>>9284
>If by some miracle it was declared that child porn is OK as long as it does not involve real children within 5 or 10 years everyone will change their minds that it is totally fine even if it is real.

Doubtful. Child porn has only intrinsic value and no instrumental value, which means that for people who do not see the intrinsic value there is no hope of ever explaining it. With instrumental value one can have an answer for why it is good, since it yields some desired outcome, but if anyone asks why child porn is good, there can be no answer. One either sees it as good or not, and the vast majority of people don't see it.

That means there is nothing on the positive side to balance the scales against the negative side of child porn with real children. Children are dependent and helpless, so children can be easily pressured into performing in porn. We may not be able to remember what it was like to be a child, but anyone can appreciate how nightmarish it would be to be coerced into performing in porn against our will, so we want to protect children from that. Even in the case where a child is fully willing, that's bound to be seen as part of the foolishness of youth. Children are not mature enough to make carefully considered decisions, so people want to protect them from making mistakes.

In order for real child porn to be seen as fine, it would need to establish a positive value to outweigh the negative. For example, perhaps the children could be lavishly paid, so participating in a little child porn sets a child up for college. On top of that it would be best to mitigate the negatives by making child porn into a well-established industry with a very powerful union to keep the children protected in every way possible. No one ever trusts shady underground operations.