3 ms·

That is quite literally what I said though.

• jonathanstrange 6y ago
  No, you suggested that the harm caused in the production is a reason for criminalizing possession, which is what I disagree with. I accept other reasons in this case, but not this one. Which of these positions you endorse has far-reaching consequences for the moral and legal evaluation. It's similar with the "war on drugs" or when you want to evaluate the morality of your sneakers and clothes. Should possession of the drugs be illegal because people were harmed in their production (by e.g. drug cartels), should possession of the clothes be illegal because they were produced with child labour? I don't think so. Edit: To make this clear, I merely replied again to clarify the difference not because I think there is a huge disagreement. This is obviously an unpleasant and contentious topic and I very much hope I don't come across as a CP apologist - I'm not, for the other reason I've mentioned.
  • DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
    Where did I ever imply anything should be criminalized or not? My point is: There's a clear distinction between material that inherently causes harm in its creation and content that may lead to harm in some way. Your extension to drugs or clothing only partially makes sense, as those can be produced without causing harm to or exploiting anybody. I view it as more similar to (knowingly) buying stolen goods.
    • jonathanstrange 6y ago
      I see your point now. That makes sense to me. Thanks for taking the patience to explain your view in detail!