I don't know...if everyone who's sexually aroused by children is mentally ill that basically includes the entire population of Inkbunny.

I wouldn't be surprised if you knew a lot of pedophiles personally, you just don't know they are pedophiles because they never told you, don't engage in illegal activity, and are otherwise indistinguishable from the rest of society.

If it materially reduced harm to human beings, that's a theoretical benefit. Regardless, by insulting the parent's idea ("this idea ... is repugnant"), you've presented yourself as unreceptive to good faith discussion.

What if it normalises the fetish?could you still argue that it reduces harm?

Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?

> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?

I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant?

Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto?

And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)?

In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?

While it is repugnant, whether or not it is immoral is another matter. If it is immoral, it likely deserves being criminalized, whereas if it is not immoral, democratic liberal ideals suggest that the law should protect such manufacture from unjust censure instead.

The case against filmed CP is straightforward: minors are harmed in the process. But what is being harmed in generated imagery? If nothing is harmed, what is the basis for it being immoral?

Unintended consequences abound.

Once Pandora's Box of deep fakes is open, are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?

I mean, as long as only fake Elbonians are dying unspeakably, it's OK, no?

Because the same people who just gotta have that stuff would never want to operationalize that ickniness, would they?

How about just "no"?

Yet just "no" would be an immoral act itself, since it is discrimination against an act that is morally neutral. Let us leave aside the question of the morality of the act that you hypothesize we might eventually decide to commit, and assume it is immoral. (I phrase it this way since these "unintended consequences" don't follow as a matter of fact but require people to decide to perform them.) Even if we in future might end up deciding to commit an immoral act, that is no justification to continue committing the present immoral act.

I'm sincerely confused as to whether you're rejecting or embracing activities that could lead others astray.

Why is GTA OK, then? And what about Command & Conquer, or Mafia?

> are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?

I could be mistaken but I’m pretty sure this Is currently perfectly legal in the United States.

I'm not arguing legality.

I'm saying this sounds like folly.

> are we going to permit racists to generate genocidal imagery to slake their hatred for $ETHNICITY ?

Umm... yes?

There is enough demand that people not only pay lots of money but risk jail time to view these images.

Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.

Is manufacturing such material more repugnant than allowing more children to get raped, because you find faking such images too repugnant?

Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More?

A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.

There was a study in the Netherlands or Denmark which came to the conclusion that such people viewing this content or exercising their creativity in producing it can help to divert them from attacking children.

>Some taboos will remain taboos despite 'actually decreasing abuse'

Most every study we have shows a decrease in real sexual activity linked to an increase in available pornography. We have no reason to believe child pornography would be any different. This was of course irrelevant as we had a duty to protect real people.

Now we are in a strange situation where effectively; 'virtue signaling' maybe causing child abuse.

What if it reduced the rates of actual sex crimes against children?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h...

It's worth noting that the authors here do not claim that it reduced rates, only that it coincided with such a reduction, i.e that the material did not cause an increase in child sex crimes. The catharsis effect has very little empirical support.

As such, this paper does dispute the argument that porn leads to higher rates of sexual assault. It does not provide evidence for porn being an outlet that prevents crimes. The distinction is important.

Thanks for sharing this research! My hunch is that it is a local optimization. Perhaps if we focused on de-stigmatizing mental health issues and making access to mental health care easier, that could also reduce rates. It is a universal and much less problematic strategy.

That reads like you are simply ignoring any information you disagree with. For the sake of argument let’s assume it’s the best possible option on any scale you choose, now what do you feel should be done?

Are you speaking from professional psychiatric authority that generated CP cannot be useful at all? For example, that it cannot be useful as part of a plan in helping a pedophile (in state of mind, not in action toward others) cope and adjust to become a useful, integrated, and satisfied member of society?

Please don't conflate repellent behaviour with mental illness.

Mental illness is a broad category of people. Some types are more serious than others. Some exhibit repulsive behaviors, some don't.

Sure, some are more serious because some forms of mental illness make it so the afflicted have serious trouble doing normal things in normal society.

You can have schizophrenia that is well controlled and work a job - or be on disability, for example.

You can have thoughts and not act on them, though. If someone realizes that their attraction is to children, yet understands that it is something that hurts them and therefore, doesn't act on it and doesn't view child porn because people are hurt in it... I'm not entirely sure they are doing anything wrong. Not only that, but I don't think we help this category of folks either.

It isn't that I agree at all, but not everyone with ill thoughts act on them. I'm not entirely convinced that fake porn is going to hurt anything. Sure, I find it absolutely disgusting, but no one asked me.

If you are going to dig into this, though, I fully suggest you go off on "barely legal teen" porn, a good amount of manga, and every image that makes young folks into sexual beings, though you are going to have issues around puberty since folks are becoming sexual beings themselves and it is generally good to have trial periods on things like clothing and makeup and hairstyles.

It's a very specific body type. The age range depends on the person.

It sounds like you're restating the parent's point.

Viewing child pornography is not a symptom of mental illness

The people who view it would like to think that. But one can certainly make the case that it's not mentally healthy, and as such is indeed symptomatic of mental illness.

Which mental illness or illnesses are you claiming that it is symptomatic of?

Pedophilia is considered a mental illness under DSM-5 and ICD-11. Although admittedly someone can view child pornography without being a pedophile.

The DSM is a bit vague and outdated. Until fairly recently, a number of conditions which were similar but different were lumped in as one thing in research and the media.

Some people have an OCD which makes them obsess over children but they're not interested in them per say.

Some people insert themselves as children. This could happen due to abuse and neglect in their childhood or other factors. Some people are into certain aesthetics and media like cartoons and are not so interested in actual children.

There are two proper types. Exclusive and non-exclusive.

One is the exclusive who are alien in thinking. Instead of thinking of adults as romantic or sexual partners, they're wired to think of children. Without adequate socialization, they may even think of it as harmless to do. Education is vital.

They will be very lonely and depressed throughout their lives as it is impossible for anyone to allow them to do such a thing. I can't imagine someone going their entire life without ever fantasizing or looking at some sort of porn. Even as an escape. It isn't healthy not to do so either. It would only serve to make them more frustrated and to adopt an antagonistic relationship with society.

The non-exclusive aren't just attracted to children.

You can replace "child pornography" with anything pornography or extreme niches.

The difference is one of consent and that is crucial

CGI never consents; regardless of the apparent age. In general pornographic depictions of non-consensual sex are not illegal.