RObert>> I've suffered enough at the hands of bullies who were both smaller and weaker than me<<

RObert your line reminds me of the Groucho Marx quip "Hey you big bully, leave that little bully alone". There is a lot of truth in that.

"No: moving a plastic device on one's table, pressing sections of it and other plastic keys, causing bits of magnetic.yuda,yuda, yuda"
Yuyutsu, such action as you describe and accessing 'the spring garden guide' is seen as acceptable in society, however the same actions and accessing child pornography is not.
I have a granddaughter and if I was informed, that a worker at her day care was found to have accessed child pornography on their home pc I don't think my son and daughter-in-law would be too happy about that person working at baby's day care. Do you have young children? If you have I don't think you would post what you did.
I attended catholic schools in the 1960's and I know of many cases of catholic scum molesting young boys and other catholic scum who covered it up. I was never a victim myself as these predictors mostly preyed on the weaker children. Fortunately or unfortunately depending how you view justice most of this catholic scum is dead. However the catholic organization, starting with Ratzinger in Rome and Pell closer to home must take responsibility for the past and present pedophiles that did, and still do, infest their corrupt business empire.

Dear Paul,

<<accessing 'the spring garden guide' is seen as acceptable in society, however the same actions and accessing child pornography is not>>

Factually you are correct: current society does not accept this practice.

But is current society's acceptance or nonacceptance a valid measure for anything? do I need to give you examples of things that societies used not-to-accept throughout the ages? Whence this conviction that current society is "better" than its predecessors?

The fact is that the vast majority of those who access child pornography online, have never and will never touch a real child. Similarly, there must be many real-life paedophiles who never access child pornography online (and others that access, but are not caught).

Sonofgloin wrote: "Paedophilia has a slant that is just as abhorrent as the desire to commit the act.", implying that the desire to commit the act is abhorrent: I disagree - the act may be abhorrent, but the desire to commit it is not. In fact, those who have the desire but manage to suppress it, willfully (as I believe that most of them do) in order to avoid hurting children, are commendable and deserve every respect. As for those who access child pornography, many of them do not even have that desire and among those who do, most would not act on it - not just because it's illegal, but simply because they do not wish to hurt anyone.

In centuries ahead, the attitude of 21st-century society toward paedophiles will be remembered alongside the 15th-century society's attitude toward witches.

"The fact is that the vast majority of those who access child pornography online, have never and will never touch a real child. Similarly, there must be many real-life paedophiles who never access child pornography online (and others that access, but are not caught."

Yuyutsu. Since there wasn't any questions in the last census in relation to pedophilia its difficult to agree or disagree with the above, my gut feeling is you are most likely correct. I also agree with you on what is socially acceptable changes over time. Pedophilia I do believe was once acceptable in ancient Greece I have a friend who is totally opposed to any form of censorship and believes "anything goes". He has never been able to convince me on the 'kiddy porn' issue as I always retort with the question of harm and consent. Likewise bestiality again harm and consent from the animal that is.

I dunno i must be weird. I reckon this paedo thing is blown all out of proportion. You should be more worried about the sleazy uncle than the trench coat brigade for a start.

One Example:

If some guy takes pictures of my kids on the beach with a zoom lens, and wacks off at home to them, I see that as a victim-less crime. It affects me in no way whatsoever and it doesn't affect my kids.

People have weird kinks and fetishes, but as long as they keep it in their sexual fantasy land then that's fine with me. So the act of corrupting a child is terrible, but to me the viewing of this by a third party is neither here nor there, and akin to someone enjoying a violent film, or having a morbid curiosity of car crashes.

Houellebecq "So the act of corrupting a child is terrible, but to me the viewing of this by a third party is neither here nor there"

The third party is guilty of aiding and abetting the exploitation of the child.
I'm totally opposed to the slaughter of tigers, but I look great in my new tiger skin coat. I didn't actually kill the tiger, someone else did that, besides the tiger was dead when they made my coat. This is just as logical as your statement.