This isn't about "obscene," it's about a very specific and particular form of obscene action, and that action is predation upon children. Yes, I am going to look down on that particular inclination and no amount of finger-wagging by you is going to dissuade me from making that particular value judgment. Fucking kids, wanting to fuck kids, buddying around with those who fuck kids, and catering to those who want to fuck kids, is all capital N, capital O, Not Okay.
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
You say "oh dear oh no oh my just imagine where this may lead if we proscribe kid-fucking content as Not Okay," and I say motherfucking go for it. This is one slide I'm willing to slide down, which I don't even agree with you that it is, and find it highly "sus" as the kids say that this is the particular kind of content you'd dedicate this many paragraphs of clutched pearls in defense of.
In the world of actual catching of criminals using criminal psychology, and not the pedophile-enabling trope of "oh no depriving pedophiles of their outlet might lead them to real action instead of constraining their activities to jerkin' it to cartoons," literally every kid-fucker has used this fantastical content to prepare themselves for the real thing. You have to theorize the non-offending pedophile and theorize that his stash of CP keeps him from acting out.
Well, I don't subscribe to your theories of kid-fucking, the content you're protecting by way of a thin veneer of Principle is straight-up fucking Evil, and you are either in love with making horrible arguments in favor of evil things, on the internet, or you're an interested party to this, in which case [redacted thanks Dom free speech uber alles].
You need a standard , and in this rambling and moral grandstanding you haven't presented one
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
Ok let's view this, you say this material comes from a desire to abuse children so those that view this material will have this desire and act on it. Where else have we heard this before?
The shooter played Doom before his rampage, clearly this material affected his cognitive behaviour and made him more inclined to act on it
Same argument, different material and conclusion. This is an appeal to morality with no safeguards that allow for overreaction and overreach.
I go by two points, what is my objectives and is it effective. I want to stop child abuse so what might be effective, at this point removing them from state education, having more community schooling and keeping them out of all media companies. Does banning these fictional drawings help that, no, might it make my objectives harder, yes because the ones that would've just viewed these materials might go to more private parts of the Internet to continue viewing them and that puts them in contact with the actual predators.
You're puritanical view would probably create more abuse than stop it, you'd just be happy you don't see the degenerate art anymore.
That's the standard. Only KID FUCKERS spent their time upon this Earth making impassioned arguments for the utility of KID FUCK MATERIAL.
You can take your kid-fuckery, and your "harumph good chap well and all" crap and fuck yourself and your kid-fuckery to the Moon and back, except not back.
Again with the purity spiral, is the common leftist way of arguing nowadays. Though the right can do it too as I remember in the 90s and 2000s with video games, ah those where saner times.
Other than you apparently calling everyone that disagrees with your arguments a pedophiles, what are your goals? What is your objective? What is your evidence that A: fictional drawings depicting taboo acts leads to B: real abuse on children?
And if your argument is only "BECAUSE ONLY KID FUCKERS VIEW THIS MATERIAL WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS YOU KID FUCKER!" Then you are little more than a moral grandstanding busy body with no plan or solutions in place that will cause the problem to get worse by trying to hide or ban the material that you find degenerate that going for the real issues (human trafficking, loose immigration laws or just not enforced immigration laws, state education/indoctrination, elites using it as a form of blackmail control, media personalities abusing their fame and access to commit these crimes)
I put them WAY ahead for dealing with than a few drawings on the Internet.
There is no "spiral," bud, there is just a simple DON'T FUCK KIDS.
This isn't hard. Just don't fuck kids. Don't pretend to fuck kids. Don't talk about fucking kids. Don't draw pictures of fucking kids. Don't sell pictures of fucking kids to people who want to fuck kids.
I have no idea (I have some idea) why this concept is so fucking hard for you.
Ok groomer.
This isn't about "obscene," it's about a very specific and particular form of obscene action, and that action is predation upon children. Yes, I am going to look down on that particular inclination and no amount of finger-wagging by you is going to dissuade me from making that particular value judgment. Fucking kids, wanting to fuck kids, buddying around with those who fuck kids, and catering to those who want to fuck kids, is all capital N, capital O, Not Okay.
You say this is a slide, I say slide be damned, this particular obscenity, and let's get back on the slide for moment to observe the slide itself, and not your imagined destination by way of sliding, is FUCKING KIDS. Get it through your thick skull that THIS, is NOT OKAY.
You say "oh dear oh no oh my just imagine where this may lead if we proscribe kid-fucking content as Not Okay," and I say motherfucking go for it. This is one slide I'm willing to slide down, which I don't even agree with you that it is, and find it highly "sus" as the kids say that this is the particular kind of content you'd dedicate this many paragraphs of clutched pearls in defense of.
In the world of actual catching of criminals using criminal psychology, and not the pedophile-enabling trope of "oh no depriving pedophiles of their outlet might lead them to real action instead of constraining their activities to jerkin' it to cartoons," literally every kid-fucker has used this fantastical content to prepare themselves for the real thing. You have to theorize the non-offending pedophile and theorize that his stash of CP keeps him from acting out.
Well, I don't subscribe to your theories of kid-fucking, the content you're protecting by way of a thin veneer of Principle is straight-up fucking Evil, and you are either in love with making horrible arguments in favor of evil things, on the internet, or you're an interested party to this, in which case [redacted thanks Dom free speech uber alles].
You need a standard , and in this rambling and moral grandstanding you haven't presented one
Ok let's view this, you say this material comes from a desire to abuse children so those that view this material will have this desire and act on it. Where else have we heard this before?
The shooter played Doom before his rampage, clearly this material affected his cognitive behaviour and made him more inclined to act on it
Same argument, different material and conclusion. This is an appeal to morality with no safeguards that allow for overreaction and overreach.
I go by two points, what is my objectives and is it effective. I want to stop child abuse so what might be effective, at this point removing them from state education, having more community schooling and keeping them out of all media companies. Does banning these fictional drawings help that, no, might it make my objectives harder, yes because the ones that would've just viewed these materials might go to more private parts of the Internet to continue viewing them and that puts them in contact with the actual predators.
You're puritanical view would probably create more abuse than stop it, you'd just be happy you don't see the degenerate art anymore.
The standard is NO FUCKING KIDS.
FUCK OFF KID FUCKER.
That's the standard. Only KID FUCKERS spent their time upon this Earth making impassioned arguments for the utility of KID FUCK MATERIAL.
You can take your kid-fuckery, and your "harumph good chap well and all" crap and fuck yourself and your kid-fuckery to the Moon and back, except not back.
Again with the purity spiral, is the common leftist way of arguing nowadays. Though the right can do it too as I remember in the 90s and 2000s with video games, ah those where saner times.
Other than you apparently calling everyone that disagrees with your arguments a pedophiles, what are your goals? What is your objective? What is your evidence that A: fictional drawings depicting taboo acts leads to B: real abuse on children?
And if your argument is only "BECAUSE ONLY KID FUCKERS VIEW THIS MATERIAL WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS YOU KID FUCKER!" Then you are little more than a moral grandstanding busy body with no plan or solutions in place that will cause the problem to get worse by trying to hide or ban the material that you find degenerate that going for the real issues (human trafficking, loose immigration laws or just not enforced immigration laws, state education/indoctrination, elites using it as a form of blackmail control, media personalities abusing their fame and access to commit these crimes)
I put them WAY ahead for dealing with than a few drawings on the Internet.
There is no "spiral," bud, there is just a simple DON'T FUCK KIDS.
This isn't hard. Just don't fuck kids. Don't pretend to fuck kids. Don't talk about fucking kids. Don't draw pictures of fucking kids. Don't sell pictures of fucking kids to people who want to fuck kids.
I have no idea (I have some idea) why this concept is so fucking hard for you.