I'm sorry about your past trauma, I have no doubt it was ultra shitty for you and it's had negative lasting impact on your life. Being a CSA survivor doesnt make you an expert on the psychology of the subject, however, so unless you actually have something other than anecdote...
-
Sure that's fine. The point remains: we agree on more than we disagree on, and what we disagree on is one aspect of a vanishing problem that's been declining for almost 40 years. >>
This fact also remains: as the female parent of children, you are are more likely to physically, sexually, mentally, and emotionally abuse (and even murder) your children than people jacking it to cartoons.
-
-
If you can't continue to support your own fucking argument without personally attacking bitty or Stix, then your argument isn't very good.
- Tweet unavailable
-
I would give my life for my children. They’re everything to me so for some fuckhead to insinuate that I would hurt them is way out of line!
- Tweet unavailable
-
Honestly should’ve stopped when he implied that pedophiles consuming CP is “harmless”.
-
I think I shut him up for now, at least.
-
Not even slightly. I was driving :) But yeah, as far as well-reasoned, rational, respectful debate, you're not exactly the person to be taking cues from.
- 24 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps the demography of the UK is different, but in the US, child abuse is committed 80-90% of the time by somebody the child already knows, and 70% of the time it's an elder family member. When it's a parent, it's about a 60/40 split on the mother because moms stick around.
-
I'm more "Yikes"ing at the fact that this is nothing more than an attack. It is completely irrelevant to the current conversation and just makes you look like a complete ass. Have a discussion about topics all you want but don't bring people's children into stuff.
-
It's not an attack. Family members are the greatest danger to children's safety, period. It's a fact. Does it suck, sure, but the stranger danger narrative isn't supported by the facts of who presents the greater threat. It's too easy to point at boogeymen rather than the mirror.
-
The real point is that it was the wrong place to say it. Theres a time and a place for things like that. It just looks like you were trying to silence them by bringing up a directed attack.
-
So when is the right point, in a topic about the threats posed to children, to point out what the largest threat is?
-
So you generally believe that we should just point fingers and make excuses instead of condemning all forms of it? Cub Porn. Not okay. Abuse. Not okay. No one was denying that. Just admit you only did it as an attempt to silence and be done with it.
-
I did it as an attempt to reframe the argument that "maximal harm reduction" is the strategy we should be going for, not "ostracize and vilify people with a psychiatric disorder to make them less likely to seek help and more likely to offend."
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.