CP should be legal and am not a pedo

I am not a pedo, am attracted to girls ~16-36ish but would never try anything with someone under 18. That out of the way, let me explain why I think CP should be legal.

On a technical scale:

Computer files are strings of binary. Binary consists of 1's and 0's. Anything that can be expressed as a binary string can be expressed as a decimal number also. On a logical level, CP images can not be separated from the decimal number that their binary string converts to. CP being illegal means that some large numbers are illegal. Most laws say that encrypted CP is illegal also. But, that is illogical. With the proper key to decrypt and the proper algorithm, ANYTHING CAN BE ENCRYPTED CP.

Let's say the number 5,683,283 is a decimal number that converts to a binary string that is interpreted as a CP image by an image viewing program. This is not the case, the number is much smaller than the sort of numbers that would make any type of picture, but just for example. Let's say that 827,392,293,538 is the decimal number that represents a binary string that is interpreted by an OS as a video game. The difference between 5,683,283 and 827,392,293,538 is 827,386,610,255. So the video game is cipher text, the key is 827,386,610,255 and the decryption algorithm is to subtract the key from the ciphertext to get the plain text. OMG that means the video game you just downloaded is encrypted CP!!!! Everything on the fucking internet is encrypted CP because with some key you can convert it to CP.

The problem is that you're assuming that the parts is the materials that make up the content, and not the whole. Who is to say that the air is truly "air," and that a table is truly a "table," when in fact those things are really made up of molecules, which in turn are made up particles, which in turn may themselves be made up of configurations of even smaller things?

In this view, the truth are those things that have been agreed upon by consensus. We can all agree that this is air and this is a table because based on our shared perceptions, as dictated by the limitations of our senses, this consensus can make useful sense to us, and thus we will make it. Similarly, as we do not view the table as many individual molecules, but one discreet object that we refer to by name, so to do we not see the CP image as a number, or a set of digits, or even an array of pixels; but as a depiction of child abuse. There are distinctions to be made within that consensus, regarding the content itself; but not how that content is expressed. Our perceptions will allow us all to view CP, at the very least, as an image.

Time to proofread!

The controversy lies in your assumption that the parts and materials that make up the whole is the content, and not the whole that is the content. The whole, in this case, is decided by consensus, like most matters of rhetoric. For example, who is to say that the air is truly "air," and that a table is truly a "table," when we know that those things are made up of many tiny molecules; which, in turn, made up of particles; which, in turn, may themselves be made up of even smaller things? Why even make a distinction between "air" and "table" in the first place, when we know that they are all made up of the same small, conceptually inconsequential units?

In this view, truths are those things that have been agreed upon by consensus. We have all agreed that this is "air" and this is "a table" because, based on our shared perceptions -- which are themselves dictated by the limitations of our senses -- this consensus makes useful sense to us. There may be times when it would not be right to call the air simply "the air," at which point it would again be up to consensus to determine whether or not a more precise definition would be appropriate.

Similarly, we not see the CP image as a number, or a set of digits, or even an array of pixels; but as an image that depicts child abuse. There are distinctions to be made within that consensus in regards to the content itself -- whether or not a particular image is child abuse -- but in these cases, it is the content that is the controversy, and not how that content is physically expressed, by molecules or by numbers; but rather, by the confines of our senses: as an image.