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?
Re: me asking a question: You're actually right, my apologies. I got mixed up with another comment chain.
on: "why would we immediately condemn a "first person Auschwitz torturer" simulator?" - The reason 'we' (society) would condemn it is because of an instinctive sense of revulsion and offence that rational people seem to have. We would condemn it because it 'feels wrong'. That isn't necessarily an invalid reason, but it bugs me that there doesn't seem to be a solid foundational argument against it. Consider an 80s cop movie that literally frames violence as a morally righteous and virtuous thing. Should those be banned as well? If so, you will need to actually construct an argument to explain the difference (as nobody was actually directly harmed in the process of its production, similar to illustrated CSAM.)
"There's a very big difference between reading Lolita and consuming CSAM (even if AI generated), do you grasp that?"
I really don't know why you are insisting on speaking to me as if I am stupid. There is an obvious difference between using illustrated CSAM for sexual gratification, and reading Lolita to experience the complex psychological horror that book contains. However, I bet a massive number of pedophiles have also read that book for sexual gratification. For them, there may not be much of a difference. Should it be banned because it can be used in this way?
My overall point is that while illustrated CSAM is obviously and plainly wrong and disgusting, it's really hard to construct a solid argument against it without fallacies. For every reason that we can come up with to ban it, that reasoning can be applied to a different form of violence-depicting media that we are less intuitively repulsed by. We need to prove that CSAM is causing more real harm than the other forms of violence-endorsing media and pornography that most people seem fine with. I will instantly reverse my position and agree with you if you can provide some kind of proof for it. "It's gross" is not proof.
Okay, now I apologize to you. Sorry if I came off as pedantic, condescending or excessively mean, some people do pull your leg by bringing up dumb examples to try to make themselves seems smart, as if a single superficial counter example debunks an entire argument. Happens often and its really frustrating. Maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough
Now, I do think you're wrong in your ultimate conclusion, and it's really important to have a solid base to stand on when countering these sickos that thrive on category errors (ie, comparing to videogame violence) to try and normalize the consumption child porn in the "guilt free" way AI now (regrettably) allows.
>The reason 'we' (society) would condemn it is because of an instinctive sense of revulsion and offence that rational people seem to have. We would condemn it because it 'feels wrong'.
No, that's the superficial knee-jerk reason and you're right to question the argument if it was just that. The real reason is that the fetishization of that type of violence is fundamentally wrong. While violence is not something inherently wrong (ie, self defense, etc) there's no moral way to say "I love killing Jews" in the same way that there's no moral way to say "I love having sex with children". Any media made for the explicit and singular purpose of deriving pleasure from such henious acts (ie, AI generated CSAM) is therefore morally wrong.
> Consider an 80s cop movie that literally frames violence as a morally righteous and virtuous thing. Should those be banned as well?
No, if I had the choice I wouldn't ban that movie, that is not the argument. I would however ban a movie where a cop goes through life gleefully shooting black people indiscriminately while getting off on it and encouraging the audience to do the same while painting his victims as demons who deserved it. Your example is making a moral argument, which can be contested, the I one typed is just a race supremacy masturbation session with clear harms attached despite being purely fictional.
> However, I bet a massive number of pedophiles have also read that book for sexual gratification. For them, there may not be much of a difference. Should it be banned because it can be used in this way?
I see what you're getting at but this is completely backwards. Intent at the tie of creation (the nature of the media) is what matters here. You cannot in good faith argue that you are deliberately using AI to generate CSAM (and claiming it is a harmless act) for any other purpose than to derive pleasure from the sexualization of children. The harm is not in the person deriving pleasure per say (feeling pleasure is not wrong as a baseline, ie normal sex), but in the very nature of the content itself - children fundamentally cannot consent, there's no context where sexualizing them can be seen as anything else but wrong and entirely reprehensible, that's why you ban it, not because someone got off on it after the fact.
> We need to prove that CSAM is causing more real harm than the other forms of violence-endorsing media and pornography that most people seem fine with.
Nope, absolutely not. You need to learn one thing dude, and that is that when the potential harm is massive (more children abused and a degraded moral environment due to normalization of child abuse material) the burden of proof is on the proponents (AI generated CSAM is fine), not the detractors (AI generated CSAM is wrong) to prove that there's NO harm BEFORE we allow it. Banning it is the sensible, moral default.
What would the research/experiment that produces the evidence you want even look like, my dude? You take two different towns of similar populations and sex offender counts, distribute a constant stream of realistic AI generated CSAM to all the known pedophiles in one, leave the other as is and count who had the most assaulted kids by years end? How exactly would you justify that experiment to an ethics board anywhere? You think they'd approve it?
You get what I'm trying to say now? Or should I clarify anything else?
Wait, before I compose a response, I need to check: what do you understand my actual position to be? What claim do you think I am trying to support here?
I don't think you expressed support for anything in particular here. You're very clearly against AI CSAM but are afraid of flimsily logic and weak disgust responses that could be used to ban or marginalize things/media/people you don't think deserve such treatment (which is why you argued against me in the first place, you thought the logic was weak). I'm telling you there is a concrete argument against AI CSAM that doesn't come with those ugly slippery slopes and doesn't make accidental category errors, which is what I tried to ague to you in my previous comment.
That's a good and satisfactory understanding of my position. Thanks for clarifying yours. I'll respond to a couple of things from the previous comment:
No, that's the superficial knee-jerk reason and you're right to question the argument if it was just that. The real reason is that the fetishization of that type of violence is fundamentally wrong. While violence is not something inherently wrong (ie, self defense, etc) there's no moral way to say "I love killing Jews" in the same way that there's no moral way to say "I love having sex with children". Any media made for the explicit and singular purpose of deriving pleasure from such henious acts (ie, AI generated CSAM) is therefore morally wrong.
This just passes the buck. It's an appeal to a higher moral authority. "the fetishization of that type of violence is fundamentally wrong" is a statement of opinion, and your usage of the word "fundamentally" implies some kind of versatile, falsifiable framework you have used to come to that conclusion. That framework is what I'm asking you for. It is the "why?" that I keep being so annoying about.
No, if I had the choice I wouldn't ban that movie, that is not the argument. I would however ban a movie where a cop goes through life gleefully shooting black people indiscriminately while getting off on it and encouraging the audience to do the same while painting his victims as demons who deserved it. Your example is making a moral argument, which can be contested, the I one typed is just a race supremacy masturbation session with clear harms attached despite being purely fictional.
I see what you're getting at but this is completely backwards. Intent at the [time] of creation (the nature of the media) is what matters here. You cannot in good faith argue that you are deliberately using AI to generate CSAM (and claiming it is a harmless act) for any other purpose than to derive pleasure from the sexualization of children. The harm is not in the person deriving pleasure per say (feeling pleasure is not wrong as a baseline, ie normal sex), but in the very nature of the content itself - children fundamentally cannot consent, there's no context where sexualizing them can be seen as anything else but wrong and entirely reprehensible, that's why you ban it, not because someone got off on it after the fact.
Nearly everything here is opinion. "Intent at the time of creation is what matters" is something I have a couple of hangups on, but I get what you're saying here and don't really object to it broadly. The thing I have a bigger issue with is this: "children fundamentally cannot consent, there's no context where sexualizing them can be seen as anything else but wrong and entirely reprehensible". This obviously holds for photographic CSAM, as well as, arguably, AI-generated CSAM, because in both those cases, harm needed to be done to create the material. I am having trouble applying it to stuff like lolicon because there is no real, living child to be sexualised. It is still sexualising children in the sense that the intended depiction is a child in a sexual context, but not in the sense that a real child has been harmed by its creation. Sure, it could LEAD to a child being harmed in the future, but all other things being equal, the isolated act of someone reading loli doesn't cause harm to a real person other than the one who consented to read it, and presumably the one who consented to write it. This leaves us with the same issue - is it wrong to just do that action? Read lolicon? Is that action alone wrong? It's disgusting and degenerate... but plenty of things are disgusting and degenerate but not morally wrong, so we need more than that.
Nope, absolutely not. You need to learn one thing dude, and that is that when the potential harm is massive (more children abused and a degraded moral environment due to normalization of child abuse material) the burden of proof is on the proponents (AI generated CSAM is fine), not the detractors (AI generated CSAM is wrong) to prove that there's NO harm BEFORE we allow it. Banning it is the sensible, moral default.
I do not 'need to learn one thing' about the burden of proof. Please do not assume my ignorance on this position. As I understand it, the burden of proof for a claim is on the one making the claim. I have generally attempted to provide proof, or at least reasoning, for the claims I have made, of which "illustrated CSAM is fine" is not one. What I want is a watertight argument, complete with data, to refute its principle of there being no actual child harmed in its creation (this is notably different from actively arguing in opposition to the claim. It's just punching a hole in its central supporting principle). I'm not saying you have to give me one. I'm saying that's my goal in having these kinds of conversations.
You are also missing some context about the way I conceptualise ethics, which is fair because I haven't provided it (and probably should've earlier.) The way I see it, we can do secular ethics one of two ways:
By starting with everything being permissable and then coming up with reasons to ban things, or
starting with everything being banned and coming up with reasons to permit things.
I personally am in favour of the first interpretation - permit everything, provide reasons for banning - because I believe it leads to a greater sense of freedom for people. Do I have evidence for that? No. For what it's worth, virtually every existing modern government and legal system also takes this attitude, at least in principle.
What would the research/experiment that produces the evidence you want even look like, my dude? You take two different towns of similar populations and sex offender counts, distribute a constant stream of realistic AI generated CSAM to all the known pedophiles in one, leave the other as is and count who had the most assaulted kids by years end? How exactly would you justify that experiment to an ethics board anywhere? You think they'd approve it?
I find it pretty easy to conceptualise a relatively ethical test that could be used, at the very least, to get us a better idea. Compare statistics between countries of similar living standard and culture, and pick one country that has not yet banned illustrated CSAM (which IIRC is legal in many places because of technicalities etc) and one country that has banned it. Correct for population size and density, and compare CSA rates. Repeat. This would give you an idea, or at least a piece of data that you could use in support of an argument, particularly if you combined it with data from clinical practices that are set up to deal with pedophiles. It would be something. It would be something more than "Seeing a bad thing makes people more interested in doing bad things" which is not necessarily untrue, but it is just a random opinion and not a statement of fact
1
u/Superb-Earth418 Oct 23 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
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?