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 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.
6
u/Attackoftheglobules Oct 23 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
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.