uk: 
 berlin. 
 HR1qwT1hjtOnb0ATXwbbTQRS2EU 
 Received: 
 Qx9S77mHd7/ 
 From: martinharran@gmail.com 
  
 On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 14:00:30 +0000, Max Demian  
 wrote: 
  
 >On 04/11/2025 22:13, Martin Harran wrote: 
 >> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 19:32:30 +0000, The Todal  
 >> wrote: 
 > 
 >>> How about a more commonplace example: friendship with a good friend or 
 >>> family member who was in trouble with the police for downloading 
 >>> indecent photographs of children? And who was in huge distress because 
 >>> it meant the end of his marriage and his career and his contact with his 
 >>> children, and a likely prison sentence? 
 >>> 
 >>> Would your friendship be wholly dependent on hearing a form of words 
 >>>from him that satisfied you that he repented of his actions? 
 >> 
 >> First and foremost, I would want to be certain that he is no longer a 
 >> threat to children. 
 > 
 >Except that access to the pictures (which, according to current law, 
 >could be age old, cartoons or even AI generated) must be regarded as 
 >lessening his "threat to children". 
  
 In some cases it *might* but on what grounds do you claim it *must* be 
 regarded as doing so? 
  
  
 > 
 >How do think that sexual desire works? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)