I wish I was as composed as you. You’re still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:

• first they lie I was saying there were no victims;
• then they backpedal and say “It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.”;
• then they backpedal again and say what boils down to “talking about morals bad! Also I’ll talk about MY morals. I don’t see moral difference when people are harmed and when they’re not” (inb4 I’m abridging it)

All of that while they’re still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called “never play defence”: make dumb claim, waste someone else’s time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.

Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.

There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.

But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.

I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.

But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.