Re: Pedophilia POLL!
Has someone shown that a high percentage of people who look at "quasichildporn" also abuse children?
Yes.
Source: APA Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia, 2003 Edition
http://web.archive.org/web/20070629090023/http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/diagnosticcriteriapedophilia.pdf
Not only that, there have been studies that show the same link that exists between real-child pornography and abuse exists in artificial/fake child pornography. In other words, the arguments we are reading in this thread about how it doesn't hurt anyone are simply bunk. It has the same escalating effect as actual child porn, which is why it should be treated the same legally.
Source: Government of Canada (1984). Report of the Committee on Sexual Offenses against Children and Youth, Vols. 1-11, and summary. Government of Canada, Department of Supply and Service as "Badgely Report; Cat. No. J2-50/1984/E, Vols. 1-11, H74-13/1984-1E, Summary".
Incidentally, another strong trend in pedophiles is self-rationalization, including propagating and defending pedophile friendly myths such as the idea that pedophilia is widespread, not harmful, that children actually are sexual, and several other things you can see written in this thread.
Think on that for a while.
if a person commits a crime it is because they ARE a criminal ... deciding to commit a crime is a serious/heavy/weighty decision....also, crimes are commited because of nesecessity
This is utterly and completely incorrect.
First off, a person isn't a born a criminal -- a person becomes a criminal when they break the law. Instead, a person has the combination of personality, life circumstances, examples, coaching, and so on that comprise every unique human. But even if you have a disposition towards something that is a crime, you are not a criminal until you commit an act, just as having a predispositional weakness towards alcohol addiction doesn't make you an alcoholic until you take that first drink.
Second, rarely do people decide to commit crimes. People don't sit down and reason out the pros/cons, they react. And let's not ignore the fact that people who break the law are generally much less intelligent than average -- for some, causality itself doesn't really sink in. For others, impulse control is limited. For others, they may know they will be punished (if caught) but irrationally overestimate their chances (as young men do), For others, they may expect to be caught but don't care -- the time on top is worth it. For others, they may expect to be caught but can't control it anyhow. And a million other reasons, which are all related to the mix of genes, training, and personality that makes a person tick. But rarely, if ever, will a criminal sit down and weigh the costs/benefit. I bet at least 10x as many murders are a spur of the moment reaction as planned out, for example.
Finally, crimes are almost never committed because of necessity. Crime is rarely necessary in the literal sense. In fact, its a defense to almost all crimes to say you had to do it (necessity). The only crimes I can think of that people commit "out of necessity" are when poor kids sell drugs to feed their family, young runaways go into prostitution, people embezzle, etc. But that isn't necessity in a legal sense, as they still had options they just chose not to take it. Instead, most major violent crimes are committed out of simple passion. Your GF sleeps with another man and so you stab her in a blind rage. You and your boys get drunk and pissed at how much life sucks and decide to get a gun and rob a store. You know its wrong, but you decide to take a chance because sexing a child would feel so good you just have to try it, and you have been pumping yourself full of porn and rationalizations for months to boot. Its a reaction, not necessity.
