Not linking sources to two people not doing the same.
You made the claim. The burden on proof is on you to judge the actions of others.
The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because: a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger
Then remind people that they might still be a danger if you think so. You don’t even have to be fully opposed to loli to do this. Some people also legit just aren’t dangers, too.
b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam
Where does this reasoning end? Such a slippery slope fallacy. Does someone watching a bloody movie not have the ability to think “well, this is okay because it’s not real” (if you don’t like that analogy please specifically explain what’s wrong with it.) How stupid do you think people are? In no other case so we judge people based on what they might start to believe instead of just educating them.
condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam.
Pedos are capable of using loli without moving on to csam, these people are likely to be even more capable of doing so.
As far as laws go, you’re aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam
Plenty of ethical science can be conducted on fictional stuff. Edit: also this sort of thing usually happens in terms of looking at criminal records/studies of people that already offended. Again, you don’t even have this evidence on hand.
I’m always going to err on the side of kids’ safety over people’s ability to watch children get rd,*
When does that reasoning end? What doesn’t have some possibility of harming children? You’re drawing conclusions without reasoning and then calling it an abundance of caution. This doesn’t mean nothing to some people, there are plenty of people who use this stuff as their only safe outlet, meanwhile 0 evidence for it’s harm.
Edit: Even just any source even about porn in general or something would be greatly appreciated. I understand there’s a black hole of science here but you need something beyond assumptions that we can actually talk about.