Have to agree with Vlad there.
I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that resources
devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are resources that
cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not, usually
not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror about sex
and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of actual risks to
children, especially in the case of boys. Yet pedophiles are the ones
who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive distortion" (!).
And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions and
claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree with?
The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is a
case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry to
include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were never
seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely culturally
determined.
But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
spews whatever. I never read his posts.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|