If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong.
Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.
The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime.
Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst.
I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across.
If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.
You are making a psychological argument not a moral one. Actual evidence suggests things like violent video games actually reduce violent crime in society. So, your going to need actually evidence to support that line of thinking and I don't think it exists.
The moral argument only works if there's a real psychological component. You can't consider them in isolation. It wouldn't be morally wrong if it weren't also psychologically harmful.
Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'.
That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.
Don't move goal posts, has no effect is enough to make it harmless with that line of thinking. So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm.
Sure, it's easy to make a counter argument along the lines of "Making things taboo adds to their appeal. Supervised underage drinking seems to have a long term positive impact." However, that's also meaningless unless you study the issue.
I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know.
PS: This is one of those issue people don't approach rationally. It's as if gathering evidence is already admitting you might be wrong.
> So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm.
That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help or harm society. We need to retain the ability to act in its absence.
> I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know.
Not all things should be treated this way, but in the case of kiddie porn, I'd argue that defaulting to the stance that all conduct in this space being morally wrong, perhaps even criminal, is justified.
It's tempting to want an ideological framework that preserves sanctity of thought so that we don't have to consider that we, ourselves might be morally wrong on occasion, but the world doesn't work that way. The mere fact that millions of people want something is enough to create a market in violence and suffering. Whether it's children, rhinos, or slaves. (I use market in a non-economic sense here, any venue for satisfying a desire is a market)
I get where you are coming from. I think the sanctity of thought needs to be maintained so you can examine new evidence with minimal bias.
However, as something to consider. There is a very long history of things people assume without evidence being wrong. Abstractly, unsupported ideas are random in nature and the number of true ideas are vastly outnumbered by the number of wrong ideas. So, IMO the default assumption for unsupported ideas should be they are false.
So what if they turn out to be wrong later? Fighting paedophilia makes the world better now. Unless you are arguing that is not the case.
Look, at some point this is going to boil down to a simple question. Do you really consider sanctity of thought to be more important than the security of the people those thoughts threaten? Because to a very, very real extent, the thoughts themselves threaten. They create threatening atmospheres and markets in cruelty and suffering.
We're not talking about rights here. We can fight paedophilia completely within the current constitutional framework using completely aboveboard laws. We are talking about nothing more than social pressure of making people feel bad about thoughts that they have that are bad. Simple, uncomplicated moral pressure.
Sex with children is wrong and you deserve whatever happens to you if you do it. Can you at least agree with that?
A peasant picks up a rock and due to a local legend decides it prevents tiger attacks. So, they carry it around for the rest of their lives. Not a big deal right?
Well, what if they have their tiger rock, hippo rock, fire rick, snake rock, cancer rock, martian rock, ... Until they are not willing to leave the house without 150 pounds of rocks in a backpack.
Individually each issue may have been tiny. But, each and every one of them are also a drain. Also, they may get eaten because they falsely assume they are safe when in imminent danger. Or in this case you might assume your fighting when in fact your just making things worse.
So, even if the cost is low and it might be true, avoiding wrong ideas is still valuable.
PS: As to actual direct harm, sure shoot em. But, that's really not what I have been talking about.
Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.