Simmer down. I never said you said anything about children. I was giving a related law that could be invoked in the case of people with Downs syndrome. You said grown adults doing grown adult things in a conversation about AI generated images of people with Downs syndrome. I was saying there are existing laws SIMILAR to what you are talking about but involving children. Many grown adults with Downs are not able to legally give consent and don’t have the capacity to understand what is being done in certain situations, which is the same reasoning for laws around sexual images of children.
I mentioned all of that in my reply to you. Why you chose to overlook all that and focus only on one sentence is beyond my understanding.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Because a lot of the reason that child sexual abuse is so horrific and wrong has to do with their developmental age and understanding of what’s happening and ability to give consent. To understand and make an informed decision about what it even means to give consent. And a potentially developmentally challenged adult may not be able to do that. Nobody is overlooking the adult part. They are saying that adult in form doesn’t equal able to act as and make decisions as an adult. You are the one ignoring this to further your argument.
Xanza@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
And not once in any of my replies do I denounce this, refute it, or even disagree with it. You an I both agree that violence, including sexual violence, against children or the developmentally disabled is repugnant to a degree that I don’t even possess the powers of speech to adequately express. But that’s not what’s being discussed here. What is being discussed here is whether or not thought crimes should be illegal–which is what this is. It’s a thought crime.
I don’t agree with people using AI to create porn of those with developmental disabilities. I’m not advocating for it or defending it. But in our system of law there has to be a victim of a crime for an action to be called a crime. Since there is no victim–as AI “influencers” aren’t protected by law as they’re not real–you can’t charge these people with crimes. That’s an objective truth, and its important that things stay that way because it won’t be long that we’re prosecuting XXX for XXX because of XXX, because XXX is President and XXX doesn’t like XXX behavior.