Brandon D Cartwright
2008-01-04 20:55:59 UTC
On 03 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.incest and heard
A is bad
replying that B is worse is a dodge, or at the very least an attempt to
deflect from the fact that A is bad, when in fact whether or not B is
worse really has no impact on whether A is bad.
When the argument is made that A and/or B cause C, and C is to be-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:45, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
will tell you that in the overwhelming majority of abuse cases, the
offender is known to the child. Why then, is the majority of effort
put into 'stranger danger,' especially strangers on the Internet?
There's a much higher probability that if your child is being abused,
that's it's someone that you already know.
When an arguement is made thatHash: SHA512
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:45, in alt.support.boy-lovers,
On 02 Jan 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
It's not a dodge. The fact of the matter is, that any professionalThe "stranger danger" thing was and is idiotic when taken to the
usual extremes - but *every* societal response to pedophilia *is*
taken to extremes. All it does is foster fear and hatred of any
stranger and deflect attention from the greatest fatality risk to
children - their own family.
1) the most significant and dangerous risks to babies.
Statistically,
who kills the largest numbers of children? Crazed pyschopathic
pedophiles? Axe murderers? Freddy Kruger? No.
Mothers! That's right. Mothers kill more of their own children
than any other segment of society, many times more than sex
offenders.
ah yes.. the old "but they're worse!" dodge.usual extremes - but *every* societal response to pedophilia *is*
taken to extremes. All it does is foster fear and hatred of any
stranger and deflect attention from the greatest fatality risk to
children - their own family.
1) the most significant and dangerous risks to babies.
Statistically,
who kills the largest numbers of children? Crazed pyschopathic
pedophiles? Axe murderers? Freddy Kruger? No.
Mothers! That's right. Mothers kill more of their own children
than any other segment of society, many times more than sex
offenders.
will tell you that in the overwhelming majority of abuse cases, the
offender is known to the child. Why then, is the majority of effort
put into 'stranger danger,' especially strangers on the Internet?
There's a much higher probability that if your child is being abused,
that's it's someone that you already know.
A is bad
replying that B is worse is a dodge, or at the very least an attempt to
deflect from the fact that A is bad, when in fact whether or not B is
worse really has no impact on whether A is bad.
avoided; and that A contributes 10% while B contributes 90% toward C, why
expend the majority of your resources trying to eliminate A? If you
really wanted to reduce C, wouldn't reducing B be more effective?
Perhaps reducing C is not really the goal, but a red herring that
justifies attacking A...
neutralizing sex predators,such as yourself, is certainly a part of
child protection initiatives..the point is the protection of children
not attacking you..
If you kept your hands to yourself and your dick in your pants you
wouldn't have to worry would you?
Well..you would still have to worry about your child pornography
ring being traced back to you I guess....
--
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:56:00 -0800, Tim Merrigan <***@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Picture ID <Loading Image...
+453>Six of one half a dozen of the other. I kind of like the image of a
toddler dressed up all sexy, with a thong or crotchless panties. But
I also like the image of her completely innocent/ignorant accidental
or even deliberate exposures.
toddler dressed up all sexy, with a thong or crotchless panties. But
I also like the image of her completely innocent/ignorant accidental
or even deliberate exposures.