The claim you are referring to is somewhere in the following quote of mine: For one, you may be saying that it is ridiculous to claim that somebody looking at pictures of molestation does not cause the person in the picture to be molested all over again. Now it is essentially a waste of time to argue with people like you due to the fact that you are very similar to religious fanatics. All of the scientific information in the world is not going to convince a religious fundamentalist that their religion has no basis in reality. Regardless, I will attempt to summarize my logic, yet again. First of all it may help to understand what a photograph is and what it is not. Despite the beliefs of various non-modernized superstitious tribal groups, photography is not magic. Photographs do not steal the soul of those photographed. http://www.answers.com/topic/magic-and-superstition Additionally, despite the claims of many who profit off of enslaving the consumers of child pornography, it seems highly unlikely that a form of quantum entanglement takes place between a photograph of a molested child and the molested child. If this quantum entanglement really did take place, molested children would be used as quantum key exchange networks by the military, as described in my previous posts. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/quantum-teleportation-distance/ Now that I have established that photography is not magical, and also have given supporting evidence that molested children do not become entangled with the images of their molestation, I hope that you can understand why I do not believe pedophiles looking at images of CP cause the molested child depicted to be molested all over again. Now you could argue that it is a violation of the depicted child's property rights and I wont really disagree with you. At worst, a pedophile looking at CP, without the permission of the depicted child, has committed a minor property violation, about on par with illegally downloading a movie from a torrent site. Of course if you are against the idea of intellectual property, then you cannot even argue this. Of course you could be taking issue with my claim that we should be sensitive to the people being arrested for child pornography possession. Well, this is pretty obvious. Since looking at images does not cause children to be molested, from either magic or quantum entanglement, we must conclude that looking at pictures of child pornography is not equal to molesting children. Despite this fact, people who are arrested for downloading CP are often given sentences that are equal to or even harsher than those given to child molesters. This would make sense if viewing CP was WORSE than child molestation, but this is pretty obviously not the case. When a child is molested it quite clearly causes them emotional and psychological damage, oftentimes it causes them physical damage. When a pedophile, or anyone else, anonymously views an image of CP, there is no damage caused to anybody, not through magical properties of photography and not through some form of quantum entanglement. As molestation is clearly a victim producing crime, and viewing CP is clearly a victimless crime, we must feel great sympathy for those who are treated as child molesters despite clearly not being child molesters. I personally feel about as bad for people arrested for viewing CP, as I would feel for somebody who is treated like a pedophile for having downloaded a random movie off of a torrent site. Hopefully this clears up the logic of my claims! As far as my grasp on reality, I feel that it is actually a painfully tight grasp. It is probably actually too tight as the vast majority of society consists of illogical fuckwits who are quite literally programmed by the power elite into holding certain beliefs. I would be much happier and make far more friends if I had a significantly weaker grasp on reality. Unfortunately for me, I refuse to become insane simply to win a popularity contest. As far as my security skills go, well I have been developing those since I was barely pubescent myself, so I guess that throws your theory out the window.