>>108896447>If you partake in the sharing of media where people intentionally abuse children sexually you are driving the demand.Substance-deprived sloganeering.
This conversation is about severity and proportionality, not symbolism.
>You're trying to muddy the waters here. Uhm, no. I am talking about exactly what I talked about in my first post.
You are once again ignoring my core point to sloganeer.
>You know we're not just talking about teens taking nude selfies, sending each other nudes, or posting this stuff online and not realizing they're breaking a law. Most of the stuff that gets shared around on the darkweb is just that.
In fact, many sites strictly regulate sharing exploitative or physically abusive media, but that's obviously not guarantee'd.
Anyway, you've missed the point again, almost as if you're doing it on purpose.
The point of that tidbit is to ground what's happening in reality. Most people when they hear "CSAM" only have the most vile imagery in mind, when most of it is, even if still harmful, much more benign.
The point is important because, again, this is about proportional response to a group of people that is utterly dehumanized.
>Whataboutism, how quaint.That's not it. You've missed the point again. It's about the disproportionate response that causes unnecessary suffering towards a group of people born in a deviant way.
The punishment does not fit the crime, socially nor legally. Go back down the reply chain, that was my entire point.
>The difference between you and I is I don't care about your platitudes, just as I ignored any and all personal attacks that betrayed your honesty.
You've also ignored several arguments I've brought up, such as the one that explains how the vast majority of children who are abused on video would still be abused if videography didn't exist.
The idea that a sizeable amount of people are SA'ing children just for clout is fucking hilarious, especially considering 99.9% of the stuff is shared third-hand, meaning people who have no relation to the original abusers.
You have literally 0 ground to stand on because you're way out of your depth.
>>108897022>I'll just point out that your initial post complaining about the "draconian punishment" and "unnecessary suffering" for pedophiles affords far too much consideration to them, where your other arguments afford none to child victims of sexual abuse, You've haven't made any substantitive arguments discussing proportionality, which is the literal subject of this entire reply chain, so claiming that I am affording them too much consideration is nothing more than an empty opinion.
I don't know how I can point it out more clearly, but you obviously have 0 regard for a pedophile's well-being and see them as a little more than toxic waste, so this "too much consideration" spiel is 'my' frustration, not yours.
As for my views on how to help children in abusive situations, I haven't said anything about it so far because it wasn't relevant to the immediate talking points.
You can probably guess that I don't want to help children by torturing deviant people for not being able to control themselves and giving a third-party website a view, but that has nothing to do with how I think children should be respected and cared for in ways other than society's sadistic tendencies.
