That is proof of nothing of the sort, SkeptiChick. Look, I don't know why you're wanting to make something out of my words that aren't there...but perhaps this will make it easier for you to understand. A spoon and a fork are not the exact same thing, but they are both still silverware. "Real" child porn and "virtual" child porn aren't the exact same thing, but they are both still child pornography. I do not see what is so hard to grasp in that.
It is proof that you are pointedly refusing to differentiate between two subjects. You outright said "I'm *not* differentiating". And now you expect people to believe that you
are differentiating?
I'm not "wanting to make something out of your words". I want you to understand how your words are coming across, and make sure they're saying exactly what you mean, because they're coming across as meaning something I take extreme exception to and I'd hope that you don't actually hold such beliefs.
The problem is that by applying the logic you're using above ("real" child porn and "virtual" child porn aren't the exact same thing, but they are both still child pornography), ALL pornography should be treated the same as child pornography simply because child pornography is pornography (Argument by Generalization).
You are ignoring the fact that there are fundamental differences between the two, refusing to address arguments made based upon those differences, and instead, responding to those arguments as if they are about both instead of just one or the other. In other words, you are conflating the issues, and now doing so on purpose (I say this because the problem with the conflation has been pointed out to you several times, and you continue to ignore it).
And MontagK505, if that was a serious question, I just don't know what to say.
I can certainly understand why he asks that question. It's a question that's running through my mind as well.
You only seem to be concerned about YOUR feelings on the subject. You're failing to understand that if YOUR feelings on the subject are applied to the world around you, it causes harm. Just like the current law causes harm. Demonstrable harm, with comic book collectors being thrown in jail and marked as pedophiles for life when they've never even touched a child, let alone abused one. You don't seem to care enough about that harm to adjust your view, or at least concede that your view should not be applied to people outside yourself without the benefits outweighing the risks. And you have been shown, both by people here, and through your own research, that the benefits do not outweigh the risks since there's no causal relationship between pedophiles and child porn (of any sort).
You find the topic of children involved in sexual scenes offensive and obscene. Great. I certainly respect that. You find the topic so offensive that you're intolerant of fake depictions of such material -- i.e. cartoons, computer renderings, etc.. Fine. I respect that as well. I'm not a fan of the subject matter either.
The problem is that you then suppose that this offense is justification for the law including "virtual" child porn under the same set of laws as "real" child porn and ignoring those same differences that we have been discussing here. Appealing to emotion -- a logical fallacy. I happen to find oatmeal offensive and obscene. I refuse to eat it, or even look at it. You won't find me supporting a law to ban it based upon those grounds though...
You also then turn around and use the law as justification for your appeal to emotion, despite the flaws in the logic that have been pointed out to you. This is appealing to authority and begging the question at the same time. If there was a law saying that oatmeal is banned because "the government" found oatmeal offensive and obscene, does that actually mean that oatmeal should be banned? Tons of laws get through unchallenged that shouldn't be on the books. It doesn't make those laws just. I'm sorry, it simply doesn't. Unjust laws exist.
Personally, I have a huge problem with obscenity laws in general. I feel that it is completely and utterly ridiculous for the government to dictate what is "decent" and what is "obscene". These are subjective and personal moral judgements made largely about subjects that are incapable of causing harm in and of themselves. I feel that the law should only step in when harm is demonstrable. When it comes to virtual child porn... Yes, I find the stuff disgusting, and horrific, and nauseating, and distasteful, and offensive, and obscene. But it harms no one. So I will defend the right to create it, to distribute it, and to own it.
I will not defend the production, distribution, or ownership of real child porn. Ever. Under any circumstance. Because someone is suffering demonstrable harm in it's creation, distribution, and viewing.
And this is why differentiation between "real" child porn and "virtual" child porn is important, no matter how many times you insist that it is not (argument by repetition, by the way).
That's exactly the point. But for some reason, sugarb refuses to acknowledge that difference, and she refuses to tell us why, despite me asking several times.