Comment on Rule 34 rule

• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I’m not talking about legal judgement (I practically never do) and I’m not even talking bout legit PDF files.

  It’s just disgusting that rule 34 of literal children scores this high.

  source

  • 0xD@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    You can say “pedophiles”.

    source

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      But saying PDF files is funny

      source

      • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Don’t discrace the good name of my friend, Portable Document Format

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • OmgItBurns@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Can we start calling them Adobe Lovers?

      source
• erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Legality and morality don’t necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that’s something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.

  source

  • Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    to get off to drawings of children

    They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.

    what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child?

    That’s my whole point, it make all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn’t exist.

    That’s why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways)

    I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?

    source

    • erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.

      source

      • Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous

        I haven’t made that argument

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • seralth@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        At least based on the actual psychology research on the topic, access to fictional material for masturbation purposes actually has shown to be the most effective method to prevent abusive urges and relapse.

        Tho considering how hard it is to find funding and people willing to under go therapy it’s a struggle to find reliable data.

        There was one of the leading experts in the topic that did an ask me anything a few years back.

        Reddit ended up banning her and nuking the thread due to the topic. But it had a lot of research shared in it that now is locked up behind pay walls and basically buried deep.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  In the UK it doesn’t matter if its a photo of a real person or not, porn that depicts a child is illegal.

  Tbh I think with the use of AI at this point this might be a pretty good law to have. “It was AI generated” is not a defence. Realistically if you are doing it for yourself no one will find out so there is some kind of argument as to it being harmless, but when you start doing other things with those images such as using them for blackmail the police should be able to use that as sufficient evidence to charge you.

  source

  • Kaboom@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    That’s just the UK though. They have their own issues

    source

    • irmoz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      We certainly have issues, but intolerance of paedophilia isn’t one of them. I’m happy we see it that way.

      source

      • Kaboom@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        That’s the thing. Y’all do tolerate it. There’s article after article about letting them get away with just a slap on the wrist

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Denjin@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I’m normally an anti-slippery slope person but there’s a definite escalatory nature to how paedophiles operate, it’s easy to see how images of fictional children can evolve into images of actual children.

  source

  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    How is this argument different than the “video games cause violence” argument?

    source

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Because your not trying to fulfill the wish to murder a person by substituting it to computer character.

      At least some mass murderers and school shooters have played violent games in order to fulfill their violent phantasies, couldn’t do so in a long term and murdered real people instead.

      Same goes with pedophiles. They want to fuck a child, use fictional characters to fulfill the phanstasy, get used to it and then escalate to pictures of real children and eventually real children.

      The “video games cause violence” argument is wrong, because the cast majority of gamers don’t try to use games as a substitute action for violent behaviour.

      source

      • SpongyAneurism@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?

        I don’t, but I doubt that stance as being unfairly projecting some idea of how things have to work on those people.

        I for one can jerk off to the weirdest porn fantasy things, from the usual thinly-veiled step-siblings trope to rape play, weird power dynamics or tentacle porn (depictions of children not among them, I feel I have to mention that explicitly here), but I don’t have any desire to experience any of that in real life, because I absolutely know it would be wrong.

        I don’t see why that should neccessarily be different for them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Denjin@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Because as I said, people with an interest in CSAM tend to escalate in their behaviour. Most don’t jump straight into child pornography but start with less serious things like jailbait and non-sexualised images of children etc. It doesn’t take a huge leap to see the same pathway with images of fictional children.

      I’m not suggesting that everyone into this material will go on to abuse children or start to consume actual CSAM but there’s a non-zero amount of actual paedophiles who started their journey with this exact material.

      source

      • gmtom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It’s that the same with violence, people that want to commit acts of violence may start by acting out violence in video games?

        source
• hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I still find it fucked up that so many people are aroused by sexualising children, even though they are fictional.

  source
• Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  loli haet pizza

  source