Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

no its rec.phot.equipment.35mm

"Gus" wrote in message
t...
Lionel wrote:

Word has it that on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:44:28 GMT, in this august forum,
"William Graham" said:

(snip)

This is the rec.photo.digital NG, isn't it?

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Asbj=F8rn Bj=F8rnstad wrote:

"Alan Browne" "Alan writes:
=20
=20
You're perverting the message to your conclusion, I merely quoted the=20
opinion that k-p users have a need for real contact. =20
=20
=20
Which is not surprising, but it doesn't mean that the need from
contact came from the use of k-p. It might as well be the other way
around. Why would people want to use k-p if they have no attraction to
underage kids in the first place? I know I don't. It may even be the
case that some people who have a need for real contact are able to
control that need by using k-p instead.

Well, we're falling all over each other in agreement here. The=20
production of k-p, whether real children or 'synthetic' was the issue=20
being discussed, and whether synthetic k-p is a 'victimless' variety=20
that will succor the perverts and prevent them from attacking real=20
children.

I never said that the exitence of k-p creates a need where there was=20
none (although it may be a catalyst also for those who haven't=20
"realized" their attraction). But, in those with the need, it is likely =

to fuel, not satisfy their needs. That is my opinion.

Alan.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

"Alan Browne" "Alan wrote in message
...


Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:

"Alan Browne" "Alan writes:


You're perverting the message to your conclusion, I merely quoted the
opinion that k-p users have a need for real contact.


Which is not surprising, but it doesn't mean that the need from
contact came from the use of k-p. It might as well be the other way
around. Why would people want to use k-p if they have no attraction to
underage kids in the first place? I know I don't. It may even be the
case that some people who have a need for real contact are able to
control that need by using k-p instead.

Well, we're falling all over each other in agreement here. The
production of k-p, whether real children or 'synthetic' was the issue
being discussed, and whether synthetic k-p is a 'victimless' variety
that will succor the perverts and prevent them from attacking real
children.

I never said that the exitence of k-p creates a need where there was
none (although it may be a catalyst also for those who haven't
"realized" their attraction). But, in those with the need, it is likely
to fuel, not satisfy their needs. That is my opinion.

Alan.



I agree respectfully agree with you.

Be careful about photographing your kids!
 

Alan Browne wrote:



Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:

"Alan Browne" "Alan writes:


You're perverting the message to your conclusion, I merely quoted the
opinion that k-p users have a need for real contact.



Which is not surprising, but it doesn't mean that the need from
contact came from the use of k-p. It might as well be the other way
around. Why would people want to use k-p if they have no attraction to
underage kids in the first place? I know I don't. It may even be the
case that some people who have a need for real contact are able to
control that need by using k-p instead.


Well, we're falling all over each other in agreement here. The
production of k-p, whether real children or 'synthetic' was the issue
being discussed, and whether synthetic k-p is a 'victimless' variety
that will succor the perverts and prevent them from attacking real
children.

I never said that the exitence of k-p creates a need where there was
none (although it may be a catalyst also for those who haven't
"realized" their attraction). But, in those with the need, it is likely
to fuel, not satisfy their needs. That is my opinion.

Alan.

To which you are welcome, even if it is wrong. Actually, being an
opinion, it isn't wrong, but doesn't relate at all well to the reality.


But the real question is not what effect it might have on an adult, but
on harm it might have to children, and the question of freedom in that
context. The main argument against KP is that it uses children in a way
they shouldn't be used to give pleasure to others. Synthetic images
harm no one in their creation. So is potential harm enough to justify
restriction of a person's freedom? I think NOT.