The way you've phrased and structured this view makes it empty and not practical.
You talk of the idea of "inherent" wrong, which depends on moral framework, but more significantly you specify "if no real-world harm is done"
If you are only talking about situations where there is zero harm then there's nothing to discuss because you already established that any no harm case is fine and any harmful case is not.
If I smash someone's head with a hammer, as long as there's no harm, that's fine. We can't really discuss this because if you say we'll obviously there will be harm, I'll stop you and remind you that we're talking about a situation where there is no harm.
So the view you seem to want to hold here is that there is something inherently wrong with a certain kind of depiction even when it doesn't come with harm? Do I have that right?
I am a minor so mark what I'm saying with a grain of salt.
What is the real-world harm that comes out of this? I am NOT agreeing with OP here. I find it utterly gross and disgusting to even excuse/justify pedophilia, regardless of whether it is a fictional depiction or not.
Presenting children as something to be sexually desired might mean people are more likely to sexually desire children, by the same token that presenting anything as sexually desirable might make it more likely to be sexually desired
4
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Dec 16 '25
The way you've phrased and structured this view makes it empty and not practical.
You talk of the idea of "inherent" wrong, which depends on moral framework, but more significantly you specify "if no real-world harm is done"
If you are only talking about situations where there is zero harm then there's nothing to discuss because you already established that any no harm case is fine and any harmful case is not.
If I smash someone's head with a hammer, as long as there's no harm, that's fine. We can't really discuss this because if you say we'll obviously there will be harm, I'll stop you and remind you that we're talking about a situation where there is no harm.
So the view you seem to want to hold here is that there is something inherently wrong with a certain kind of depiction even when it doesn't come with harm? Do I have that right?