I have a 3 year old and a 1 year old and I can't abide by folks who are so bad at statistics that they'd happily ruin the world for fear of some statistical implausibility to become true in their lives.
I understand that you're taking this position with the best of intentions but 'child porn is bad' does not equate with 'a surveilance state is good because it gets rid of child porn or its viewers'.
I've always had this weird observation. What makes child porn different than a parent having photos of their naked child? Porn isn't just sex acts.
There are clear distinctions, yes, but this line can get extremely blurry real quick. I often wonder at what point a police state would get the wrong idea and arrest a parent for their own perfectly innocuous photos.
It just always fascinates me when morality can be subjective like this and completely up to individual interpretation.
And I can't abide by folks who take pictures of children for the sake of their own sexual gratification. But at no time did I say a surveillance state was okay for this reason. Don't put words in my mouth.
I understand that you're taking this position with the best of intentions but 'child porn is bad' does not equate with 'a surveilance state is good because it gets rid of child porn or its viewers'.
Fear is such a bad counsel.