• Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    19 hours ago

    You can think whatever you want about what creeps may or may not do hypothetically, until you’ve got actual evidence those thoughts are worthless

    • Cam@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      So it is worthy to risk children being raped to feed the paraphilia of few people. Okay, but not okay.

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that viewing any kind of porn leads to any behavior other than possibly viewing more porn. People who view furry porn don’t suddenly decide they want to fuck animals, people who view rape fantasy material don’t magically become enthusiastic rapists. People who want to molest children don’t want it because they saw porn about it, they create CSAM as a result of their pre-existing pedophilic urges. Horse, then cart.

        • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          from the article:

          AI-generated CSAM may also present other challenges not raised by the government in this appeal. For example, researchers have found that “a major dataset used for training image-generating AI contained hundreds of CSAM images.” Thus, unlike the virtual CSAM at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the market for AI-generated virtual CSAM images may impact the demand for actual CSAM on which the AI models can train.

        • Cam@scribe.disroot.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I said risk, not that it definitely would happen. Caution, do you know about that? Or reading comprehension.
          It’s the same as when a chemical isn’t proven safe and businesses are not allowed to add it to your food. It may be completely safe, but just in case.
          If the benefit of using something outweighs the risk it would be reasonable to allow it, but we are talking about something with no proven benefit other than letting pedos enjoy themselves.
          Not to talk about the re-victimization of CSAM survivors because there are cases of victims appearing in AI generated material because of the training using the original rape media. But I guess you don’t care and would say they just look alike or some excuse.

            • Cam@scribe.disroot.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Well, since it seems you are a low level troll I’m going to stop feeding you. I’ll go on with my life while you feed on someone else.

    • Gaslov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Driving drunk is known to be dangerous. People who indulge in that behavior eventually hurt others. We don’t wait for a drunk driver to crash into someone before we arrest them. We arrest them the minute they turn on their car while drunk.

      Someone who indulges in sexualizing children will eventually hurt a child and we should not need to wait for it to happen before we arrest them.

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Driving drunk is what causes the wreck and the harm directly, viewing pornography has no possible direct result, your comparison is dumb as shit

    • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Evidence? You mean other than the extensive research, clinical tests, personal stories and confessions of offenders?

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Anything’s possible when you make shit up. You don’t have research to support the claim that viewing any sort of pornographic material leads to behaviors depicted in that material, personal stories and confessions are not even close to the same thing as research and the fact that you bothered listing them together tells me that you’re a fucking moron

        • InputZero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          My dude anything is possible when you gatekeep information. You’re defending making child sexual abuse material (SCAM).

          This is what the entire case was sort of about, and also explicitly not about. Does it harm children and the answer was the first amendment. That’s not really an answer. Honestly this isn’t a problem for the courts to figure out it’s a legislative problem and good luck with that.

          My personal opinion, no one should be able to create any sexualized content of children regardless of whether or not it’s AI generated, authentic CSAM, hand drawn art, or anything else. Children should not be sexualized, I can’t believe this is up for debate.

          • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I’m not defending anything, I’m attacking a baseless claim about pornography making people do things, learn to read dumbass. Your personal opinion is as worthless as the person I was initially responding to.

        • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Oh wow. You seem to be awfully enraged about this. You must have some personal investment in people being allowed to view specific types of “pornographic material”. Well, don’t let something like facts or common sense get in the way of your crusade.

          • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Most reasonable people would get angry about someone lying about shit and then telling them they’re wrong for calling them out and backhandedly accusing them of being pedophiles for disagreeing, and that is exactly what happens every time this topic comes up. I do have a vested interest in keeping the US from setting up a legal justification/precedent/system for incarcerating and killing trans people, of which I am one, and conservatives have been pushing the narrative that trans people are converting/targeting kids specifically for this reason. Any legal framework targeting pedophiles for anything other than actual crimes against children will be hijacked by conservatives and used against me and people I care about for the crime of being queer.

            • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              Any legal framework targeting pedophiles… will be… used against me

              I think I understand why you’re fighting so hard here in the comments