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.

  • Maharashtra
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    Right. Because if I knew someone who was one, they’d openly admit that to me. (…)

    Prisons are full of these.

    Send a letter. Interact with one. Invite him over to your house once he gets released.

    Go on. Walk the walk.

    Prove that you’re more than a cowardly wannabe-dictator who enjoys listening to his own voice more than to common reason.

    Do it.

    • MentalEdge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You didn’t read my comment. I want nothing to do with fucking criminals. Stop suggesting otherwise, you lunatic.

      Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s not gonna work, especially if you won’t even read and understand what I am actually trying to say.

      Responding like this, anyone who reads our exchange is gonna look at your responses, and determine you’re the crazy one, because what you are saying makes no fucking sense in response to me if you actually read and understand what I’m saying. Is that what you want?

      • Maharashtra
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        You didn’t read my comment.

        You didn’t read mine. No wonder, given how self-absorbed you are…

        I want nothing to do with fucking criminals.

        Ah, so everything’s fine and dandy with ya, if they aren’t caught and sentenced? Brilliant strategy, milord!

        Now, I give you simple challenge: prove that you’re willing to set an example and coexist with those loathsome deviants you want for the society to embrace.

        If you can’t, if you don’t want to - admit that your ideas aren’t that good.

        • MentalEdge
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I did read yours. What makes you think otherwise?

          If someone who wants to kill, never does it, they shouldn’t be put in prison. They shouldn’t even be hated or feared.

          Someone who gets away with it, should be in prison. Someone who did kill, should be hated and feared.

          I will admit only one thing, that you refuse to understand what I’m actually trying to say.

          I wouldn’t need to prove shit, if you had the capacity to think clearly enough to understand, or even fucking read.

          • Maharashtra
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            I did read yours. What makes you think otherwise?

            The fact that you constantly avoid the challenge of proving your convictions true and correct.

            The other explanation is that you’re simply scared of it, or trolling, but I preferred to think you were simply too preoccupied with writing yet another comment. I don’t anymore.

            I wouldn’t need to prove shit

            Uh-huh. You absolutely has to do, since “burden of proof…” and all that.

            But you won’t. Because you realize how weak, irresponsible and “let this be other people’s problem” your train of logic is.

            Fgures.

            • MentalEdge
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Except what you’re asking me to prove I believe, isn’t actually what I believe, because you refuse to even think about what I am actually saying.

              You’ve made assumptions, and because those assumptions are so heinously evil, you won’t even consider what I have to say.

              Because you’re acting based on assumptions, you keep missing when trying to dismantle my argument, because its not my argument you’re attacking, but your imagined idea of what I’m saying.

              So here we are, going in circles, me trying to get through to you, you accusing me of avoiding the point, because I keep trying to force you to see my actual point, instead of the imagined one that you’ve fixated on.

              • Maharashtra
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                If you were honest about your philosophy, you’d seek some way to prove it - and yourself - to be solid, logical and, well, honest.

                But you’re not. You’re looking for explanations, excuses, ways to divert the discussion, distractions, and finally insults. Like an undereducated AIs guided by inflexible software.

                There’s no way in hell that you’re going to ever take the responsibility for your choices and suggestions. Because all you have in store is a bunch of idiotic ideas that are supposed to be "other poeople’s burden.

                Would that be all?

                • MentalEdge
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I see you’re a broken record now, attempting yet another character assassination instead of dismantling my argument. Nothing of what I’ve said allows you to draw the conclusions about me that you are presenting. It’s disgraceful.

                  If anything, you’ve made it even more certain that anyone else coming across this exchange, won’t take your side. Good job.

                  You’re the one avoiding the real discussion.

                  I bet that even if I did provide the proof you are asking for, you’d find some way to invalidate it and require more. It’s a classic arguing tactic among the brainless. So many times I’ve backed myself up with salient points, including now, only for them to be utterly ignored.

                  Who cares if you’re wrong? If you keep claiming to be right, at least it feels like there’s still a chance that you are.

                  But there isn’t. You’re wrong.

                  That will be all.

                  • Maharashtra
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I see you’re a broken record now,

                    Yes. There’s no merit in a discussion where one side pushes troubling, hurtful propaganda and ideals, while not being ready to actually back them up with actions. Much like every dictator ever demands for others to make it happen.

                    You’re wrong.

                    Feel free to prove it in real word, Internet dictator.

                    That will be all.

                    It was over long ago.

    • MentalEdge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You accuse me of not thinking through how these things should be handled, then you suggest… That.

      What the fucking fuck. You’re the one not thinking this through. Clearly you’re not even reading my comments past the first sentence.

      • Maharashtra
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

        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?

        You’re the one not thinking this through.

        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”.

        • MentalEdge
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Maharashtra
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Multiplication of comments is the prime proof of emotional approach. Too emotional.

            DO NOT do that.

            • MentalEdge
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Maharashtra
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • MentalEdge
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.