Sunday, March 09, 2008

Runner Up To The IWA

Idiot Says Internet Predators no big deal.


Hey folks,

I still cannot get over this one. I really can’t. This guy is a complete Moron when it comes to this. He is sending a dangerous message to your kids, and to stupid adults out there. If they believe this Idiot, they will lower their already lacking concern and supervision on what their kids are doing on the Computer. There are almost no words for this one. According to Live Science - Study Debunks Web Predator Myths by Benjamin Radford

Don't believe the hype.

It's not just Flavor Flav's catchphrase, it's good advice for parents, teachers, police, and anyone else concerned about the threat of Internet predators.

According to a new study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, most of what you think about Web-based sex predators is probably wrong.

The study, published in the February/March issue of the journal American Psychologist and titled, Online 'Predators' and Their Victims: Myths, Realities and Implications for Prevention, was based on three surveys: two of teen Internet users, and one involving hundreds of interviews with law enforcement officials. The results reveal that the stereotype of the Internet 'predator' who uses trickery and violence to assault children is largely inaccurate.

Much of the public's concern comes from fear-mongering journalism. While TV shows like NBC's To Catch a Predator and the Today Show gain high ratings scaring parents into thinking that threats to children lurk around every corner and abound on the Web, the reality is quite the opposite.

In face of all the evidence to the contrary. I love “experts.”

Among the study's findings:

Myth# 1: The sexual abuse of children has jumped, largely because of the surge in Internet predators.

Despite popular belief (and a fact-challenged 2001 Newsweek magazine headline that claimed that the Internet has created a shocking increase in childhood exploitation of children ), sex assaults on teens dropped significantly (more than 50 percent) between 1990 and 2005. Ironically, it is the alarmist news coverage of sex offenses that has jumped dramatically over the past decade-not the attacks themselves.

PROOF? Can we get some PROOF?

Myth #2: Internet predators are a new threat to children.

In fact, the largest threat to children always has been, and remains, the child's parents and caregivers. Children are in far more danger of being abused, kidnapped, or killed by their parents than any stranger on the street or on the Web. While the Internet is a new way for some predators to find victims, if the Internet had not been invented they would have found victims in other ways-at home, school, or church, for example.

It’s all the evil parents out there. Idiots.

Myth #3: Children should not interact with strangers online because of the potential for abuse.

If there is one thing that the Internet does better than anything else, it is connecting people who don't know each other. That's the magic of the World Wide Web; it's just as easy to communicate online with someone around the block as around the world. Of course everyone (including kids and teens) should be careful about divulging personal information, but in virtual life, just as in real life, the vast majority of strangers are not a threat.

Yes, like NAMBLA, the Internet just brings people together. No threats. No bad guys. Just be careful and go have fun.

Myth #4: Most Internet predators are pedophiles.

The public largely assumes that people looking for sex online are targeting young children, but that's not true. In fact, most predators seek relationships and sex from teens and adolescents, not from younger children.

Yes 13 year olds are not as bad as 10 year olds. Come on folks, didn’t you know that?

Myth #5: Internet predators often use deception to abduct and forcibly rape their victims.

The reality is that Web predators rarely use deception; most victims are well aware that the person they are communicating with online is an adult interested in sex. The predators rarely trick or force their victims into sex; they don't need to because the victims often voluntarily meet with them, intending to have sex. Most Web predators are guilty of statutory-not forcible-rape because the victim is under the age of consent.

And of course there is nothing wrong with that. If the Kids know the Pervert,, Uh, I mean, the adult relationship challenged person wants to have sex with them, and they go because THEY want to have sex. All is well.

Misplaced concern

There is no doubt that Internet predators are real, and do pose a threat. But the real danger is the public's deeply flawed understanding of the problem.

It’s YOUR fault. You are the “real dangers.” {Laughing}

“To prevent these crimes, we need accurate information about their true dynamics,” said Janis Wolak, lead author of the study. “The things that we hear and fear and the things that actually occur may not be the same.”

Nah.

Until the news media start accurately characterizing child sexual abuse and the real dangers of Internet predation, America's children will remain at greater risk.

OK. HOW? Could someone explain that to me?

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. He wrote about sex offender panics and Megan's Law in his book Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us. This and other books can be found on his website.

I checked out this guy’s website. Some of his stuff is interesting. Most is so far from reality that it’s not even funny, but this is completely idiotic, and dangerous. Congratulations Benjamin, you are NOT the Idiot of the Week. You were beat out by the dugy that says Moses was a drugy. If not for him, you would be.
Peter

Sources:
Live Science - Study Debunks Web Predator Myths
RadfordBooks.com - Website

2 comments:

samspade said...

One fact of life that everyone should know whether it is in politics or ordinary life there will always be studies or assertions out there that prove some one's point even if it contradicts most knowledge or morals.

Sex with children, sure why not because they(the children) really want it.

Drugs, why not after all doing drugs harms no one and is a right of passage into adulthood.

The list goes on and on.

I was reading something on the views of libertarians the other day and it says that someone should be able to do what they wanted as long as it harmed no one else.

The problem is who defines what harms someone else? Is it that person who thinks that having sex with children is good for the children?

I am sure you get the picture.

Peter said...

Hey Sam,

Oh I get the picture.

Even more sad than that is when someone points out the fact that they are wrong, the one that points it out is the one that has the problem. They are either to close minded or just plain to stupid to understand. Right?
Peter