But that only sounds like it is an argument against production. You already have said if a PRNG or 3D rendering software outputs a number that is identical to a CP file produced in the future, that it is still morally acceptable to look at the resulting image. But it is immoral to look at the same number that came from the camera of a child molester? Sure it is moral to run a PRNG and not moral to molest a child on camera, but the resulting number is the same. How can it be moral for Alice to look at an instance of the number 4 that her PRNG randomly generated, but immoral for Bob to look at an instance of the number 4 that came from the camera of a child molesters camera? 4 is 4, after all. I cannot understand how an instance of the number 4 can be tainted while another instance of the number 4 is not tainted. I find it especially weird that you think this instance of the number 4 remains tainted after it is sent around the internet. Alice sends her number 4 around to different machines on the internet, and it is morally fine for anyone to look at the image it produces, but when Bob sends his number 4 around the internet anyone who looks at it is a sick fuck child molester who should be put to death for causing child abuse to take place all over again in the past. When Alice transmits the number 4 it causes the same thing to happen as when Bob transmits the number 4. I just don't get it honestly, I find the entire notion to be completely alien and something that is straight out of the twilight zone. The number 4 is moral in some cases, but in other cases the number 4 causes children to be molested in the past. A number 4 that is not tainted can be freely traded and used and cannot become tainted, but a number 4 that is tainted cannot be viewed or become clean via transfer. If I copy one instance of the number 4 I am not a criminal, if I copy another instance of the number 4 I should be castrated. I just don't understand.