Regardless of whether anyone is right to spam unrelated threads, I can think of very good reasons to care about people being sexually attracted to children... even if it's "in private". Who is most likely to start touching kids?
Disclaimer: I have no idea about this 'controversy', though I'm inclined to side with the anti-side, I just don't think that "not caring" is as much of a virtue as is pretended.
What if AI is used to create ultra realistic child porn? Is it okay for a person to look at that because it’s “not hurting anyone”?
I would argue that anyone looking at illustrations of kiddie porn is absolutely harming someone: himself. And we do plenty to protect people from harming themselves, including outlawing various medical practices, sales of certain items and substances, and even certain behaviors that are deemed harmful to society despite “not hurting anyone else”. I’m perfectly happy putting “consumption of animated child porn” on that side of the line.
The whole idea that 'harm' is the only reason for imprisonment or (preventative) detention should be dispensed with. If someone is attracted to children, then we cannot police his mind or his speech, but we certainly can prevent him from acting on it in any way - including watching 'harmless' computer-generated images.
Hahaha, you're seriously obsessed. I see you spamming this shit in various unrelated threads.
You touch kids, you go in the woodchipper. You don't touch kids, I don't care what animated porn you watch in private. This isn't complicated.
Regardless of whether anyone is right to spam unrelated threads, I can think of very good reasons to care about people being sexually attracted to children... even if it's "in private". Who is most likely to start touching kids?
Disclaimer: I have no idea about this 'controversy', though I'm inclined to side with the anti-side, I just don't think that "not caring" is as much of a virtue as is pretended.
What if AI is used to create ultra realistic child porn? Is it okay for a person to look at that because it’s “not hurting anyone”?
I would argue that anyone looking at illustrations of kiddie porn is absolutely harming someone: himself. And we do plenty to protect people from harming themselves, including outlawing various medical practices, sales of certain items and substances, and even certain behaviors that are deemed harmful to society despite “not hurting anyone else”. I’m perfectly happy putting “consumption of animated child porn” on that side of the line.
The whole idea that 'harm' is the only reason for imprisonment or (preventative) detention should be dispensed with. If someone is attracted to children, then we cannot police his mind or his speech, but we certainly can prevent him from acting on it in any way - including watching 'harmless' computer-generated images.
Would you let a loliporn enthusiast watch your children?
Why not?