Rstuart

Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

I'd better warn the entire advertising industry to give up, the money they are making is all an illusion.

[Deleted for harassment]

@Pynchme: I already provided evidence that most child abusers view child pornography ... If someone is hungry - do you think their appetite is increased

The link said there is a correlation, and you are now arguing correlation means causation. You are an academic, you must know this is wrong. At least I hope you do.

If there was strong evidence for causation the wikipedia article on the subject would not be so conflicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

Your hunger example is probably wrong. It is unlikely pictures of food increase your appetite, as measured by the number of calories you finally consume.

@Pynchme: who finds clips or pics of children being used in such ways sexually titillating is more or less likely to make those fantasies a reality?

We are discussing human behaviour here, and you are in effect saying people behave "logically". They don't. You know this. Logic isn't the main driver behaviour, feelings are.

From http://www.radio.cz/en/article/88189

"Opinions on that differ among sex therapists, but when in the 60s Denmark started to tolerate - not legalize, but only tolerate - child porn the number of abused children significantly decreased."

This is not an outliner. It seems every time a country relaxes restrictions on porn, crimes against those depicted in the porn drop. If were not for evidence like this, I would not be accusing lot of going on the 21st century equivalent of a witch hunt.

@CJ Morgan: I imagine that rstuart would think that this creep has been hardly done by

You imagine wrong. He had what looks like sensible parole conditions putting space between him and potential future victims. He broke them and it was dealt with. Parole conditions forbiding otherwise legal activities are common place. Hackers are told to stay away from computers, flight risks are told to stay away from planes, stalkers are told to stay away from the stalkee. Why would I have a problem with that?

@Severin: Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

Nope. I am saying people react very differently to pictures in ads and those of illegal behaviour.

Rstuart

>> @Severin: Are you, in fact, claiming that advertising does not work?

Nope. I am saying people react very differently to pictures in ads and those of illegal behaviour. >>

That's right.

Pictures produced by legit advertisers do not sexually abuse children to obtain their photographs.

That is why possession of and viewing child pornography is illegal.

rstuart is either being disingenuous or obtuse. He has asserted that child pornography should not be illegal, based variously on his claims that the kids that are its objects aren't harmed in its production, or that viewing child pornography is only a "thought crime", or some other such convoluted rationalisation.

In my example, the recidivist paedophile was arrested and charged with indecent treatment of a child under 12, i.e. taking photos of a naked 4-year old girl for the purpose of sexual gratification, in addition to breaking the conditions of his parole.

Either deliberately or inadvertently, rstuart focuses upon the parole breaking and ignores competely the fact that the child abuser was detected and arrested for the indecent treatment offence for which he was charged and convicted - an offence which, according to rstuart's perverse reasoning, shouldn't exist.

Please note that I'm not trying to "harrass" rstuart here, rather I'm trying to keep him honest.

[Deleted and posted suspended for a week]

Severin: Well that must have been one heck of a post - and out of character because I've never read a mean post from Severin.

Wish I'd seen it :(

Looking forward to your return.

I don't feel much like posting now to be honest. Maybe later.