if you’re not paying for child pornography then there is no argument to morally condemn people who get it
So is this spiritual jew saying that child pornography that’s not a result of capital exchange isn’t immoral?
I’m really beginning to hate marxists big time, everything that comes out of their filthy mouths seems to be intended to destroy, it’s like they have embraced being evil and just want to fuck shit up.
@MoralPanic @kakol No, he's just right. The #1 way people try and justify it as bad is that it supports something bad being done, but if you don't pay for it, then that's not really true.
He does think child porn is immoral, that's what he's literally said so, and made that argument by comparing it to slave labour. This basically amounts to "it's not immoral to pick up a shit made from slavery for free at a Red Cross centre"
@MoralPanic @kakol "It's bad because it encourages bad thing, so it should be illegal", which is obviously coping since it's not applies consistently. We're not banning booze, even though that directly leads to kids getting beaten and killed
@kakol @MoralPanic So you're admitting the lolbert argument is right. Otherwise you'd say how it's wrong instead of coping.
@kakol @MoralPanic That's better. You can (and should) make that argument (though you should philosophically ground it too). Though there's still pragmatics in banning it, since prohibition was kinda really fucky
