You've given no basis to grasp on to.
I get the impression that you mistakenly believe that I've
actually claimed that there's a causal link between virtual child porn and child molestation. Allow me to remind you where this branch of the debate started:
So you don't see any real risk emanating from the message that [legalised virtual child porn would] send out into society generally, that it's perfectly acceptable to imagine, produce, distribute or view sexually explicit images of children, including child molestation, with the intent to arouse(!), provided real children are not involved? You don't see how that message will inevitably be interpreted by many people, and what harm to real children will inevitably result? You really don't see that?!
Do you have any evidence other than your imagination that that rather sweeping statment is true?
What I have then proceeded to do is point to some evidence. It surely doesn't need me to explain that "evidence",
in any situation, does not necessarily constitute proof. Whether or not one concludes that such evidence is compelling or not is, of course, entirely up to each individual, but I consider that the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" would be an appropriate maxim to apply in most situations, including this. Now, similarly, whether or not one concludes that "reasonable doubt" persists after presentation of the evidence is, equally, entirely up to each individual.
Now, in the context of the foregoing, allow me to summarize my position
categorically so that there are, hopefully, no further misunderstandings, misinterpretations or misquotes:
I consider that the evidence that I've relied upon is sufficient to suppose, beyond reasonable doubt, that there could be a causative link between virtual child porn and the sexual abuse of children, and that, consequently, the production, distribution and possession of virtual child porn should be criminalised unless and until such time as reliable evidence emerges that shows beyond reasonable doubt that there is no causative link.
Now allow me to analyse that statement:
I believe - it's my opinion, like a juror sitting on a jury.
evidence that I've relied upon - see hereunder.
suppose beyond reasonable doubt - a supposition based on logical, sensible consideration and analysis to the extent that it cannot be doubted.
could be a causative link - a direct or indirect causative link is reasonably possible.
virtual child porn - more or less sexually explicit fabricated images virtually indistinguishable from minors intended to sexually arouse.
sexual abuse of children - anything concerning the sexual exploitation of minors for the sexual or morbid gratification of adults.
Following is the "evidence" (extracts from this thread, paraphrased for context) upon which I have relied in removing all reasonable doubt from my mind that there could be a causative link between virtual child porn and the sexual abuse of children. It's more reasoning than empirical evidence, hence much of it is posed as rhetorical questions serving to highlight the reasoning applied. And I admit, some of it clearly does not support direct causation, but it does serve to add strength to the prospect that virtual child porn could be a contributory factor to causation:
Why do people, generally, watch or read porn - any type of porn? They watch or read it because of what porn is designed to do - sexually arouse. And what do most people do who have actively sought and achieved sexual arousal? They then seek relief. And how does one relieve oneself? Either with a "partner" (if available) or otherwise alone. And which of those two options would most people naturally prefer? And isn't it the case that many people sometimes allow their objectivity and judgement to be influenced when sexually aroused (ask Bill Clinton, if you're not sure).
Especially if we happen to be talking about somebody who already has a pre-disposition towards child molestation. Don't you think the need for sexual relief preciptated by viewing child porn could reasonably cause such a person to act without complete objectivity and moral judgement? Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose that I person who happens to be pre-disposed to child molestation could easily be pushed "over the edge" from viewing legitimately produced, distributed and possessed [virtual] child porn?
... there is a major difference between child molestation and other crimes in that...well, if you rob a bank, you have to leave your home, someone will see you, there will be cameras and witnesses. ... to steal cars would require [one] to leave ... home, take some pretty high risks. Rape ... barring murder, there's still the possibility that an adult victim will "tell", report it to the authorities, whatever ... and usually, it also requires leaving one's home or inviting an outsider in (aside from rape of a spouse, of course).
But with children? Children are easily silenced. Children can be kept home if they are bruised. Children are easily intimidated. Children may not even understand that what is happening to them is wrong. Children are, in other words, under someone else's control at pretty much all times. So yes, I think there is a difference. Some sicko can sit at home and view ... virtual child porn, and who is to say that there isn't a child in that home, right then? A child that cannot or will not "tell"?
That is the thing about child abuse, and why ... it is so difficult to protect children. It can happen for years, and no one outside the home have a clue. People in homes will often even claim to not have known.
... things pose different risk factors for children (especially very young children) than they do for the rest of us, simply because it is so easy to hide child abuse, or even make a child think it is "normal".
I think an argument can be made that there is a risk.
Don't you think this is exactly what I've been trying to do?
I don't think the loss of freedom justifies the risk even if I accepted the argument.
Notwithstanding your obvious bet hedging, I'd be very interested to see you expand on this, because this
principle, I believe I'm right in asserting, is the nub of your objection to a ban on virtual child porn. Please:
- What "loss of freedom", exactly and precisely, in the context of virtual child porn, are you alluding to?
- What, exactly and precisely, do you see as the "risk".
And it should go without saying by now, but I'll reiterate it anyhow, we are, of course, when we talk about virtual child porn, talking about
"more or less sexually explicit fabricated images virtually indistinguishable from minors intended to sexually arouse." Of course, if you disagree with that definition to the extent that it affects your response to the aforegoing questions I suggest we agree on a definition first.
I've snipped the rest of your post to which I'm responding here as it was pretty much just more of the same.
