3 ms·

Yeah but he's using reducto-ad-absurdem to illustrate the law as written is absurd in some cases. So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to t

Yeah but he's using reducto-ad-absurdem to illustrate the law as written is absurd in some cases. So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to the question, but you're missing the larger discussion. At somepoint somebody is gonna actually have to tackle that looking at images, especially fake ones, might not only be harmless, it might be safer to let people get release from their fantasies (I'd be curious to see what the research says). Some day, people will say "Obviously nobody cares if you possess it or look at it, obviously, it's just about MAKING it." I think this is follow the process of weed (unspeakable horror, "drugs will kill you" in dare, 1-strike expulsion from high-school or college) when I was growing up, yet now legal to even grow.

donkeyd 5y ago
> So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to the question, but you're missing the larger discussion. While I do agree that drawings being illegal might not be in anyone's best interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the questions I asked. > At somepoint somebody is gonna actually have to tackle that looking at images, especially fake ones, might not only be harmless, it might be safer I thought I agreed with you for a second, buy "especially fake ones" implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing. I hope I'm wrong about that. > Some day, people will say "Obviously nobody cares if you possess it or look at it, obviously, it's just about MAKING it." Guess I'm not and you really think possession of child pornography is harmless. My god that's depressing. If you are reasoning from the standpoint that the ownership and trade of child pornography is harmless, yes, then I understand that giving up privacy in order to reduce this is a bad thing. Because in your eyes, you're giving up privacy, but you gain nothing.
- zug_zug 5y ago
  >> implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing. Holy cow, that's the worst phrase anybody has ever put into my mouth. That's too offensively disingenuous to warrant any further discussion. Shame on you.
emodendroket 5y ago
It seems just as plausible that viewing such depictions could feed into someone's urges. Without some evidence I'd be hesitant to go with someone's conjectures here. There is also, frankly, the fact that a lot of people find viewing such stuff so shockingly depraved that they don't care if someone is "actually" harmed in the process, a claim that is hard to evaluate in the first place.

donkeyd 5y ago

> So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to the question, but you're missing the larger discussion. While I do agree that drawings being illegal might not be in anyone's best interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the questions I asked. > At somepoint somebody is gonna actually have to tackle that looking at images, especially fake ones, might not only be harmless, it might be safer I thought I agreed with you for a second, buy "especially fake ones" implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing. I hope I'm wrong about that. > Some day, people will say "Obviously nobody cares if you possess it or look at it, obviously, it's just about MAKING it." Guess I'm not and you really think possession of child pornography is harmless. My god that's depressing. If you are reasoning from the standpoint that the ownership and trade of child pornography is harmless, yes, then I understand that giving up privacy in order to reduce this is a bad thing. Because in your eyes, you're giving up privacy, but you gain nothing.

zug_zug 5y ago
>> implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing. Holy cow, that's the worst phrase anybody has ever put into my mouth. That's too offensively disingenuous to warrant any further discussion. Shame on you.

emodendroket 5y ago

It seems just as plausible that viewing such depictions could feed into someone's urges. Without some evidence I'd be hesitant to go with someone's conjectures here. There is also, frankly, the fact that a lot of people find viewing such stuff so shockingly depraved that they don't care if someone is "actually" harmed in the process, a claim that is hard to evaluate in the first place.