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.
Classic.
Same old repertoire of a coward faced with “proof yourself right” dillema.
Anyway.
Would that be all?
I see you’re in the final stages of clamming up completely. This string of non-responses is an attempt at annoying me until I go away.
You’ve given up on trying to actually prove me wrong, because you can’t. Or at least don’t know how to properly try.
Please, figure it out. If not for me, then the next exchange you engage in.
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?
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.
Keep it to the single branch of discussion, since you don’t have much to say anyway, please.
No. I’ve played by your bullshit rules long enough. Fight me on two fronts, or walk away.
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?
Is being infuriating all you have left?
How about three fronts? I have a lot to say so more bite-sized bits would help get through you non-existent attention span.
Yes, yes, of course.
Now, would that be all?
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.
Would that be all?
Now, would that be be all?
And for the record, these attempts at my character are pointless, even if I were everything you accuse me of, that still wouldn’t invalidate what I have to say.
Dismantling someone’s character, does not automatically dismantle their argument.
You should think before you began makeing pro-pedophilia claims and then pretending you didn’t, while also avoiding the responsibility of delivering a proof when called on your bullshit.
But you didn’t.
Hence my full right to call you what you are.
Now, would that be all?
Oh for fucks sake. You didn’t even understand what I had to say. If you did, you’d be delivering counterarguments, not demands for proof of claims I didn’t even make.
Get over yourself.
…cried the guy who contines long past his announcement that it is indeed the end of the dicussion.
Because, once an addict always an addict, right? ALl those beautiful words you say, they need to be re-read, the flow of adrenaline has to continue, long past the logic has left the room, right?
Would that be all?
You’re right here with me, though… Don’t fall on your sword as you go for yet another ad hominem.
At this point, I’m just trying to leave you with some thoughts, hoping some of them sink in and make you a better debater.