(April 5, 2018 at 2:50 pm)wallym Wrote: I think it's a little more complicated than someone being hurt by the individual act. I think the goal is to have the chasm you'd have to cross to go from not having sex with children to having sex with children to be as vast as possible, and for the feedback at every point to be "BAD!"
I guess what it boils down to, is do you think someone who fucks robots kids, and watches cgi kid porn is going to be more likely to go from that to real kid sex, than someone who's told no all the way. Or if you think someone who lives in a society that doesn't have as strong a taboo with child sex is going to be more likely to participate in child sex.
Personally, I think it's in our best interest to avoid an environment that says it's okay to go up to the line on that front. It's definitely thought policing, but sometimes that's just the common sense approach.
I would agree with this very much. I've expressed my concerns with placing harm as a basis before, so I won't get into the issue with that. To me, saying that you might as well let them do what makes them happy in this case (as long as it is not harming anyone) could be similar to saying that it is only illegal to make new child porn, and that existing material isn't harming anyone more, so they may as well have that.
It's sad, but I think that the "common sense" way of thinking, is too often becoming less common.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
