Soy Normie/IncelTear argument debunked: "looking at child porn harms the child".

[sub8male]

IncelTear recently blamed this one on us:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/tvosox/another_degenerate_pedocel_i_found_on_reddit/


Now when you get past the obvious, that it's some random throwaway on reddit, and not a member here, we can analyze the argument. The dude who is a sex offender claims that watching CP harms the child even if you only view it, not produce/purchase/download/share it. He claims that it bothers these people to know that their material is being viewed, but this is a fallacious argument, and I will explain why.

The people depicted in CP have no awareness that anyone is looking at CP featuring them. If looking at CP could cause any measurable effect in the people depicted in it, you could actually use this to send messages through them, by looking at images of their CP in a modulated pattern at one geolocation to cause the measurable effect to happen, and then measuring the effect at the other geolocation where the child is. In addition to being patently ridiculous to even consider possible, this is actually impossible by the laws of physics, as there isn't a classical channel between the person viewing the CP and the child, and due to the quantum no-communication theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.

In reality, what bothers is knowing there is potential that someone could be viewing it, but whether or not a specific person watches them, that potential is always there.

 

[Hoppipolla]

It's abhorrent to label someone as a sex offender (especially if it's permanent) and make them feel like THEY are the predator when all they've done is look at some pictures or something.

The law is the predator, not them. It's preying on them and ruining their life. How much stockholm syndrome do you have to have to be treated like that and then still be sucking up to law enforcement.

Sorry I just... this bothers me. And then over here try looking up places like Rotherham and you'll see how much the law truly cares about protecting children.

This is about manipulating statistics and oppressing men. That's all.

 

[Deleted member 39301]

I think the argument being made by the reddiotrs is that if the child is in a unsavory position where they are actively being sexually abused and and having that abuse be record and uploaded online, the potential attention the video can attract from sexual deviants can lead to the child being abuse more often.

 

[sub8male]

I think the argument being made by the reddiotrs is that if the child is in a unsavory position where they are actively being sexually abused and and having that abuse be record and uploaded online, the potential attention the video can attract from sexual deviants can lead to the child being abuse more often.

I don't think they are making that argument tbh.

Although that is a fair point, that definitely falls more on those who produce the vid, or even share it for free, as well as those who seek out the child. Merely watching it wouldn't cause any further abuse.

 

[uo89997]

Bro, serious question, do you or do you not watch child pornography?

 

[uo89997]

Also can I be in the screenshot IT?

 

[Zer0/∞]

Bro, serious question, do you or do you not watch child pornography?

 

[sub8male]

Bro, serious question, do you or do you not watch child pornography?

No, I do not.

I saw this article debunking normie logic and thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. That's all.

"Watching child porn victimizes the child". The Voodoo science of child pornography laws | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography We at...

human-stupidity.com

Also this one applies to you:

The Child Sex Trauma Myth. #1: You must be a pedophile, if you defend child porn and pedophiles | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

We are not pedophiles. We have no interest in children or their indecent depictions. We make extreme efforts to not run afoul of any law, not even by mistake or accident 1 2 3 . We are interested in truth, free academic research, in protection and happiness for children 5. We are against...

human-stupidity.com

 

[JestER]

Looking at rape porn doesn't harm foids but I sure do wish it did, don't take their soy logic seriously

 

[sub8male]

I think the it “harms the child” argument is fallacious, because as you said the harm has already taken place. Harm doesn’t perpetuate itself for all eternity. I think the real justification for these laws though is the financial incentives created by consumption. If people want something someone somewhere is going to pay for it. Now imagine something as demonic as machine learning algorithms or consumer segmenting were applied to the legal production of this material. Imagine the stuff that is legal and then translate that over. It’s nightmarish stuff. Such a society in my view would be worthy of destruction. While the individual harm argument is fallacious, I think total harm reduction is still a valid argument.

How does viewing for free, increase payment of it?

People already pay for it illegally. If you kept that illegal, but allowed a free outlet to merely view, would it incentivize financially?

Now imagine something as demonic as machine learning algorithms or consumer segmenting were applied to the legal production of this material. Imagine the stuff that is legal and then translate that over.

I agree producing it is evil. I was just focused on the mere consumption. So legal production isn't something that should be legal.

 

[ilieknothing]

They posted child porn from their collection to incel subreddits to try and get them banned. They are sick degenerate trannys

 

[Deleted member 41988]

don't care not interested in watching CP ofc

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

You mean like loli porn harms imaginary children?

 

[sub8male]

Same reason people like Lady Gaga are rich despite music being mostly free. Where there is interest there is a way to create some sort of monetization scheme. Look at regular porn for example. Enough of it already exists that no one person could ever fathomably watch it all, yet still more and more is produced. That same mechanism would happen to CP under decriminalizion/legalization. It would create tremendous demand for new material - and that is immoral.

@Komesarj89
Good point, from a legalistic standpoint it needs to be illegal because it works like a domino effect. The free consumption is part of a larger industry which includes selling and producing. So even if the viewing without the paying in and of itself won't cause the harm, it needs to be disincentivized on a larger scale because of the domino effect it is apart of, which is some viewers deciding to pay.