Making virtual child pronogrphy is like making a picture of rape. As ugly as it is, should that be illegal?
It's funny that anyone can make such a distinction between "simulated" and "real" child pornography. However, based on the arguments that have already taken place in this thread I can tell that we're going to have to agree to disagree. It has been argued in this thread and demonstrated over and over again in real life experience that what people injest into their minds they WILL act upon.
I know we hate the idea of "thought police" but there are things, in a moral society, that go beyond freedom of expression and fall into the realm of the detestable. When people fall into amorality they begin to have discussions about protecting practises that a moral person would only discuss in context of controlling and eliminating. Tolerance is more than an objective standpoint - it's passive acceptance.
You may see a distinction between "simulated" and "real" child porn but I, on the other hand, have seen over and over again how they are not seperate and their impact is real. Child porn and porn in general go hand in hand with child molestation. Child porn of any kind is indefensible and the harder you argue for its protection the more I realize how depraved our society has become.
As for the accusation of lack of rigor and emotional outbursts on my part... I think you'll find that I can be passionate about my convications, even blunt about them. For that I make no apologies. As for a lack of rigor... *laughs*... think what you will.
The above is counterfactual in a very real sense: If you photograph children having sex, you have coerced or enticed them into this, an act which ranks alongside rape (and often enough it is rape) and murder for real impact on a victim. But if you open a picture editor and paste a child'd head on a naked woman's body, where is the rape victim?