How is this relevant
Fal
joined 1 year ago
Any media that depicts children as sexual is promoting pedophilia
What a terrible take. The same way that violent video games promote violence and is harmful to children?
Children are not sexual
No children are involved
Catering to their fantasies emboldens them to act.
There is 0 evidence of this, and some evidence to the contrary. Having an outlet that involves 0 victims is beneficial. But even still, there are people that are into this that have 0 interest in actual children. Because it's just a fantasy, the same way that people have rape fantasies.
Yes, sexualizing real children's bodies is wrong. Sexualizing 3d images of fantasy things is always OK because it's not real
By the way, just because these are digital renderings does not mean that there is no harm. Seeing such content can still be harmful to past victims.
This is true of literally everyone and any one. Anyone can be victimized by anything and be traumatized by seeing it. That's not a reasonable argument to throw around accusations of child abuse.
They specifically called it “child abuse content”, not “child abuse”. This seems perfectly valid, no?
No, this is not valid. MAYBE if they added "fictional child abuse content" or something, but even that would be misleading. There's no child, so it can't be child abuse, and thus can't be child abuse content.
It also normalizes pedophilia
No it doesn't. Only in the same way that violent video games or bdsm normalize actual violence.
Calling this child abuse is what's fucking disgusting. This is adults role playing with fucking digital renderings. Literally no children involved. Go clutch pearls elsewhere
It exists because we wouldn't be here if it didn't. That's all there is to it really. You're asking for an answer if "why". Why did the earth form in the exact place that it did? Things are allowed to arise randomly, and natural selection isn't an explanation for the begging of the universe
As soon as you got your first billion, you pretty @uch can’t lose it anymore on the market.
We not talking about billionaires. That's the whole point. You're so focused on "class analysis" and fitting into your predefined terms that you can't even see that the whole point of the discussion is that there's not a clear delineation between classes, which is precisely why "middle class" is important.
You’ve brought up “human nature” and I refuted your argument
In what way have you refuted anything?
So what about someone who retires in their 30s?
So what about people who have some investments but also still have to work? Or whose standard of living would seriously decline if they did not work?
So you admit that you don't have an accurate definition. That's a shame.
This is the exact same stupid argument that conservatives use when the answer to "what is a woman" is "it's complicated". Some things don't have neat, concise, 1 sentence definitions
The rest of your post is not really a response to anything I wrote. I have read plenty of history books. And you saying capitalists don't take investment risk is just baffling tbh
Terrible take. Could be used to justify banning literally all guns except flintlock pistols. You can accomplish the same thing as a bump stock with a piece of string. This is what leads to this nonsense