Where have I said anything of the sort? For all the accusations of hyperbole you're throwing around, you sure do seem to be more inclined to answer the points I haven't made than to answer those I have.
I'm responding to the literal meaning of your words. No one can divine your intended meaning.
You even said that my interpretation of your literal words was not far from your intent, and doubled-down on your claim that child porn is almost as vile as child molestation. I then pointed out that some cartoons are considered child porn, and contrasted that with legal porn that's also widely considered to be vile, then asked if you stand by your claim that underage cartoon sex is really more vile than this type of legal porn (which doesn't even touch on the issue of why vileness is a meaningful metric of legality, as opposed to something obviously meaningful like harm).
US federal law [1], per the Department of Justice, disagrees:
> Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor...
No language exists to include depictions of the sort you describe, which are trivially distinguishable from an actual minor.
Perhaps you argue from the law of a specific US state, but you need in that case to name the state on whose laws you base your argument, and explain why they have a stronger bearing on the matter at hand than the laws of the nation entire.
If you're going to continue to accuse me of engaging in hyperbole, authoritarianism, ignorant pseudoscientific wittering, and whatever else you can think of, that is of course your privilege, and I would never dream of suggesting you demur. But will you please leaven it a bit with actual substance, as in your comment full of rich, meaty counter-citations to my hypothesis around reinforcement, a comment which I look forward to perusing? That was an excellent comment, and I appreciate it! Quite aside from the tantalizing possibility of learning something new and thus improving my understanding of reality, one does eventually grow tired of the same thing over and over; a bit of variety appeals.
The, what, half-dozen or so of them, almost all of whom actually did possess, and were charged with crimes revolving around, actual child pornography as well?
