Uhhh rdrama.... Why are so many people defending child porn in this thread?

Because it's not according to science. The thing is, that once someone has been a scientist, they never stop being a scientist. They never stop thinking rationally and critically. They tear apart obvious bullshit with ease after years of doing peer review with actual scientists, after working with their advisors and departments to produce a worthwhile and defensible doctoral thesis, even.

The photo was of a juvenile human female, Tanner stage 1 (i.e. toddler), nude, standing in a pool of water. The child was not engaged in any sexual activity, and the photo in and of itself was not sexual or sexualized. The photo was not, in and of itself, child porn, and in and of itself would not violate Reddit's Content Policy against sexualizing minors, except in the directive of, "If you are unsure of a piece of content involving a minor or someone who appears to be a minor, do not post it."