But Kev, correlation alone means nothing. Take a survey of convicted sex offenders about their favorite foods. 80% like pizza. So there's a correlation between child sex offenders and pizza too. "Normal" people view porn. Fetishists view porn. Wouldn't it stand to reason that sexual deviants also view porn? You have to consider that viewing porn came from their original desire for underage sex, not the other way around. They were potential sex offenders first, then the porn is a second thought. In other words the porn didn't push them over the edge. From personal experience as a human being, I didn't look at porn and go "Man I really need to try that now. I had no interest in sex before but now that I've watched porn, I will go fulfill my desires."
Originally Posted by kev ferrara
Doesn't that bother you? If many laws jumped off a bridge would you do it too? I'm not understanding the appeal to majority here. It's okay to make poor laws because most of them are poor?
This is obviously not a perfect correlation, and therefore wildly imperfect law. But many laws are wildly imperfect.
And this is an appeal to antiquity. The basic premise that fear correlates to something worthy of being afraid of is a primitive reaction to perceived danger. Obviously when an animal feels threatened they make a flight or fight decision, but there's little romantic about it. It's not a testament to the accuracy of those on-the-fly decisions.
I do not discount fears as legitimate just because they can't be quantified. Human beings have survived for hundreds of thousands of years based on acting on the premise that fears correlate to something worthy of being afraid of. Again, this is an imperfect correlation, yet here we are eons later still around.
Humans are still here after the bubonic plague, hundreds of thousands of years without electricity, clean water, clean food or medical care. Only some of us survived by the way. Lots of us died.
The fear is not baseless but it's irrational. It provides no catharsis about the situation. It doesn't alleviate the pervert in the room with your child it just tells you to bypass it.
The question I was getting at is, why
someone would be afraid of putting their child in that situation. Is the fear completely unfounded? (And I am trying to keep it specific, rather than generalized, which is why I chose to specifically indicate a 10 year old girl. So people cannot escape the reality of the situation nor the emotional component through a retreat into abstraction.)
I must say the call to emotion is quite cheap though. It can be applied to any hot-button discussion and have a similar impact. War on terror: Would you let your child sit in a room with a terrorist? Gay marriage: Would you let your child sit ina room with a homosexual? Health-care: Would you let your child sit in a room with a socialist? Abortion: Would you let your pregnant wife sit in a room with a doctor who has performed abortions? This is an unnecessary diversion.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."