The whole legal theory behind criminalizing child porn is that the subjects are minors, can't consent.....
Look, I get it. A fun thought experiment. But then you step back a bit and realize that you are laying the foundational groundwork for the justification for open possession of AI generated super degeneracy. Remind yourself what you are arguing for. You are chewing on a poisoned apple. Just leave it alone. Keep your head holy.
/Don't carry water for your enemies.
//I see a "societal benefit" of it not existing in the first place.
You are chewing on a poisoned apple. Just leave it alone
This line of reasoning equally applies to "don't defend it, let them criminalize thought crimes and things with no legal basis other than they don't like it." Because it never stops at obvious and justified.
Which is why its an actual problem instead of a "fun thought experiment" with an entire Supreme Court case behind it as being 100% legal once.
Are we doing the "meeee, slippery slope" argument?
We are very clearly talking about the creation of images that imitate the appearance of children, designed to produce sexual stimulation and response. A physical recreation. It is not simply a thought crime. It is a clear line.
Acknowledging the obvious argument I will make doesn't make the argument wrong, but good try there.
It is a clear line.
It isn't and the fact that you think it is shows how little thought you've put into it. You should try reading the Supreme Court case on it, you might learn something.
But I guess someone who goes with "hey, you don't want to look like a BAD GUY for defending this do you? Don't defend it, just let it happen" as a rationale doesn't want to delve into complexities and consequences. Better to just stick with "ME NO LIKE" as all legal basis.
You think I care about the Supreme Court's opinion on pornography? I am decades on this earth beyond that. "Know it when I see it" or what John Ashcroft has to say about the matter is irrelevant.
The original point stands. Do not waste your time providing cover for content of such a profane nature. It is not an argument in support of personal freedom. It is an argument in support of cultural degeneracy.
/Don't carry water for your enemies.
//I see a "societal benefit" of it not existing in the first place.
This line of reasoning equally applies to "don't defend it, let them criminalize thought crimes and things with no legal basis other than they don't like it." Because it never stops at obvious and justified.
Which is why its an actual problem instead of a "fun thought experiment" with an entire Supreme Court case behind it as being 100% legal once.
Are we doing the "meeee, slippery slope" argument?
We are very clearly talking about the creation of images that imitate the appearance of children, designed to produce sexual stimulation and response. A physical recreation. It is not simply a thought crime. It is a clear line.
Acknowledging the obvious argument I will make doesn't make the argument wrong, but good try there.
It isn't and the fact that you think it is shows how little thought you've put into it. You should try reading the Supreme Court case on it, you might learn something.
But I guess someone who goes with "hey, you don't want to look like a BAD GUY for defending this do you? Don't defend it, just let it happen" as a rationale doesn't want to delve into complexities and consequences. Better to just stick with "ME NO LIKE" as all legal basis.
You think I care about the Supreme Court's opinion on pornography? I am decades on this earth beyond that. "Know it when I see it" or what John Ashcroft has to say about the matter is irrelevant.
The original point stands. Do not waste your time providing cover for content of such a profane nature. It is not an argument in support of personal freedom. It is an argument in support of cultural degeneracy.