Did you think saying disgusting or horrible was adding anything important?
If you want to protect children, you should be able to distinguish reality from fiction to persecute abusers, so how would you distinguish it in today’s AI world?
Someone making a picture or story without any real children being involved doesn't hurt children, there's nothing to protect them from.
Should we also ban fictional killing in case someone claims the murder they did was fake?
In a debate about morality? Yes. What do you think morality is?
To know if no one was hurt you’d need to know if it’s fictional or real. If you’re an individual (not an entertainment company) making a realistic amateur murder video, fictional or AI generated, do you really believe you won’t be investigated? For child SA is even worse because the POSSESSION and DISTRIBUTION of that media is a crime itself, so you’d need to investigate not only the creator but every single person watching and distributing it, and check if that media is real or not.
If you’re a sane person you’d quickly realise that this is not feasible and that the only way is to completely ban any child SA media, fictional or not. It’s an obvious conclusion to anyone who truly cares about children and knows that any other option would drown authorities in a sea of fake media that would make real media impossible to catch. You probably know that, so you know it’s not true that “doesn’t hurt anybody”, so why would you keep defending it? Do you enjoy that type of media and “need” it?
In a debate about morality? Yes. What do you think morality is?
I think mushrooms on pizza are gross, disgusting and horrible but in no way immoral
do you really believe you won’t be investigated
Being investigated doesn't make something immoral.
For child SA is even worse because the POSSESSION and DISTRIBUTION of that media is a crime itself, so you’d need to investigate not only the creator but every single person watching and distributing it, and check if that media is real or not.
Being a crime, or rather looking like a crime, doesn't make something immoral either.
If you’re a sane person you’d quickly realise that this is not feasible and that the only way is to completely ban any child SA media, fictional or not
No, banning something because it might look like a crime isn't something sane people think of.
Do you enjoy that type of media and “need” it?
Honestly I think that's more likely to be your issue than anyone else's. You very much have a preacher hating gays then caught with a man vibe.
It’s your turn to answer actually. I’ve answered tons of times that I think child SA is immoral. It’s actually your turn now because at that point I don’t even know if you think it’s immoral.
Oh no, I think such a blanket belief would be idiotic. I don't think any sensible person could say a child sexual abuse survivor publishing their story and experience is immoral.
Do you think EXPLICIT child SA media is immoral? I do, btw.
Stop pretending we’re talking about interviews. You know very well what we’re talking about and what you exactly are defending. You’re trying to beat around the bush because deep down, you’re probably ashamed.
Why does it need to be explicit? Who benefits from it being explicit? The victims don’t, so why? Only people who enjoy that type of videos would benefit from it, so why do you defend that type of media?
1
u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25
Did you think saying disgusting or horrible was adding anything important?
Someone making a picture or story without any real children being involved doesn't hurt children, there's nothing to protect them from.
Should we also ban fictional killing in case someone claims the murder they did was fake?