>>278916675>>278916718I see. I phrased myself inadequately in
>>278916490because I assumed we were on the same page about this argument being about ethics. When I said
>No, its illegal making live action, real fucking child porn harms a real child because the act of making a child porn tape involves raping a child which is the actual crime.I meant to imply that anti-child-porn laws ought to be put into place because they harm children. Not that this was factually the case, but that I logically assumed that this was the rationale behind why a state would institute anti-cp laws, I was making a normative statement rather than a factual one.
I now see that you dont wish to argue about morals but only want to factually assert that anti-cp laws practically exist not to protect children but to prevent deviants from getting pleasure. This may be true as I have not done any research into this. What I am saying is, how is this relevant at all? What do you hope to prove by pointing out that the laws in place do not serve a moral rationale but some other of denying pleasure to sexual deviants? How is this in any way significant to people who hold the position that loli is morally trivial?
