Thread 519566613

Is he right /pol/?

>>519566613 (OP)
He's right that AI generated CP doesn't involve direct harm to children in the same way real CP does.
He's wrong to imply that that danger is the only reason it's criminalized.

>>519566613 (OP)
People who make cp should be publicly executed.
People who consume cp should be publicly executed.
Underage people who make CP of themselves should be shamed for life as well as their parents.
People with urges for CP but haven't acted should be publicly executed.
This extends to people who love lolis or any fictional cp.
This also applies to gay, trans, or any relationships outside of white on white, xy/xx relationships.

>>519566842
The problem is that if you admit that AI CP is illegal because people find it icky and not because it causes harm, you've simultaneously admitted you don't have a good reason to ban it under basic rules of liberalism. Everyone wants it banned because we don't like pedos and we find the content disgusting but disgust wasn't enough to stop gay marriage either.

>>519566613 (OP)
AI generated CP fucks with the overtone window. Just as weirder and weirder porn consumption leads to weirder and weirder fetishes.
Tl/dr AI CP inevitavly increases the amount of raped kids.

Just filter the string "/pol/"
No genuine, good faith threads will ever contain this string.
Herbs

>>519566613 (OP)
Possibly the dumbest analogy I've ever seen employed so it makes sense a pedophile made it

>>519567551
I agree that banning something out of pure disgust isn't compatible with classical liberalism.
But we haven't operated under classical liberalism for a long time. Really we never have.
IMO we ban animal cruelty, consensual nonreproductive incest, hate speech, private racial discrimination, and other acts primarily because they offend us. I dont see why CP should be in a special category.