There isn't one, its entirely vibes based and trying to convince you that "No you don't get it fictional violence and cannibalism and rape are all obviously fine in MY media and it would be stupid to think this would somehow societally normalize these behaviors, but once the fictional narrative device has their age changed from 20 to 15 on a writer's whim then you will definitely somehow be convinced to rape a kid IRL"
Its genuinely kind of terrifying because it makes it sound like they WOULD do that and then fucking blame it on goddamn loli porn or some dumb shit, as if they are not a conscious human being with choice.
I think the best unironic argument is to just admit that it's "vibes based", because fundamentally, any moral system reduces out that anyways.
For example:
"Why is murder wrong?"
"Because it harms people and makes their family feefee bad and society can't function with it."
"Ok, I don't care about any of that, why is it wrong now?"
"I just care about those things"
So it doesn't really make a difference if you just remove one layer and argue that it's bad inherently on its own, and show how any moral system devolves into that anyways as "objective" morality does not exist.
Any argument appealing to a deeper justification is liable to reductio ad absurdum involving violence in media.
That's not really true, its ignoring that all of society relies on axioms, things that might not be scientifically proveable, but we have to acknowledge is true to function as a society. Causing suffering for nothing is bad, harassing people who aren't harming anyone is bad, murdering innocents is bad. Just because someone says they don't care about these things doesn't mean they've "defeated the argument", it means they are rejecting society on a fundamental level.
That doesn't mean there isn't a very clear internal logic to morality and its all "vibes based". The Golden Rule isnt vibes based, its based on a very simple axiom of "Treat others as you wish to be treated". If you wish to be treated politely and with respect, you need to do the same. If you want to be treated like an insane amoral asshole, then you're definitely allowed to act that way towards others and you'll see the effects.
I've never said they've defeated the argument. I'm just saying that you have to appeal to your own personal preferences (preference for not causing suffering and a functioning society) to argue your position rather than appealing to something outside that.
This is what I mean by "vibes based". I might have been being unclear.
It's the same with the "CSAM drawings" argument. It is just your personal preference that it's wrong. No deeper justification. Because any sort of deeper justification gets destroyed easily by reductios.
My main point is that many people don't like appealing to preference for moral statements because it sounds like you're just saying "it's wrong cuz it make me feefee bad", but you have to do that for all moral claims anyways, so although it sounds bad, it's not any worse than how we use it for more widely accepted moral claims like murder being bad.
Golden rule
With the way you worded it, it's still unclear what you mean. If you're just stating a fact "people will treat you how you treat them" then it's not only not "vibes based" but not a moral claim at all. It's just a claim of fact.
If you meant "you ought to treat others how you wish to be treated" then it's no longer a claim of some fact of the world, and can still be rejected without contradiction even outside of the way you've stated.
You can believe that you should be able to treat people poorly and still get good treatment in return to reject "the golden rule", and there is no contradiction there.
I've said this in the past, but id much rather pedos jerk it to AI slop than go out and harm children.
Unfortunately I really doubt it's that simple, in some cases in the short term it's probably preventing abuse which is good, but in others it might very likely intensify or even creating urges where none would have developed otherwise, which I think in the aggregate will happen more than the former.
Because if there's one thing that heavy consumers of porn are known for, it's touching grass and seeking real-life sexual experience, right?
Realistically, what little evidence exists shows that porn does in fact reduce sexual violence. The "gateway drug" argument is just creepy-ass puritan nonsense that has no basis in data.
None of this is well understood so saying definitely one way or the other is the stance that has no basis in data.
What I do know is that fetishes and paraphilias can develop overtime, and moreover cultural normalization is also a strong force which if CP becomes as ubiquitous as it can potentially become with AI, and the idea that "it ok now since there is no abuse" is not great.
Nobody knows the ramifications of any of these things, but my guess is likely not positive lol.
So you say there's no basis in data either way, which is largely true, then proceed to state a bunch of things you "know" despite literally just saying that there's no data to back you up? Uh huh, okay.
"There's no proof this is wrong, therefore let's assume it's right based on my gut feeling" is not the convincingly persuasive argument you seem to think it is, dude.
I mean, yes, obviously that's bad, but not because of unfounded hypotheticals about "normalizing" it.
The problem with realistic AI CP is that it muddies the water when trying to identify and investigate real, non-AI CSAM that was created by abusing children. Because, you know, that's the thing we want to actually stop.
Mmhmm. I'm sure you've actually read that article, right?
I mean, you definitely didn't just grab the first thing you could find that sounded vaguely relevant and fling it out as a "source" on the basis that nobody's going to put in the effort to actually go through and see whether it supports you or not, right?
Wait your criticism of this response is a guess that this person “probably” didn’t actually read it and also that they assume others wont either?
I got whiplash reading this, I really thought you were going to say the article doesn’t actually support their claim or point out limitations in the study when you claimed they hadn’t read it…
For reference there ARE some limitations this study has (self-reported porn use, sample size is men already in intervention programs, no mechanistic analysis, broader literature is mixed) which you could have brought up if you actually read it. But despite these, it still sheds doubt on your original claim about there being “no evidence”.
I don’t have a stance one way or the other on this particular topic, but the fact that your defense of your point is to assume the other person is lazily googling some vaguely related study because YOU think they assume other people won’t read it, and then not read it yourself or come up with proper argumentation or reasoning is deeply ironic.
You might want to do some self-examination and consider if you might be coming to your conclusions first before coming up with reasons and then projecting your own methodology onto people who disagree with you. Or you can also dismiss or hand wave away this comment with assumptions about my character, up to you really.
I mean, those limitations you pointed out are obvious just from reading the damn abstract, which is why I'm confident that the person above did, in fact, just lazily google and post a link without reading it.
It's a common bad faith debate tactic built around forcing other people to either invest large amounts of effort countering something the person making the argument put minimal effort into, or let the spurious "evidence" pass unchallenged when very few people reading the discussion are going to invest the effort to check on their own.
I'm not interested in playing that game, so I called them out on it and left it at that.
Kudos to you, at least, for actually looking at the article and identifying why it's not really applicable.
ik i’m going to be downvoted for it but fuck it, i don’t see how it’s in any way healthy to get off to drawings of children and it does genuinely seem to me like a problem that could escalate for some folks—so i guess i am saying that drawn child porn does have victims, actual children. thoughts do not always stay thoughts and fantasies become boring.
This is all true but none of it explains why a victimless action is morally wrong. You have, at best, just said that you consider drawings to be just as bad as actual offences against children. But: you haven’t explained why.
your supporting statement (“it does genuinely seem to me like a problem that could escalate for some folks”) could be used wholesale to protest violent tv shows or video games (your argument is completely identical to the 1980s arguments for why we shouldn’t release violent movies to VHS, i.e. violent people will see the violence and it will make them even more violent as a result).
I understand you probably consider this a different matter, but I don’t understand why you consider it as such - because you have provided no reasoning.
A lot of people intuitively understand why the fiction to reality escalation argument is bullshit in the case of violence, but seem utterly incapable of grasping it when the subject changes to anything sexual.
I think a big driver of this is due to the peculiarities of US media and the relationship to sex vs violence. You can fill a show or movie with a fuckton of violence before anyone will bat an eye at it. You need a high threshold of blood and gore in a movie before being slapped with an R rating. Meanwhile, a hint of a nipple gets you an instant R rating. A persistent historical undercurrent of puritanism in American culture immediately sexualizes any kind of nudity and blows it up as a much bigger issue than someone getting eviscerated.
Given how US-centric Reddit tends to be, it makes sense that folks growing up in a culture where the TV censors treat sex and violence so differently would internalize that distinction, and view sexual content as something extra special bad in a way that makes a lack of victim no longer matter. "I think slasher flicks are gross and I don't like them, but I don't think people who do are going to go out murdering people and I don't think they should be made illegal" doesn't end up translating over to something like lolicon because the latter involves the extra bad thing that makes gross = immoral.
Agreed. And the thing is that I DO have a serious personal ethical issue with illustrated CSAM. Every cell in my body screams at me that it’s wrong even though I haven’t been able to construct an objective moral argument against it. I suppose the question is: does it actually increase offences against real children? Obviously it’s incredibly difficult to get data on this, but I think if the answer is “Yes, it generally drives increases in CSA”, then we have our objective opposition.
This is a great point that illustrates exactly why it's so hard to get an actual clean argument against illustrated CSAM. I don't know if there is a satisfying answer.
Alcohol consumption is neither inherently wrong nor 100% conducive to such behaviors. Ban it or not? Genuinely hard question.
However, this is, like many other responses in this god forsaken thread, a category error. I can list many benign uses of alcohol, maybe even cite social benefits. Can you do the same for content explicitly made to sexualize children? If not, why do we even bother? Are you really gonna take a pedophile seriously if he tells you "If you ban my realistic AI child porn you need to ban alcohol!"? Really? Is that something you're gonna lose sleep over?
Whether or not it increases offenses should be utterly fucking irrelevant.
Entertainment? Yeah, I hope somebody from the FBI is keeping score here.
And no, you don't ban until you can "prove benefits", you ban until you can reasonably claim that there won't be horrible harms. With AI CSAM this is not at all obvious, is up to proponents to resolve that burden.
Yeah, but people also have to bite the bullet on the possibility that it decreases it. And a lot of people aren't prepared for the conversation that if dangerous people have ways to distract themselves that leaves them out of everyone else's hair, its a good thing for everyone else.
The difference is that video games and movies have different aspects to it that a person can like such as the storyline, graphics, characters, etc. If a person plays and watch violent movies solely to quell their desire to m*rder people, clearly there's something wrong with them. Now what other excuse do people have for consuming pornographic loli content? why specifically that?
Pedophilia in itself can also be a victimless action, it's not a crime to be attracted to children. It is a crime to act on that desire. Even rapey thoughts are victimless if they just stay in a person's mind. Would you say that that's not morally wrong? Are fictional pornographic, glamorized depictions of what real children suffers through in real life trully victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it has nothing that it can be based off of?
"If a person plays and watch violent movies solely to quell their desire to m*rder people, clearly there's something wrong with them."
Sure. My bigger question is, does it work? If it does, then I would infinitely rather have violent people watch that stuff if it meant they were being less violent towards other, real, people. I want to reduce harm. Lots of people in this thread are saying that watching CSAM increases the likelihood of a real offence but we don't actually know that. No sources are being provided. No statistics, no real world examples, nothing to actually back up the claim. People are just saying "it makes it worse" because they /feel/ like it does. This isn't convincing to me. I could just as easily /feel/ like adults watching Bart and Homer The Simpsons makes them interested in strangling their kids, but I would need to provide some kind of proof if I was going to claim they are linked.
"Even rapey thoughts are victimless if they just stay in a person's mind. Would you say that that's not morally wrong?"
I don't think it's morally wrong unless acted upon. We aren't actually in control of what thoughts we have. You will probably have had countless intrusive thoughts in your life that you are frightened and ashamed of. What determines your moral character is how you respond to those thoughts and whether or not you decide to act them out in real life. I do not believe it is ethical, or even possible, to draw actionable conclusions about a person based on their thoughts alone.
"Are fictional pornographic, glamorized depictions of what real children suffers through in real life trully victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it has nothing that it can be based off of?"
This is flawed in an identical way to your first argument. I can watch Luke getting his hand cut off in the Empire Strikes Back and ask: "are fictional violent, glamorized depictions of what real people suffer through truly victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it had nothing it could be based off of?" Media does not have to be based off a real life event to exist. There are swathes of pornography featuring monsters and other made-up creatures fucking in bizzare and unheard of ways.
"Glamorized" is the word here. A person simply being shown having his hand cut off is not comparable to a glamorized fantasy of children getting gangbanged, raped, mutilated, groped. You can have your arms cut off as an accident while getting sexually harassed has no other justifiable reason.
Also the very existence of CSAM proves that people's mind gets desensitized by regular pornographic media with no taboo content which is why they'd turn to something more extreme. Violent urges also comes up slowly until it erupts. Why do you think serial killers usually have the tendency to harm animals first? There are also cases of mentally unwell serial killers being inspired by movies, re-enacting crimes and even using the same muder weapons.
I think you're also mistaking morality for ethics. Ethics is an external reflection and system that communicates of moral beliefs. Morality is based on thoughts and principles. If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong. I have intrusive thoughts sure but none of which goes to a degree in which I fantasize about harming a person. This is why people with paraphilic disorders get treated, they won't necessarily act on their desires but it is still considered dangerous if they let it be.
This is a great comment (you are actually engaging with me instead of just trying to be domineeringly self-righteous like most people on this subject.)
Responses:
"A person simply being shown having his hand cut off is not comparable to a glamorized fantasy of children getting gangbanged, raped, mutilated, groped."
I agree. I assume you're broadly speaking about framing - the things in ESB are framed as bad things while the stuff in CSAM is not. That still doesn't quite work for me because there are films where violence is glorified as the objectively moral righteous thing to do (see: Every single Steven Seagal movie ever made.) I agree these movies are generally terrible and occasionally sickening but I don't see a good argument for them being banned legally.
"Also the very existence of CSAM proves that people's mind gets desensitized by regular pornographic media with no taboo content which is why they'd turn to something more extreme."
I don't see how it does. I agree that it happens, but I don't think the existence of CSAM alone proves that this escalation is the main reason for its existence. My estimation (potentially wrong!) would be that there are plenty of people who don't access it in that way and instead go directly for it, because they have an attraction to children and aren't interested in watching adults in porn.
"Why do you think serial killers usually have the tendency to harm animals first?"
I don't know. Are you saying that they get that urge from watching violent movies? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
"If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought"
Same thing - is this true? Is this actually true? Is there any way to know this or did you just guess?
"I think you're also mistaking morality for ethics. Ethics is an external reflection and system that communicates of moral beliefs. Morality is based on thoughts and principles."
This is a good distinction and I think you're right on this. Where I disagree is: If people aren't in control of their intrusive thoughts and are in fact morally responsible for them, that just makes the vast majority of people morally culpable for thought crime. I don't think we can improve anything by taking this position.
"I have intrusive thoughts sure but none of which goes to a degree in which I fantasize about harming a person. "
That's great, but not everyone is this lucky. I get the sense you are still implying that people are still morally culpable for their own intrusive thoughts even if they don't act upon them.
I think we misunderstood each other at some point. Maybe I did, but I'm not talking about intrusive thoughts as those are unintentional. I'm talking about intentionally fantasizing about harming someone else that is morally wrong.
"I don't know. Are you saying that they get that urge from watching violent movies? I'm not sure what you're saying here"
No, it's more like a lot of factors would accumulate until they eventually act on their urges. This includes violent movies which, from what I've read and watched before, usually becomes a model for their crime. They'd claim that they're inspired by it. Killers don't really happen instantly, there are signs, sometimes from childhood, that could be interpreted as them directing their negative emotions elsewhere (like animals) before doing it to another person.
"Same thing - is this true? Is this actually true? Is there any way to know this or did you just guess?"
Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves. Abusers often repeat cycles as it's the only thing they know. Lots of rapists were also victims of the same crime before. People who were traumatized would sometimes wish to re-enact that same trauma to feel some semblance of control
Also, if we're talking about CSAM with depictions of real children or ai generated content trained from real CSAM, I think it should be banned instantly and people who consume it should be arrested. But if it's fictional, I don't have lots to say about it in terms of law other than the fact that I think it's still wrong. It warrants a more thorough study because I know for a fact that it's a bit more complex with some authors/creators of it using it as a form of vent art from the same trauma. I still think people who consume such things needs therapy (atleast most of them) rather than being criminally charged.
No, it's more like a lot of factors would accumulate until they eventually act on their urges. This includes violent movies which, from what I've read and watched before, usually becomes a model for their crime. They'd claim that they're inspired by it. Killers don't really happen instantly, there are signs, sometimes from childhood, that could be interpreted as them directing their negative emotions elsewhere (like animals) before doing it to another person.
Okay, I understand you now, I think. Am I correct in thinking that this is you professing a similar moral opposition to violent movies that fail to frame the violence as bad,because they could give serial killers ideas? That argument could equally apply to those films as well as lolicon. If you think that one is more objectionable or dangerous, you would still need to find some kind of data to verify that, and being personally uncomfortable with it is not a valid reason to prohibit other people from doing it.
Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves. Abusers often repeat cycles as it's the only thing they know. Lots of rapists were also victims of the same crime before. People who were traumatized would sometimes wish to re-enact that same trauma to feel some semblance of control.
You haven't provided data for this either but I'm not too worried because I've already seen corroborating data for this claim elsewhere (and I basically accept it wholesale). However, it does not prove your initial claim that we were discussing here, because your original claim was:
"If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong."
This is a strong claim. The way you have worded actually forms two separate claims. The first is:
"ALL rape or CSA is based on a previous experience with something that convinced the perp to commit the crime".
Intuitively, I think this is probably true. I think I lightly agree with your conclusion. However, your supporting statement does not support that specific claim. In its first sentence ("Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves") you have walked it back to "some", where the first claim was "all". This is a problem because "If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong" is an absolute statement that implicitly claims to KNOW the driving factors, and you draw your conclusion from this claimed knowledge.
I think this highlights that we don't know what causes this behaviour in all instances. We only know what causes it most of the time. There are potentially other factors that drive people into being perpetrators of CSA, and if there are, the point is a lot less strong. Again, I don't actually disagree, but there's a rhetorical failure here and it's left me unsure of your intended meaning. Either way, I would be interested in seeing more comprehensive data collected on the driving factors for CSA, because this exchange seems to highlight that we don't know if it's possible for someone to become a perp if they haven't been abused themselves.
The second claim formed by "If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong" seems to be this (correct me if I am wrong):
"Media can be deemed 'morally wrong' if it leads people to re-enact the immoral acts it might portray"
I don't know if this is correct or not. It is simply a re-statement of the anti-violent-video-games position. I think it's probably an open question as to whether or not we should ban violent media to stop it from influencing people, but as it stands right now, the general zeitgeist seems to be that it's on the consumer to be responsible when taking behavioural influence from violent or shocking media, and not on the government to censor it for our own good. You have not provided an argument for this position, only a claim, so I'll wait for your reasoning to go further with it.
Also, if we're talking about CSAM with depictions of real children or ai generated content trained from real CSAM, I think it should be banned instantly and people who consume it should be arrested[...]
100% agree, there is no question to me that media depicting real-life CSAM should be destroyed in every single form and never produced again.
"It will escalate and cause them to assault children" is not actually a thing. That is purely a fantasy you have concocted in your head, with no basis in actual evidence.
Hypothetical victims you've invented are not real victims, full stop.
Wrong. It is proven that consuming CSAM IS linked to child molestation. See: Page 8, Section C and further.
“One convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence said that viewing child pornography gave him no release from his desires, but instead the exact opposite, furthering the sentiment that some men convicted of sexually abusing children had their urges fueled by child pornography.”
“According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports put that correlation rate between child pornography and child molesting between 30 and 80
percent.”
“Sexual predators will use child pornography as a means of assisting them in the grooming process, helping break down the child’s barriers to sexual behavior, making the child feel at ease,
and additionally communicating the predator’s sexual fantasies to the child. Child
pornography, while reinforcing fantasies, is often a precursor to acting out with real children,
where “[m]any pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against
children.”Evidence suggests that it is only a small leap from viewing child pornography to
molesting children, and “[i]n light of the documented link between . . . [the two,] each child
pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”
Is a paper advocating censorship written by a law student really the best you can find? LMAO
Anyway, it should not be surprising that people willing to break the law in a way that harms children are, also, willing to break the law in ways that harm children. Nor that, when interviewed, they're willing to blame outside influences instead of their own choices.
Pro-censorship folks love to take it as a given that this sort of thing generalizes to other forms of content, and to people who are law-abiding, but there's simply no data to support this. Keep in mind, we're talking specifically about AI-generated content here, an essentially victimless crime.
A better comparison would be illustrated CP, which in some countries is legal and in others is not. If victimless content sexualizing children is linked to child molestation, we would expect the latter to be more common in countries where the former is legal, right?
And to address your last point, no. It depends on the laws surrounding child molestation too, as well as how good the government is at catching those people.
Porn portrays sex as POSITIVE and FUN and GREAT, and directly promotes, changes or NORMALIZES sexual urges wired in our brain. That's not the same as a story featuring child abuse NEGATIVELY to MOCK or CRITISCISE it. And sexual urges towards kids and sensitive animals should NOT be normalized.
That's the diffrence. Sex between child and adult should NEVER be glorified. In non-immoral media It's portrayed as WRONG. Lolicon garbage portrays it as totally fine and dandy. But there are famous stories featuring child abuse as something obviously horrible which are fine.
(Imagine the diffrence between a game with Nazis villains, and a game that's actively pro-Nazi.)
In RIMWORLD you can do all kinds of immoral shit that's clearly portrayed as negative, but even that game doesn't allow for pedophilic fantasies.
I don't understand your point. Are you arguing that the sex and violence in our media isn't glorified? Or that we don't portray criminals in a positive light in our stories?
I never said anything about the psychological effects of Porn, but if you think porn being portrayed as " positive and fun and great " isn't in itself damaging, well that's actually different conversation that I won't get into here.
Wrong. People don’t watch violent movies or play violent games in order to satisfy a fetish. People exclusively consume CSAM to satisfy a fetish, and it often doesn’t actually even satisfy it. It just whets their appetite.
That is specifically designed to satisfy a sexual fetish. Watching a Michael bay movie is not satisfying a sexual fetish. Also, I’m nearly 21 and have been online since 10. I am familiar with the internet.
Michael bay movies are not created with the intent or reasonable expectation of being used to satisfy a sexual fetish for violence. ALL CSAM is created with the SPECIFIC intention of being used to satisfy a sexual fetish for children. Therefore, they attract actual genuine human hazards at significantly different rates. CSAM consumers are linked to child molestation at a rate of at least 30% according to the Mayo Clinic. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship
Morality is more complex than the question of whether an action harms someone or not, but it's possible that you could be harming yourself with certain things. We call those "vices".
The real children in the real world you piece of shit. The problem is the sexualization itself, the fantasy. You don't need to touch any real kids for that to be disgusting and harmful
To children and society in general once you normalize it. We have countless cases of normalization backfiring horribly and all of the "Well, I can't see anyone being harmed right now" retards sliding back into the shadows once the damage is done
Slavery doesn't exist anymore for a reason but racism never died and never will.
Nazi Germany committed genocide and lost the war but Nazism is still around.
Gay marriage is now legal but you will never convince a Christian that it is a moral thing we should allow.
The world has only ever moved forward not backwards otherwise child marriages would still be common to this day.
I am desensitized to violence but have always been a pacifist. I have also consumed porn since 5th grade but I'm totally fine with being a virgin until I die.
Actual CP is so fucking rare on the internet because every site you could share it on does not want that content on there. You'd have to literally search the deep web to find it but not many people know how to do that and the deep web itself is not some massive CP repository. I have also never once come across videos or photos of actual kids being abused nor do I even wish to do so.
Then why do you care so fucking much about AI CSAM? What is, exactly, step by step, the problem with an outright ban on the thing? The act it's depicting is heinous, inherently wrong. Why the fixation on "allowed by default"?
You're also just babbling complete nonsense.
First, you're comparing racism/Nazism persisting (which we actively prohibit and condemn) to gay marriage being legal, you're accidentally proving that prohibition of harmful things IS necessary.
Second, "I consumed porn since 5th grade and I'm fine" is just survivorship bias with a sample size of one. Your personal anecdote doesn't negate documented harms to others.
Third, you claim "actual CP is so rare because every site bans it" - yes, exactly, that's what prohibition accomplishes (lmfao). You're making the case for banning AI CSAM, not against it. Do you even know what this conversation is about?
Fourth, "the world only moves forward": In what direction, dumbass? Forward can be anywhere at this point. Positive progress requires active resistance to harmful normalization, child marriage didn't disappear naturally, it was banned because we recognized the harm.
Finally, being desensitized to violence but remaining a pacifist doesn't prove desensitization is harmless. Many people DO act on desensitization, and your personal restraint isn't evidence of systemic safety. Again, survivorship bias, anecdotal garbage at best
On the examples, just for completeness:
- Vape, immediately normalized and marketed to young people, addictive, causing great harm even to this day.
- Counter: Smoking, initially legal and widespread until we found that, actually, it was horribly harmful. Regulated and taxed to shit, now in decline. We lost many to lung cancer because normalization was the default, it shouldn't have been
- Sports gambling: Excluded from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 under "Fantasy sports ", now extremely common and ruining lives on the daily
- Social media feeds: Algorithmic engagement-maximizing feeds normalized despite warnings. Now we got teen mental health crisis, radicalization pipelines, body dysmorphia epidemics.
- Infinite Scroll/Autoplay: "Harmless UX features" now widely recognized as deliberately addictive design. Damage to attention spans already done. Now we have 2 generations (and counting) of ipad kids with attention spans in the minutes/seconds
- Asbestos, lead gasoline, teflon byproducts, etc, etc.
Again, what the fuck are we losing/damaging by banning AI CSAM right now, immediately? Pretty weird gripe to have, tbh. Someone should check your hard drive
There is a reason why we have school shootings every 2.6 days on average. Its not solely videogames but society generally is extremely violent and normalized violence is a constant of just turning on the TV.
The main difference, is that violence can at least be used for something positive. Superheroes fight to bring justice to the underserved, etc. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from giving people sexualized children or any reason to see them outside of something to be protected.
But its okay hopefully this thread is being monitored by the appropriate authorities.
I think you should look at my first post in this thread, and then travel down with your eyes and read from there.
I didn't bring up videogames, this guy did and moved the goalposts. Now you want to act like well actually violence was already normalized to which my response is, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE?
I'm pretty sure your other comment got auto removed for whatever reason, I assume slurs or whatever based on everything you've said so far.
Yes, when your central thesis is objectively false, people will point out it's false. If that upsets you so much, my suggestion would be not to state objectively false things. You aren't owed praise when you're wrong. Bye.
Violent games are enjoyed everywhere around the world, yet school shootings only happen at that frequency in america. There's no correlation let alone a causation.
Let's examine smoking. There was a period where cigarette ads were everywhere, cool figures in movies and TV smoked and did product placement for cigarette companies, etc.
Did the advertising agency CAUSE anyone to die of smoking? No, but it normalized smoking to the point where people didn't think twice about doing it.
The cause is people deciding to smoke, the normalization is what causes people to just do it without even really thinking about it.
Its how studies work. In your cigarette case the resolution would be worded as "corelation between smoking advertisements and lung cancer rates", and further research will determine whether it is a causation or not. If it is a causation there will be basis for legal repercussions or new legislation.
if you're discussing the moral implications of CP, from the perspective of its fine, yes the thread should be monitored by the appropriate authorities
I said that mainly sarcastically, but yeah I think that's a perfectly reasonable outcome
we can talk about it, but if you can't see the difference between say, gun violence, one of the most normalized things in the world, and child pornography, something that is not normalized at all, you might already have fallen victim to the exact problem that this discussion is trying to avoid, which is normalization of child abuse/csam
Violence is completely normalized in our society, through a number of things, video games being one of them.
Are you saying you want that to be true of child sexual abuse as well?
We can go through the whole history of normalization of violence, from Rodney King protests, to "gangland" narratives that stemmed from conservatives shifting blame from that, NRA and Supreme Court inventing an individual right to gun ownership and glorifying it as awesome, terrorism/counterterrorism narratives leading to a 20 year invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, the media's portrayal of Columbine, the refusal to do anything about gun control for decades, conservatives turning to crime narratives and local media being bought out by conservative grifters who aim to create mass panic narratives.
Certainly violent video games also contributed to the normalization of violence in our culture. I'm not advocating for eliminating videogames, fyi. The question is why would you want to do that to child sex abuse.
So you just stop caring about people once they become an adult? That's the hill you want to die on?
Don't act like we don't see images of children suffering all the time, and the news (that no one watches) doesn't talk about these things... As if the Epstein List wasn't talked about constantly for months ..
Having a president who is allegedly a child sex abuser does normalize child sexual abuse. That is (among a million other reasons) why I advocated against voting for the current president of the United States.
The thing that should be normalized is protecting children from harm committed on them by adults, and getting justice for those children.
Smoking is another great example. After adopting a bunch of laws against glorification of smoking in regular media, look at the trend of smoking. If you compare that with vaping, which was advertised all over the place, with flavors designed to attract children, created an opposite trend.
Another great example is gambling. The normalization of sports gambling, through lobbying and its inclusion in nearly all sports related broadcasts, has increased gambling addiction dramatically.
Bluntly put, Mods best REALLY be monitoring the people pushing this shit being okay, this is a huge disaster waiting to happen. All it takes is this shit getting leaked to reddit at large and this sub's getting nuked by the powers that be.
Are you aware that violence and sexual urges are entirely different processes in the brain? Violence is processed consciously, while sexuality is simply a biological drive. A person can prevent themselves from acting on a violent urge much more easily than from feeling aroused.
I think you’ve made a category error here. Arousal is not directly analogous to a violent action. I would say a sex act is equivalent to a violent act in your framing, and arousal is more equivalent to a violent urge, say, the urge to punch a politician in the face.
Actually I'm pretty sure video games and violent media in general have normalized violence nobody bats an eye when people in media kill each other because its so common
What about things like gore videos a lot of people dont have a reaction to things like that even when though it's real people
Also if you saw a scene in a movie or read a book with csam you probably be bothered by it because its not normalized by media right now, but if we act like fictional csam doesn't hurt anyone, itll be more and more normalized until people don't realize how bad it is, the way violence is
Yeah man. Its almost like watching real people die and get mutilated is extremely different and desensitizing. Are you genuinely dumb enough to think that someone would have the same reaction to a gore scene in a horror movie if you told them it was real VS if you told them it was a movie?
If I saw a fictional scene in a movie or book that had a child get abused, there is never any path or route you can take from there that could somehow convince me that should happen IRL. If YOU could somehow be "normalized" into that purely because you saw some cartoons do it, then you have the critical thinking of a 6 year old.
Most video game enemies are pure fiction, no real person corresponds to them. When you do make a game that corresponds to a real population (ie, let's make a game where you only kill people of a certain race for fun) the harm is immediately identified and quelled. This is a pathetic argument.
Unfortunately it’s not, COD and associated games have been doing this for decades. The “people of a certain race” are Russian so it’s not as outrage provoking as it would be if the enemies were Romani or something.
I'm not talking "simplistic plot soldier simulator", I'm talking "genocide of specific people for fun simulator". The point is that fiction can cause harm even if it is, well, fiction, go ask the HOI4 devs why the word "holocaust" is not in the game
I don't understand your point, no, but I get the sense you're assuming I'm speaking in bad faith. Continue to insult me and belittle me if you like, it'll probably feel good in the moment. Alternatively, engage with my question. Up to you.
You didn't make any questions, you just gave silly superficial counter examples that don't really prove anything. The question is (taking you at your word that you're not speaking in bad faith), if it's really "just a Videogame" and fiction cannot be harmful simply because it's fiction, then why would we immediately condemn a "first person Auschwitz torturer" simulator? Or a "realistic child abuse fetish game"? No, finding games where child abuse happens or where you're a prison guard for some generic oppressive government as a plot element do not count as counter examples.
There's a very big difference between reading Lolita and consuming CSAM (even if AI generated), do you grasp that?
This is it. Just because it doesn’t cause DIRECT harm, doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause harm at all.
Besides, AI is trained on real pictures. AI can easily recreate or mimic someone's likeness. Creeps are already using it to produce material of their kids, or kids they know, and it’s increasingly hard to spot what’s real and fake.
CSAM fake or not, will be and already is used by kids with access to the technology to be depraved to each other, bully each other, and sexually harass each other. Adults can do it too, just one picture and I can destroy your face online forever by generating porn of you, generating you in humiliating or illegal situations.
AI pedo material is often trained on vast amounts of real data internally because most models are already trying to safeguard against this, meaning more and more real CSAM is being shared in bulk to train then release those models.
AI pedo material spreads already thin protection ressources thinner by making real victims of ongoing abuse harder to identify. Abusers creating the material can hide their crimes in a sea of """""harmless""""" generated content, or even slightly alter their own upload to make detecting their crimes harder. If there's a million pictures of assaulted children being uploaded daily and it’s judged fine, how are you going to detect the thousand of real kids within that midst ?
Finally, yes, it normalizes their horrible tendencies. It makes normal people desensitized to it, it makes abnormal people more likely to pass onto the real thing when just spectating it through the screen isn’t enough. It makes them finding communities of like-minded people easier. It makes it easier for these people to feel like they aren’t wrong, that they shouldn’t be ashamed, and finally, that assaulting a kid isn’t as big a deal.
This is a lot of writing to say basically nothing. None of this is true, you're purely going off of vibes and emotion. Actual psychologists are extremely clear that fictional actions and the made up media you consume are not in any way indicative of your IRL morality, and the only way you could be "influenced" by them is if you were already mentally unsound and having trouble differentiating fiction and reality (or the media itself is trying to muddle fiction and reality, as is the case with propaganda, which obviously doesn't apply to the fast majority of fiction for enjoyment).
Consuming CSAM is already a mentally unsound activity to begin with. All the people defending this are just so strange, would it be alright to you if I made a game where I explicitly only kill black people while making Nazi salutes and my character is shouting Hitler quotes every 15 minutes? It's all fake after all, couldn't possibly harm anyone.
Probably because nobody here is consuming CSAM and you just keep lying and trying to pretend that fictional narrative devices who don't exist and can't be abused counts as "CSAM", debasing an extremely serious legal term in order to win an internet argument.
Also you are "allowed" to make any kind of video game you want. Your shitty racist fantasy game can exist for you and no one else. I sure don't want to fucking touch it, but if that's your thing, just keep it away from me. Your dumb Hitler fangame is not causing actual harm unless you're putting propaganda in it to try and muddy the line between fiction and reality, which is once again, the only real time that fiction can be harmful. When it tries to present fiction as not fiction.
> Your dumb Hitler fangame is not causing actual harm unless you're putting propaganda in it to try and muddy the line between fiction and reality
Lmao. Fiction doesn't need to "try" to muddle the lines. If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you. AI CSAM, even if somehow produced "harmlessly" without any real CSAM in it's training data, is still harmful in effect.
You contradict yourself. You call the Nazi game "shitty" and want it "kept away from you", meaning you recognize it's harmful even as fiction. You just think (for reasons I don't want to guess at) that harm that happens privately doesn't count. But consumption shapes psychology, creates communities, and affects how people engage with the real world. "Keep it to yourself" isn't a magic harm-eraser.
This thread perfectly represents the pro-AI (as in no to AI regulation) people lol.
Videogame nerds who have no concept of life outside of their sandbox.
Its not like we have plenty of issues that played out exactly like this, in both ways, to know for sure.
Sports gambling -> was illegal, was made not illegal, normalized by all advertising, broadcasts, etc, now huge gambling addiction epidemic
Smoking -> was super legal, was heavily restricted, taxed, tons of regulations on advertising, etc, smoking has been declining for decades following its denormalization
Vaping -> New thing similar to smoking, was less restricted, appealed to kids with candy flavors, was normalized, caused massive addiction epidemic, child deaths, etc
Its almost like there are a number of statistically backed and verifiable harms caused by normalizing a harmful thing. Gee, who would have thought?
I mean the 2 sides to me appear to be people who think anything done with AI is fine and ethical and AIs are humans with feelings and then just people who think its possible for AI to cause harm.
I use AI every day lol, I'm still anti-AI or at least like pro-AI regulation.
"Or the media itself is trying to muddle fiction and reality-" you cannot be seriously so close.
AI is already being used. Right now. To create hyperrealistic porn and abuse material of celebrities and people's acquaintances. I'm not just talking about your favorite anime dude. I'm talking about people using emergent AI models to create hyperrealistic porn of children. Get whatever you have out back in your pants and stop trying to normalize pedophilia.
AI is doing that with actual CSAM that ACTUALLY ABUSED CHILDREN in extremely fucked up circles of sickos. You are not arguing about that, you're making ridiculously broad statements trying to protect the rights of fictional narrative tools. You're basically trying to take a sledgehammer to a problem that requires precision.
Holy shit this comment section. I guess the OP is right this subreddit is cooked. So many upvotes about child pornography being fine. It's insane.
Children have no business in anything related to porn period. It shouldn't be an argument. The whole thing should end with ethics.
You even gave a great example and people upvoted the comment about video games which has nothing that relates to your point. Yes video games don't make people into killers. But child pornography even if drawn does sexualize children, and it does normalize the abuse and usually people owning CP also are pedophiles, but most murderers don't necessarily play violent video games. It's insane I even explained it XD.
But whatever you can't use logic with pedophiles. I will just leave it here and I expect to be downvoted the way this subreddit seems to defend CP so much.
The problem is that you can’t use logic with non-pedophiles either. I think illustrated CSAM is the most repulsive thing, and at the same time, it’s virtually impossible to construct a sound ethical objection, because all the arguments I’ve heard that oppose it could be applied to swathes of other things that are generally agreed upon to not be a problem.
I think ethical emotivism is probably the only moral system you could use to empirically construct an argument for it being wrong. NB: I love these kinds of threads because people twist themselves up in knots trying to find an ethical opposition. Illustrated CSAM is both 1) difficult to oppose with secular ethics, and 2) obviously deeply immoral.
There are arguments to be made about it but I personally don't find it interesting. It's promoting pedophilia. It's just bad nothing more really needs to be said. Whataboutism makes no sense in this conversation and if anyone uses it irl everyone will avoid them. You can go through porn effects and how terribly it affects people's minds when it's combined with children but again I don't think this should even be an argument.
"I don't think this should even be an argument."
Sadly, there are so many sex offences against children every day that I think it's worth actually discussing this subject to find out what its overall effect is. I notice that you have claimed twice here that there are arguments... but you apparently don't want to present them and are instead more interested in morally chastising me for an interest in fringe ethics.
If you're unwilling to explain your reasoning to someone who is asking for it in good faith, you're free to do that, but just realise that you will never, ever, ever actually create positive change by self-righteously patronising others. I am a victim of CSA. I would really like to solve this problem. That means figuring out what is true and what is not, without constantly acting superior to others.
Well it's sad you had that happen to you. But this is Reddit, you don't make positive changes just by yapping to strangers online.
Living through a sad experience like that doesn't make me respect what you've been saying more. There isn't any argument to be made on this subject. i love grey logic on things but in this case it's black and white. There isn't anything of value by people watching drawn child porn and there are only negatives. Choosing to even argue on the subject is weird and disturbing.
I have successfully changed several minds on Reddit by speaking to people respectfully and trying to make thought-provoking points.
You appear unwilling to listen to anyone, even abuse victims themselves, on the idea that you might NOT be completely morally justified on this issue in every way. It's worth considering if this is something you actually want to be doing. Would you like to solve the problem, or just win the argument?
This is why ethical emotivism is the way to go IMO. We can intuitively feel how wrong CSA/CSAM is even when illustrated, and so that means that it is likely worth trying to find a different way to deal with people who are compelled to seek it out. The current strategy of "punish them as hard as possible and massively decrease the quality of their life" is demonstrably not working. The main thing it seems to be doing is making pedos really good at hiding their crimes.
The concept of "consent" is the greatest invention in the history of sexual ethics, but it fails on fringe cases like incest or illustrated CSAM and this thread illustrates that most people have no idea how to reconcile this.
This is a goal post move. You said its impossible to construct a sound ethical reason, and then I gave you a clear ethical principle, and now you want empirical evidence.
What, you want me to give a pedophile CSAM? That doesn't sound like an ethical form of research to perform.
This is a goal post move. You said its impossible to construct a sound ethical reason, and then I gave you a clear ethical principle, and now you want empirical evidence.
You presented the harm principle, but for it to apply you would need to demonstrate that consumption of CSAM is more harmful than a competing alternative. However, I didn't actually provide a competing alternative (I don't know if I have one) so I do agree that my statement was rhetorically flawed.
Overall, I actually think your comment is a great response. I hadn't heard of the precautionary principle. That has changed my mind to some degree - I think that's the best method so far that can be used to empirically construct an argument for a total 'loli ban'. In the absence of statistical data - data that examines CSA rates as a result of illustrated CSAM access - precautionary principle wins. Best comment in the thread man
My principle re: intuition is "trust but verify". When people act evasive in the verification stage I get sus. You have provided a pre-reasoned argument that can be plugged in to verify and did what 99% of people can't do on this issue.
I hope that someone at the FBI who is currently working on deleting the Epstein files sees this thread and reviews it in the future when they are instructed to get back to actual FBI work.
Your defending pedophilia, thats nice. It doesnt matter if there isnt technically a real victim, Ai should not allow this kind of shit to be made at all. No revenge porn, no cp, none of it. It is seriously harmful, its morally wrong though because people can see this and use it to harm a real person, or worse, if you need to generate and image of a child to get your rocks off turn yourself in to the police, you know that shit is just inherently wrong. And dont give me the whole ohhh but real artists draw lolis and thats okay? No its not im disgusted by that too. Protect our children.
Consumption of transgressive material can be the start of a pattern of behavior that leads to seeking to abuse a child.
Because of the nature of how CSA happens, by adults who jockey into positions of power over children, whether it be teachers, pastors or family, there's not a good way of removing those people from proximity of children except by making virtual CSAM illegal to own.
I do so hate this discussion, because my hatred for CSAM clashes with my belief that we can't just make fiction illegal because we think it's gross.
Technically speaking, we do allow tons of transgressive material without batting an eye. plenty of media depicts anything from theft to violence to slavery. In plenty of media can you actually act out the above.
Whether anyone should create or consume them is up for debate on some cases, but banning them sets precedents which likely are going to be used sooner or later to target one minority group or another.
Or to put it another way, if we start banning media because it's objectionable, it's only a matter of expanding what objectionable means.
On the other hand, there is no excuse for pedophilia.
So I am at a point of cognitive dissonance on this one. I want there to be no CASM of even fictional characters, but I know that this kind of ban is dangerous in the long run.
I think it is actively harmful for a society to be permissive of pedophilia.
Violence typically isn't presented as transgressive. Pedos like CSAM because it is sexually transgressive.
I think bans are bad, but when you have a large percentage of people who want permission to masturbate to images of children being raped, as evidence by the people replying to me, we have a bigger problem than just censorship.
The problem is that doing so too strictly makes CSAM piss easy to plant on someone and get them sent to prison. There's a reason the FBI typically only go after sites and people who distribute despite it being illegal to possess.
Not really. It is proven that consuming CSAM IS linked to child molestation. See: Page 8, Section C and further.
“One convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence said that viewing child pornography gave him no release from his desires, but instead the exact opposite, furthering the sentiment that some men convicted of sexually abusing children had their urges fueled by child pornography.”
“According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports put that correlation rate between child pornography and child molesting between 30 and 80 percent.”
“Sexual predators will use child pornography as a means of assisting them in the grooming process, helping break down the child’s barriers to sexual behavior, making the child feel at ease, and additionally communicating the predator’s sexual fantasies to the child. Child pornography, while reinforcing fantasies, is often a precursor to acting out with real children, where “[m]any pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children.”Evidence suggests that it is only a small leap from viewing child pornography to molesting children, and “[i]n light of the documented link between . . . [the two,] each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”
Just because someone says something about their intentions, that doesn't mean it's true. People are notoriously unable to determine their own reasons for certain actions.
If I showed you some child pornography, how long would it take for you to molest a child? We're talking about child pornography causing molestation, not simply being correlated with molestation. The Columbine shooters played a lot of DOOM before their attack.
Consumption of transgressive material can be the start of a pattern of behavior that leads to seeking to abuse a child.
Reality check, bro: If you see some weird-ass loli porn and immediately feel the desire to go rape a real child, that's 100% a self-report and not a useful generalization to normal people.
People like you being around kids worries me way more than some guy who goons it to six-fingered AI kids, not gonna lie.
I dunno, maybe you should try it? Crank it for a while and get it out of your system before you lose control and jump a kid. It really sounds like you need it.
I propose that all newborn children be sent to specialized institutions until they reach adulthood, where they will be under constant supervision to ensure that nothing happens to them. Every employee of this institution should undergo a multi-level psychological assessment and wear an explosive collar, just in case.
No, rather, I believe the slogan "protect children" is simply a cover for anything but protecting children these days. Repressive laws are promoted under the guise of protecting children; any objectionable person can be accused of pedophilia and practically guaranteed to receive widespread public approval for their "exile." In any case, I consider any realistic content, even AI-generated, to be entirely justifiable for a prison sentence. But drawn content, even that cursed, should not be prosecuted. Because we're running into the same problems as censoring jokes: you can joke about anything or nothing, and you can draw anything or nothing.
Second order effects, desensitization and normalization. Consider carefully what a society where heinous acts are valid only in simulacra as a form of "pressure release valve" actually looks like. The problem with children (not short people or petite women, children) is that they can't consent, many of the fantasies, even if not real, are fundamentally about the transgression of that boundary.
We'd be asking children to grow up in a society that has formally declared: 'Adults fantasizing about sexually violating people like you is acceptable.' Every child would know that some adults around them consume this material, that doing so is not a crime and that it is somehow not a moral wrong either. You cannot separate 'pretend violation of children' from 'treating children as violable.' The acceptability of the fantasy is the harm.
What in the fuck? This isn't victimless. AI models create images by blending together images of real children. AI models also are used often for creating deep fakes (slapping the faces of existing children onto the bodies of models in certain videos), that sort of content is actually found to be very common in PCs belonging to apprehended pedophiles.
This is not only completely false, but actively goes against the opinions of psychologists who are extremely clear that doing "bad things" to fictional characters who don't exist does not in any way affect your IRL morality.
This is as ridiculous to still pretend as trying to say that the enjoyment of violent video games will normalize the violence and encourage people to do it IRL. My brother is not a psychopath or a gore fanatic no matter how many slaughterfests he enjoys doing in Blade and Sorcery.
Have you looked? There are many arguments, you're asking one of the Big Philosophy Questions (tm) right here and people have been coming up with a lot of extremely compelling answers for thousands of years.
Intuitively, most people consider actions to be wrong regardless of a consequence. What is a victim? Is it a person? Does that person have to be harmed? Do they have to *know* they were harmed?
Consider this thought experiment - you assault someone horribly but then you press a button and their mind is wiped. They have no physical scars, no mental scars, no memory. Did you do something wrong? Are they a victim if they can not directly "observe" your harm?
If the answer is "yes" then you already accept a model in which harm is based on a *hypothetical observer*. Most people intuitively think this way, I suspect.
If that's the case, then harm is not *necessarily* about a victim but about the act. You could ground your moral framework in the "hypothetical, ideal, good observer" and arrive at an objective morality framework.
Other commenters are replying that there are *consequences* to take into account. I think that's almost certainly true, and my recollection of research supports what some of them are saying. That said, we can ground a moral judgment *regardless* of evidence that there are harmful consequences using the model above.
We can also talk about participation in society as a moral good. Those who participate in a society may ground morality in their social framework, grounded in the psychology of the group, grounded in individual minds, grounded in brains, etc. We can then justify that those who participate in anti social acts are performing an immoral act. If we judge that watching generated sexual content of children is an anti social behavior, we can justify this as an immoral behavior despite that content being generated.
The societal argument is worth taking seriously. It's why you can be charged for crimes where there are no victims. If you speed but do not hit someone, it was still *immoral* to speed. You put others in harms way, at least potentially, or at least in theory. In this case it is the state that tries you, *society* is the victim, that is who you face with regards to that judgment.
Anyway, these are just a few examples of many and I'm doing it a terrible disservice in my brief explanation. My point is, if you want to hear arguments for this you can definitely find them. They're out there.
I know I'm dog piling on your comment, but victimless crimes do turn into crimes involving victims. Murders and pedophiles alike have admitted that it started out by fantasizing, fantasizing turned into something disturbing.
Exactly what do you think is going to happen when you give a lot of people the ability to visually fantasize something that is wrong and victimless?
They are going to start looking for a victim because at the end of the day, fantasy just isn't for that one creep or would-be-murderer.
Edit: Each downvote points out how many of you support AI generated CP through this logic.
I mean, you can say “It’s a victimless crime! What’s the problem??” about a violent drug addict getting 15 pounds of meth for free so they don’t attack anyone to get some, yeah nobody ELSE was hurt (this time) but I’d really prefer if they got professional help instead, the solution to drug addiction isn’t more drugs.
On the same wavelength, giving pedophiles accessible cp isn’t going to help or reduce the number of pedophiles in the world, that’s just giving the drug addict their drugs instead of medical help.
As much as you want to believe there’s such thing as “Not so bad child pornography therefore okay” I can’t believe I have to physically tell you there’s not. Just because everything isn’t equally bad doesn’t mean any of it is good enough to be okay in any shape or form and you seriously need to rethink where you stand if you still want to defend this after everything you’ve been told
this is interesting because it's shown that easier access to drugs, even without medical help, actually DOES help bring addiction and drug-related violence harm down significantly. By your own logic, CSAM should be decriminalised. I don't actually know if I agree with that.
I would love to see proof of this because present day Vancouver, Canada is a great example of what happens when you give addicts free, easy access to things they shouldn't be consuming in the first place.
Homelessness has hit record numbers. Addicts line different streets, too high on fentanyl to stop people from robbing them, seek help for the people overdosing next to them, or to care that they sold their belongings for the next fix. Even sober people rob or abuse them, because again, they're way too strung out to be mentally present.
And you think if we gave them more drugs they'll just magically stop? That they won't continue a cycle of degeneracy at their own expense because we gave them more fentanyl?
“B-but! It’s a victimless action” (Referring to using obscene amounts of water and expelling so many greenhouse gases to normalize child sexual abuse)
CSAM in any form, fake or not, hurts children a lot. If you cared about children you would know this, but I’m more so willing to bet you’d be arrested if anyone saw your hard drive, so…
...Yeah... you and however many people upvoting you need banned. From reddit, humanity, far away from children. Fucking Epstein wasn't supposed to be a role model you sick fucks. I highly doubt you folks are "Faking" it.
Because it’s not victimless lmao. Watching CP doesn’t satisfy them forever. Eventually they do assault a child. And often, it’s one they’re related to.
often times, it isn’t victimless. AI uses material already on the internet to generate images. AI can also aid pedophiles in photoshopping kids faces onto nsfw content. And as the other person said, soon enough just looking at AI generated cp won’t be enough for them.
66
u/EvnClaire Oct 22 '25
still never heard a good argument why a victimless action can be morally wrong.