>>18844013>How the fuck not?You've answered it in your next sentence, the moral part doesn't come from having a compulsion, but from not doing anything about the compulsion while you still have the agency to do so.
>They all have an impulse to abuse children, What's important is that there are pedophiles who are at high risk of abusing children, and pedophiles who can easily prevent themselves from doing so.
This is not splitting hairs, this is scientific fact.
>Pretending not to understand my point to avoid addressing it is very cowardly and betrays a guilty conscience.I am not pretending, you seem to have communication issues.
>>18844024>Loli is bad because it Leads to them going down a dark path and if you are a pedophile I would recommend going to therapyFirstly, you don't need therapy, unless you have pedophilic disorder, which is different from pedophilia, so your recommendation is already based on ignorance.
Secondly, what do you base this "going down a dark path" on?
It seems to me that all pushing lolicon off of clearweb is going to do is to have it on the shelf next to actual child abuse material.
If we make it clear that one is allowed and the other isn't, then we may have better grounds to tell pedophiles inclined towards CSAM to use lolicon or other virtual goods as a substitute.
With AI coming along, our government is already making sure that there won't be a healthy substitute, which is really tragic, both for pedophiles and potential victims.
