Reflections, Reflections

If that wasn´t obvious enough simply by the fact that Instapundit and Ed Cones bother to read the NYT, even more telling is how much they have the illusion that they can read.

Ed Cone:
I read the article. I was duly horrified. But when I got to the part where Roy goes all pervy, there was nothing to suggest that the Internet had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with his sickness.

Yes, he spied on his stepdaughter's IM conversations, and propositioned her online. But so what? This guy started getting his sick thoughts on the beach, or perhaps long before. He would have been listening to her phone calls and approaching her in the hallway if he wasn't wired. The Internet is a bogeyman trotted out to spice up the tale, but (in this case) without context.

Cheap shot, NYT.

NYT excerpt - "The Making of a Molester":

I asked about the Internet, whether it may bear any causal responsibility along the path toward offending. ''It's a fairly complicated issue,'' Berlin said, and one for which there appears to be, again, no solid research. ''I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Internet creates desire, but I do think it is creating significant difficulties.'' To some extent, he explained, it is merely a ''new and different vehicle'' for those who would offend against children anyway. But it ''provides temptation for some who might not otherwise have crossed the line.'' He added: ''There are three areas of concern. First, the illusion of anonymity -- an illusion because Internet use can be easily tracked -- leads to disinhibition. Second, there's a blurring of fantasy and reality. There's someone at the other end of the Internet conversation, but it's not quite a real person; there's a feeling of playing a game that can lead to actually doing what one otherwise wouldn't. Third, the easy accessibility can facilitate'' moving over boundaries.

It´s about a means to disinhibition. Apparently a concept Instapundit and others can´t grasp. One more example of how Instapundit doesn´t have a single position on issues of sexual violence, dysfunction, or sexuality that is intelligent or responsible.

Note2: The NYT doesn´t have enough ethics to do a story on a homo molester. Nor on women either. Or other categories.