How police broke net pedophile ring

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:11:47 +0930, David
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:12:50 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
typed furiously:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:09:46 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:47:29 +0930, David
wrote:

no it is a flawed failure of a though experiment by nudist_emy...
who said she was replacing child porn down loaders with murders to
make her point..

however she replaced unconvicted child porn down loaders with citizens
instead which made a total nonsense of her analogy..
----------------------------
Yours is a logically defective assertion.

She replaced your convicted and unconvicted porn-downlaoders in two
groups who might molest or not molest,

With:

Convicted and unconvicted TV eatchers of murcer mysteries (if TV were
illegal) in two groups who might murder or not murder.

She did this to show you that attempting to infer from interviews
ONLY with convicted downloader/molesters that ANYONE who downloads
is apt to also be a molester is logically defective and erroneous.


the onus is still on you to explain why the habits of convicted child
porn downloaders should differ from convicted ones..
------------------------------------------
You mean convicted from unconvicted. You're assuming that two groups
that have one thing in common must have more than one thing, and that's
a logical fallacy. Downloading porn for one group is separable from
molesting, whereas perhaps for molesters it either is or is not.

It is like rape and adult-porn. All rapists might enjoy porn, but do
all those who enjoy porn rape?? No.

That's as stupid as suggesting that since death-row murderers chew
gum, that you too might be a future death-row inmate if YOU chew gum.

In formal logic this is called the chewing-gum leading to the "harder
stuff" analogy. All heroin users started out chewing gum, that means
that chewing gum leads to heroin use. (Which it does NOT!)

research and the of the experience of the police shows not that child
pornography *leads * to child molestation but that child molesters use
it both to stimulate their sick lusts and to corrupt and groom their
child victims..

That is what we have been saying to you, over and over and over again.

Well this Usenet pedophile is getting 20 years minimum for his child
porn "enjoyments" and maybe life imprisonment..
---------------------------
Irrelevant to the topic of the discussion, which is, once again, what
the law SHOULD be and why! We all know kiddie porn is being prosecuted,
why would you imagine that you can sway ANYBODY'S opinion here by
reciting instances of prosecution? Merely stating the law and some
instances of its current application is NOT on topic, and it means
NOTHING. The topic is regarding CHANGING the law!
Steve