Tim DavisVerified account

Not to be insensitive, and while I feel sad for his loved ones, how do you think the children that were victims in the videos he knowingly collected, would feel seeing him described as such? Being a 'broken man' does not remove the fact that he had a child pornography collection.

I acknowledged that in my post. No minimization of the crime. It was awful. I'm talking about having compassion, and not adding to the vitriol.

I’m also a victim of abuse and never abused anyone. I’m very open about the abuse I went through and constantly have to deal with people thinking that anyone who gets abused will turn around and do the same. It’s NOT true. This tweet needs its own therapy session.

I've never heard anyone claim that all who are abused become abusers. What IS the case is that many (if not most) who ARE abusers were themselves abused. People respond to trauma in all manner of different ways. I think the post was intended to minimize cruelty to his family.

I have heard it far too many times, and when it’s not said directly, it’s implied. Mark was NOT a broken man. He was an evil person who chose to do evil things. People who go through abuse aren’t automatically broken. I am not broken.

But many who endure abuse ARE broken. The numbers are too outrageously high for people to claim no link b/w being abused and becoming abusers. That /= the acts aren't evil too, but if the *abusers* were simply evil by nature you'd expect their abuse rates to mirror national avgs

You're wrong actually. Men who suffer sexual abuse as children are only 1% more likely to be sex offenders and a gigantic margin are not victims of abuse (nearly 88%) based on multiple studies. Here's one of them https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2082860/ …

1.) You misread that study (didn't find what you state) and 2.) Studies vary pretty widely, but generally, abusers are between 3 & 7 times more likely to have suffered abuse as a child. The average is that about 35-40% were victims, some studies find as high as 75%.

FYI Tim, I personally know someone who suffered from sexual abuse between the ages of 9 - 14 at the hands of different perpetrators years ago and he is not a sexual predator so please stop painting all victims with the same brush as your "buddy".

He didn't do that at all. "All ravens are black" does not imply that "all black objects are ravens." Most who become abusers were themselves abused, but that does not imply that the converse is true (e.g., most who are abused become abusers).

Please stop with the attempts at obfuscation here when childhood sexual abuse is something that hits very close to home for my family and many others too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2732083.stm …

That is what's called an appeal to emotion, but I am simply pointing out the logical distinction. It is not 'obfuscation.' To claim that most abusers were abused (true) is not the same as claiming most who are abused become abusers (false).

Ok, no wonder. You were citing a study from 16 years ago.