All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Its good training for arguing with real life people at least. Because coming up with a good comeback quickly is hard when you have never formulated your thoughts about a subject properly. I think often people misunderstand things at first and then when someone points out their mistake, they realize that they were wrong, but dont want to admit it, so they just double down. I have been that person before too tho…
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.
If you seriously think that there is no moral difference between someone being sexually abused and them not being sexually abused then maybe you should be in prison for all our safety.
I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person. I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
You called them “morally equally awful”, so yes, that is what you said.
Nobody was talking about the “legality”. We are talking about morals. And morally there is major difference.
I wish I was as composed as you. You’re still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:
All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Its good training for arguing with real life people at least. Because coming up with a good comeback quickly is hard when you have never formulated your thoughts about a subject properly. I think often people misunderstand things at first and then when someone points out their mistake, they realize that they were wrong, but dont want to admit it, so they just double down. I have been that person before too tho…
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.
If you seriously think that there is no moral difference between someone being sexually abused and them not being sexually abused then maybe you should be in prison for all our safety.
That’s not what I said. How are you this stupid?
I said I think they are both, equally morally reprehensible. They both belong in the very bottom of Dante’s inferno.
You called them “morally equally awful”, so yes, that is what you said.
Yes. They are both the worst of the worst. I place both in the very bottom of Dantes inferno.
Or do you still struggle to understand what that means?
I do understand, i (apparently most people on here) just think that you are very weird for thinking of them as equal.
If hating every single instance of CSAM regardless of victimhood makes me weird. Then I’m gladly weird.