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.
What is wrong with you, that you’re defending the worst that mankind has ever spawned and proceed to screams and insults once you’re asked to prove the worthiness of your own philosophy?
Ditto.
But it’s typical for the likes of you - you always explode once asked to actually “be the change you wanna see in the world”.
Hey, you exploded first by spouting shit that made no sense if you had actually bothered reading what I had to say.
I’m just coming down to your level so we can continue to slug it out.
And what makes you so sure I’m not being the change I want to see? I already explained that if I were, admitting to it is not an option due to the stigma around the condition.
And the change you’re suggesting I need to engage in to prove myself, is fucking stupid. You’re attacking opinions I don’t even hold, it makes you look the fool.
Multiplication of comments is the prime proof of emotional approach. Too emotional.
DO NOT do that.
Oh, it’s one of my favorite tactics against people who won’t read past the first paragraph.
By splitting up my arguments into multiple smaller comments, I can circumvent the thick skulls of these people and force more of what I’m saying to get through.
There’s nothing emotional about it, though I did use that as an excuse to open up a second front. We can close it if you like.
Your favorites don’t matter. Only the strength of your arguments.
And since you’re not ready to back them up with any action, they are weak, a mere static in the Net. As it should be - no pedophile apologist and his ideals deserve to be treated as anything more.
Would that be all?
The strength of my arguments don’t mean shit when the person I’m talking to is too narrow-minded to comprehend them.
Let alone read them.