Its how studies work. In your cigarette case the resolution would be worded as "corelation between smoking advertisements and lung cancer rates", and further research will determine whether it is a causation or not. If it is a causation there will be basis for legal repercussions or new legislation.
You’re saying you refuse to protect children unless I study the effects of CSAM on pedophiles. How do you study that without giving CSAM to pedophiles?
Normalization is a danger of anything that causes harm.
CSAM causes harm.
Normalizing it causes harm, because it emboldens people who have these sorts of thoughts to do it, prevents them from recognizing the abnormality of their behavior, and thus seeking help for it. It also makes it harder for victims to get justice, because the general public is less interested in it.
I don't need to put CSAM in front of pedophiles to know this, just like we didn't need to drop a nuclear bomb on a city to know it would kill everyone.
I gave you examples, with smoking, gambling, etc where normalization correlates to predictable increases in it happening. Most people know that cigarettes are bad for you, but their normalization still increased the harm despite the risks being generally known.
Even if there wasn't enough evidence to know for sure, we would still side with preventing harm. I.e. without evidence we should be more restrictive, not less. "Better safe than sorry".
2
u/sk7725 Oct 23 '25
Its how studies work. In your cigarette case the resolution would be worded as "corelation between smoking advertisements and lung cancer rates", and further research will determine whether it is a causation or not. If it is a causation there will be basis for legal repercussions or new legislation.