And loli doesn't involve the idea of kids? Only the appearance? Which isn't an idea? If anything ideas are more well defended by the first amendment than images. You're going to need an x-ray laser to split hair this fine. If the argument is sound in regards to loli it is sound in regards to our mentally disturbed friend here as well.
It's not even about defending kids against rapists, it's more about the base assumption, that those who like said thing may be somewhat deviant. I don't think people who view such things are going to rape a child, but there's a scale of deviancy, and they exist on it somewhere.
Sex stories involving kids? If the pro loli crowd are being consistent, they'll continue their: "this is just like killing hookers in GTA" argument.
Involving the idea of kids.
Because that argument is indeed sound.
And loli doesn't involve the idea of kids? Only the appearance? Which isn't an idea? If anything ideas are more well defended by the first amendment than images. You're going to need an x-ray laser to split hair this fine. If the argument is sound in regards to loli it is sound in regards to our mentally disturbed friend here as well.
Not really. (And with modern technology we've split things millions of times thinner than hair.)
Someone killing you violates your Rights. Someone fantasizing about killing you does not.
Someone robbing a bank violates Property Rights of the bank owners. Someone fantasizing about robbing a bank does not.
Etc.
We all want to virtue signal about how much we want to defend children from rapists, but our legal philosophy has to be logically consistent.
It's not even about defending kids against rapists, it's more about the base assumption, that those who like said thing may be somewhat deviant. I don't think people who view such things are going to rape a child, but there's a scale of deviancy, and they exist on it somewhere.
I may have misunderstood your prior post. I thought you were saying this situation was different from loli rather than the same.