Oh there's evidence and plenty of it. That's just the point. " when there is none " How do you know this?
Andy, you have implied there is evidence that children at naturist resorts are at greater risk of abduction than children at comparable clothed resorts. You have yet to provide this evidence.
I just don't understand why you get so riled up when someone questions the nudist lifestyle?
I know for a fact that pedophiles go to nudist beaches to get their kicks, so that presents an added danger.
Paedophiles get their kicks everywhere; you imply that children at naturist resorts are at greater risk of abduction than children at comparable clothed resorts; the 'added danger'. You have yet to provide this evidence.
And I was not not talking about added danger, just danger. Do you think Kingdom Halls present added danger?
Ah, so naturist resorts DO NOT present an added danger; but you said in your preceding paragraph they do ... are you in fact clear on what you mean?
Do you actually mean you are uncomfortable with the idea that paedophiles may look at naked children at a naturist resort (ignoring the fact that anyone unattached doing that would stick out like a sore thumb), just as they look at children in other places in society? Do you mean that you feel, even though them being at a naturist resort does not increase the chances of harm befalling that child because they are naked, it is somehow worse than the paedophile looking at the clothed children in a normal playground in the same way?
In BOTH cases, the sexualisation of the situation is due to the psychology of the viewer, NOT due to the actions of the child, the paedophile on the streets; in BOTH cases it is the fact it is a CHILD that motivates the paedophile.
Essentially, just because you're uncomfortable with something THAT HAPPENS ANYWAY (paedophiles looking at children), you would condemn people choosing naturism as a recreational activity, even though there is no increased risk to children from their nudity.
And I stress, again, that despite you saying there is "evidence and plenty of it", you've provided NOTHING. If you are interested in the safety of children one must first dispose any erroneous preconceptions one might have about what constitutes added risk and what can reduce risk. You seem to have fallen victim to some preconceptions and are thus trying to point out the danger naturism represents, when in fact child safety would be better addressed by addressing some of the points I raised.
But, because you have a regular bee in your bonnet about the risk of naturism due to the preconceptions you have, you didn;t even comment on ONE of the points I made.
And yes, as Kingdom Halls can operate under a set of rules that can put child safety in second place, they do possibly present an added danger; this is not true of naturist resorts - unless of course you have evidence.
Well go ahead and defend the nudist lifestyle.
Actually Andy, I'm more attacking the bad argument you are making than defending naturism.
I'm not saying I'm against it, nor am I saying I'm for it.
You don't have to say whether you are for or against it; your preconceptions say it for you.
I'm for the children that's what I am.
Good; will you stop wasting time discussing something which doesn't affect child safety and perhaps give me your thoughts on the comments I made about education, society and therapy? You know, things that can actually protect children in the real world?
I don't think that nudist resorts are the healthiest places for them, just like Kingdom Halls aren't.
Anyway that's all I have to say about it. We'll see in a few years.
Have a good life and peace be with you.
You can think what you like Andy; but to accuse one person of using WT arguments and another of putting the safety of children second when you have not even proved the claim that would partially validate those accusations, and then to declare that's all you have to say (soundly sniffy and injured as you do so) is a bit rich.
Present facts with an argument, and be careful about pointing fingers unless you have the facts to back the finger pointing at hand, and if you don't do this, don't be surprised if you get given a hard time.
It is child safety which is the issue here, not your discomforts or preconceptions.
And, no, I'm not pissed off with you or anything; I just don't agree with you in this discussion.
