>>716033182
People are fundamentally emotional beings first and only use logic as a proxy to interface with a few choices in their lives.
When you ask,
>Why is challenging production of real CP not enough of an argument?
An opponent of virtual CP may counter,
>Why is the fact that normalizing child sexual abuse not enough of an argument?
Since we do not have conclusive, hard data for either one of these claims, both participants at first seem like they're at an impasse, but since humans do not operate through logic, the opponent will have the high ground since he gets to use an appeal to hatred of pedophiles and an appeal to the status quo to break the stalemate.
>>716033901
I agree with you 100%. No one wants to debate.
However, normalizing questioning the status quo relating to pornography, and asserting that speculation ought not to take away anyone's freedoms, will sow seeds of doubt in whoever is reading these messages.
Opinions exist on an emotional spectrum, and your goal is to nudge someone to your side, day by day. Make them uncertain whether what they're blindly believing is the truth.
The only way to win is by asking questions and exposing people to other opinions.
That's also why site owners are afraid of pro-pedophilia skewing messaging. While not illegal, they're deleted in an instant in virtually all public spaces.
Whatever your opinion on pedophilic relationships are, you have to admit that most opponents of pedophilia use slogans and arguments that are at most one layer deep.
What this means is that a group of pedophiles could theoretically subvert entire communities just by asking questions and creating doubt.
Anti-pedophiles, their opinions on a spectrum, are already close to -100 (imagine an opinion sitting on a scale between 100 to -100). The only way to move is towards 0, which is why websites employ a very strict 0-tolerance policy towards pro-pedophilia discussions. Just the exposure to other opinions will make them warmer to it.
