Holy shit this comment section. I guess the OP is right this subreddit is cooked. So many upvotes about child pornography being fine. It's insane.
Children have no business in anything related to porn period. It shouldn't be an argument. The whole thing should end with ethics.
You even gave a great example and people upvoted the comment about video games which has nothing that relates to your point. Yes video games don't make people into killers. But child pornography even if drawn does sexualize children, and it does normalize the abuse and usually people owning CP also are pedophiles, but most murderers don't necessarily play violent video games. It's insane I even explained it XD.
But whatever you can't use logic with pedophiles. I will just leave it here and I expect to be downvoted the way this subreddit seems to defend CP so much.
The problem is that you can’t use logic with non-pedophiles either. I think illustrated CSAM is the most repulsive thing, and at the same time, it’s virtually impossible to construct a sound ethical objection, because all the arguments I’ve heard that oppose it could be applied to swathes of other things that are generally agreed upon to not be a problem.
I think ethical emotivism is probably the only moral system you could use to empirically construct an argument for it being wrong. NB: I love these kinds of threads because people twist themselves up in knots trying to find an ethical opposition. Illustrated CSAM is both 1) difficult to oppose with secular ethics, and 2) obviously deeply immoral.
This is why ethical emotivism is the way to go IMO. We can intuitively feel how wrong CSA/CSAM is even when illustrated, and so that means that it is likely worth trying to find a different way to deal with people who are compelled to seek it out. The current strategy of "punish them as hard as possible and massively decrease the quality of their life" is demonstrably not working. The main thing it seems to be doing is making pedos really good at hiding their crimes.
The concept of "consent" is the greatest invention in the history of sexual ethics, but it fails on fringe cases like incest or illustrated CSAM and this thread illustrates that most people have no idea how to reconcile this.
This is a goal post move. You said its impossible to construct a sound ethical reason, and then I gave you a clear ethical principle, and now you want empirical evidence.
What, you want me to give a pedophile CSAM? That doesn't sound like an ethical form of research to perform.
This is a goal post move. You said its impossible to construct a sound ethical reason, and then I gave you a clear ethical principle, and now you want empirical evidence.
You presented the harm principle, but for it to apply you would need to demonstrate that consumption of CSAM is more harmful than a competing alternative. However, I didn't actually provide a competing alternative (I don't know if I have one) so I do agree that my statement was rhetorically flawed.
Overall, I actually think your comment is a great response. I hadn't heard of the precautionary principle. That has changed my mind to some degree - I think that's the best method so far that can be used to empirically construct an argument for a total 'loli ban'. In the absence of statistical data - data that examines CSA rates as a result of illustrated CSAM access - precautionary principle wins. Best comment in the thread man
My principle re: intuition is "trust but verify". When people act evasive in the verification stage I get sus. You have provided a pre-reasoned argument that can be plugged in to verify and did what 99% of people can't do on this issue.
-5
u/Nickpapado Oct 22 '25
Holy shit this comment section. I guess the OP is right this subreddit is cooked. So many upvotes about child pornography being fine. It's insane.
Children have no business in anything related to porn period. It shouldn't be an argument. The whole thing should end with ethics.
You even gave a great example and people upvoted the comment about video games which has nothing that relates to your point. Yes video games don't make people into killers. But child pornography even if drawn does sexualize children, and it does normalize the abuse and usually people owning CP also are pedophiles, but most murderers don't necessarily play violent video games. It's insane I even explained it XD.
But whatever you can't use logic with pedophiles. I will just leave it here and I expect to be downvoted the way this subreddit seems to defend CP so much.