it is as high a proportion as you
do.
>>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*.
I have not suggested that looking at images of harmful acts is
harmful.
>
>>>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?
>
Well the meaning is completely altered by your paraphrasing and
commission of qualifications.
I have always and only suggested that they are more likely to break
further laws which are related in some way.
>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
I don't do that.
I say things I do mean, and then get annoyed when you twist and
distort the obvious meaning of what I have said, in order to make a
point - dishonestly IMV.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Safe ..
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |