::Y-Not:: wrote:
> In article <d4mv7s$h0f$1@wilhelp.databasix.com>, Steve Leyland
><steveREMOVEDOTINVALIDTOREPLY@meow.org.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> I'm a psychologist. Please leave the diagnosis to the professionals.
Psychobabble word for the day: Groupthink. (see below)
[...]
>> BL = Boy Lover = pedophile.
>> do you really think the children in the images you post have not been abused
>> during the taking of those?
>
> Right. Some weren't, but some were. Unfortunately, what is done, is
> already done. If their past suffering can help keep other children
> safer, then I think it should. I know it's not the best solution, but
> sometimes compromises have to be made, for the greater good.
<mode = polite>
I have a problem with this argument because it ignores that pictures
_continue_ to be taken, it ignores that more children will be sought
to create new pictures, and it tries to paint the past abuse as
a justified expense.
</mode>
>
>> : There is another reason why this system is allowed to exist. No
>> : matter what some "people" might want, BLs aren't going to kill
>> : themselves. They exist. It's estimated that the average molester,
>> : molests over 50 children before he's caught. How do we keep them away
>> : from children? If they are fed enough porn, so they are so sexually
>> : expended from masturbating to it, that they don't go out and find new
>> : victims, children are going to be much safer. People who care about
>> : children, want to do whatever is PRACTICAL, to protect them from
>> : abuse.
>>
>> so your lame argument is that pedos masturbating to images of abused
>> children will somehow stop children being abused IRL?
>> I'd strongly argue to the contrary that such images would encourage such
>> behaviour.
>
> So it is in popular fiction. Ever watch that Law and Order Special
> Victims TV show? Do you think it's actually real?
> There is absolutely no evidence at all that, in adults, viewing
> pornography of any kind causes people to commit any crimes.
> Believe me, we WANT that to be a cause. It would be wonderful to be
> able to isolate a cause for this behavior, that we could control, but
> in actual fact, that all the research shows, it's actually the opposite
> that happens. Men who can satisfy themselves with images, are much less
> likely to harm children.
[...]
The scope of this view is far too small. It focuses on an individual
acting alone; it completely ignores the sense of community that evolves
when like minded individuals gather to share picture/stories/experiences;
it neglects to recognize the powerful drive to seek acceptance within a
group; it ignores the rationalization of (in this context, abhorrent)
behavior that occurs as group cohesiveness inhibits critical thought;
and, it fails to account for the shared illusion of "It's OK because
others are like me."
Extend the context of your analysis from a single person jacking off
to a _group_ of people (in this case, on Usenet) sharing a common
perversion, how groupthink affects the construction of rationalizations
even in the presence of negative feedback, and how _enabling_ those
rationalizations can be.
--
,,,
.oo
c >
- Soque
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
|