This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?
The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?
I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.
I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.
Yes. There’s no merit in a discussion where one side pushes troubling, hurtful propaganda and ideals, while not being ready to actually back them up with actions. Much like every dictator ever demands for others to make it happen.
Feel free to prove it in real word, Internet dictator.
It was over long ago.
It was over the moment you didn’t read my comment, and responded with nonsense. Ever since, I’ve been trying to get you to admit that mistake, so we could have a real discussion.
By demanding action, you sidestep the actual exchange of ideas. Because online, here in a thread of mere text, ideas and the words that represent them, is all we have. By demanding action, you avoid having to defend your own views at all. You’ve made yourself look utterly devoid of reason to anyone capable of realising that. Which is everyone with their head on straight.
I’d need to be a mod to be a dictator, so I could ban you. Instead I’m right here on your level, trying to use words to explain why you’re wrong. I demand nothing from you, except the basic ability to fucking read. You’re the one demanding the literally impossible. That I bring grand actions as ideological proof, into a fucking anonymous text thread.
You just need to scroll the fuck up, and fucking read what I had to say. You’re still responding as if I think something I don’t. You’re afraid of understanding what I have to say, that you might agree with me if you did, so afraid that you wont take off your beer goggles and look at reality with clear eyes. You’d rather appear insane to anyone watching than risk reality proving you wrong.
“It’s over… B-bbut not really! I don’t care about any further discussion and let me tell you in length just how much I don’t care!”
Predictable. The likes of you are all talk. You can’t get enough of your own words, you feel euphoric about re-reading your comments (and whole discussion while at that) at least a few times.
But that’s just talk, no walk. And as such it deserves no attention.
Would that be all?
We are in an anonymous text thread. There is only talk here, the moment you began demanding a walk, that was just you sticking your fingers into your ears and going “laalaalaa”. I will not stop trying to pull them out.
And I’m not afraid of admitting I care. Maybe I can’t change your stance on this matter, but I want to at least make you think about how utterly idiotic your discussion methods are. How you’ve undermined your own position by sidestepping a real discussion, and hence leaving your actual points undefended. All you have left is to keep claiming you’re still on top, but with no language to actually show that is the case.
“This is the end of discussion!”
Right. Self-importance, helluiva drug, am I right?
…but it didn’t prevent you from using “everyone who may read it will think you idiot” argument.
You’re not thinking straight.
Would that be all, or are you going to continue, still trying to avoid your responsibilites?
What responsibilities? What part of what I’ve said tells you I’m avoiding them?
I want you to see the errors you’ve made in presenting your argument and dismantling mine. I point out third parties because I want to provoke YOU into taking an outside look at your own words.
Then we’ll be able to talk for real. Not this mudslinging that idiots do.
Classic.
Same old repertoire of a coward faced with “proof yourself right” dillema.
Anyway.
Would that be all?
And for the record, these attempts at my character are pointless, even if I were everything you accuse me of, that still wouldn’t invalidate what I have to say.
Dismantling someone’s character, does not automatically dismantle their argument.
You should think before you began makeing pro-pedophilia claims and then pretending you didn’t, while also avoiding the responsibility of delivering a proof when called on your bullshit.
But you didn’t.
Hence my full right to call you what you are.
Now, would that be all?
I see you’re in the final stages of clamming up completely. This string of non-responses is an attempt at annoying me until I go away.
You’ve given up on trying to actually prove me wrong, because you can’t. Or at least don’t know how to properly try.
Please, figure it out. If not for me, then the next exchange you engage in.
What I don’t see is any proof that your ideas arn’t anything but pro-pedophila propaganda that is meant to be “someone else’s problem”.
But, of course, you won’t ever deliver any kind of proof that it’s not.
So, would that be all?