Do you actually agree with that retroactive withdrawing?
In any case, retroactive granting is generally legal already, except in the case of children. And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced.
Your idea is no less extreme than the one you referenced. Referencing it just makes you look like you're trying an underhanded debating tactic.
So is your point that we shouldn't enforce social more's? If so, why not just say that more directly. I don't think anyone is pretending this isn't one, so why do you need to resort to such indirection to object to that?
>Your idea is no less extreme than the one you referenced.
I mean they're on opposite directions, so it's not so simple to compare directly, as you'd be comparing distances that aren't between the same groups. You can look at distance from the Overton Window but that introduces its own vagueness.
>So is your point that we shouldn't enforce social more's? If so, why not just say that more directly.
>If child porn is inherently bad, then it makes sense.
>But if the only problem is the impact on the victim, then the victim should have control over whether they were really a victim.
I am a consequentialist, and I think you should only consider something bad if it has bad consequences. I recognize others disagree, but I did say that directly above.
>I don't think anyone is pretending this isn't one
Not quite in those words, but as I noted plenty of justifications for the laws are couched in consequentialist terms. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually mean that as the reason.
In any case, retroactive granting is generally legal already, except in the case of children. And that's because it's a social more that is being enforced.