Now. Let's say that having child porn DOES make people pedophiles and makes them molest, for the sake of the debate.
Even if that was the case, one of the most important points behind this theory is that HAVING CHILD PORN ILLEGAL NOW ISN'T DETERING ANYONE FROM SEEING. Now, this is thanks to the internet, of course. *sigh*
People are seeing it anyway. Now, this is important. Because we CAN'T stop these people from viewing child porn by making it illegal. It's not working.
So, the best we can do it to make it so that at least some of the porn they see doesn't support the business that causes even more molesting on top of it: real child porn.
--------------
Like this example: Mr. Soanso sees about 50 pictures of child porn a day during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to two child porn sites. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.
Now, new senario: Mr. Soanso hears that virtual kiddie porn is legal. This interests him. So, he sees about 40 pictures of child porn a day, and then 20 pictures of virtual child porn during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to a child porn site and a virtual child porn site. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.
Now, here's the important thing. Did Mr. Soanso molest that kid because virtual child porn alone was legal?
No, HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYWAY FROM SEEING THE REAL CHILD PORN.
It being illegal or not wasn't detering him, nor anyone else now.
And that's important. Basically, there was no way we could have stopped Mr. Soanso from winding up and molesting a kid, because we can't control him watching kiddie porn.
Virtual child porn legal or not. He would have still done it.
HOWEVER. In the first example, Mr. Soanso was devoting his full attention and money to the business that hurts children. In the second one, he supported the virtual business. Not more. In fact, he only saw 20 pictures. Yet, that's 10 less real kiddie pictures.
Now, say that Mr. Soanso makes up the majority of pedophiles in our population. That means that in the second example, 5% less children are being hurt in the business.
-------------
And, you will note that Mr. Soanso's viewing of all child porn went up 10 pictures a day because virtual child porn was legal.
However, these 10 pictures were virtual, so they didn't matter. The result STILL was that he had 5% less interest in the real child porn pictures, and 50% less involvment in the financial support of that business.
So, those 10 pictures count as nothing but surplus, because they didn't "damage him more" (he still would have become a pedophile and molested that kid had he seen them or not. And, they don't support more molesting in that business, etc).
For example, is a pedophile "more of a pedophile" after seeing 9 pictures instead of 8? Is it "more probable to molest" after seeing 60 pictures instead of 50? No.
There is little correlation between number of pictures and "probablility of molesting." You can have 100 pictures and not molest ever, or have 50 pictures and molest at least once. Depends on the person: Catholic priests or business men, etc. You know what I mean if you watch FOX. lol.
Also, like I said. The amount of porn you see is based on your already existing interest, not vise-versa. If you are really perverted, you'd see 100. If you are less perverted than that, you'd see 50. But you would see this amount based on your already existing amount of desire. Understand?
------------------
All in all, and here's the main point, we couldn' t have stopped Mr. Soanso from molesting that kid, but we COULD have at least dropped his involvement is supporting a business that would cause more kids to be molested on the otherside.
So, though Mr. Soanso went on to molest a kid, which we unfortunately couldn't control. He was propelling the molesting of 100% of real children in that business in the first example, while 5% less in the second one.
And that is the main point. By doing this, we can at least cause less children to be harmed overall.
-------------------
So, you see. They were all relevent and to strengthen my points on virtual child porn.
I won't agree. If you don't understand my simple logic, I'm sorry. In my opinion, and I state publicly that my opinion is NOT fact, virtual child porn is a bad idea. BAD IDEA. That's it.
And that's the point again. You don't have "simple logic."
Unless it depends on what your idea of "simple" and "logic" are. lol. It's bad because it is "a bad idea."
.....that's not quite logic.
The reason why it's not simple, is because you keep changing it based on particular circumstances.
That was what I was trying to point out. If your logic really did work, then it would apply to all similar circumstances (in porn). But it doesn't. So, how can that logic be valid then?
That was my point.