This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

  • JesterRaiin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see

    What I don’t see is any proof that your ideas arn’t anything but pro-pedophila propaganda that is meant to be “someone else’s problem”.

    But, of course, you won’t ever deliver any kind of proof that it’s not.

    So, would that be all?

    • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I keep laughing at this “someone elses problem” point. I can’t refute it without revealing way too much personal info, its such a perfect non-argument.

      You don’t know shit about how close I’ve been to these matters irl, and I can’t tell you.

      • JesterRaiin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Keep it to the single branch of discussion, since you don’t have much to say anyway, please.

          • JesterRaiin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s no fight. You lost long time ago when you decided to prove that you’re just another case of a script following online “philosopher” high on his own words and the feeling of self-importance.

            I’ll keep responding, but my attention lies elsewhere, much like it did since you showed your true “no walk” colors.

            Would that be all?

        • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How about three fronts? I have a lot to say so more bite-sized bits would help get through you non-existent attention span.

            • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Look at it this way, I didn’t declare an end to our delightful little chat, I declared my victory in the original matter.

              You stopped forwarding arguments and counter-arguments two comments in, giving me the win by default.

              All you have left, is acting like the ball is in my court and I’m the one who is refusing to make the next move.

                • MentalEdge@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  "Observe, as the creature finally clams up completely, refusing all exchange. Resorting to a final four words that carry no meaning whatsoever, except the implied ‘fuck you’.

                  Truly, a deep thinker of the interwebs."