Well yeah, we agree on this. I'm not disputing that.
I guess you're using the word 'art' as synonymous for 'morally acceptable content' then? I guess disputing definitions won't really get me anywhere; it just feels a bit weird to me is all since people usually mean something different when they use the word 'art'. But you can use the word that way if you like.
Hm, so a bit like the argument for gun control then? Guns don't kill people, but they enable more people to be killed and preventing deaths is more important than people's wanting to have fun shooting stuff with lethal projectiles?
At the very least, if we're going to make decisions to ban things because of the harm it might do rather than the harm it intrinsically, by definition does, I'd at least like evidence that the things we're banning actually increases risk if allowed to exist, rather than making assumptions because it feels reprehensible to us. Does possession of Content X correlate with engaging in Offense Y? What if we controlled for other factors that are associated with Offense Y (is it correlation or actual causation)? What if Content X actually decreases the likelihood of Offense Y? Just because you don't see or refuse to acknowledge any logical or moral reasons for something to exist, doesn't mean there aren't any.
Anyway, I'm going to dip out of this conversation for a while. It's not really something I like talking about, even if I inevitably feel compelled to engage every time it pops up.
