Edit: WE DON’T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.

  • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.

    • Zwiebel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous

      I haven’t made that argument

      • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        It’s the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn’t. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it’s the same argument. It looks like a child. That’s the point.