Comment

Comment on AI-generated child sex imagery has every US attorney general calling for action

ram@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

How about addressing my points instead of the ad hominem attacks?

That is addressing your point. These people need to get psychological help.

If you stop “feeding” being straight, gay, whatever, does it just go away and you no longer have those sexual desires? I doubt it.

The harms brought by conversion therapy to the gay and straight people outweigh the harms that are brought about by allowing them to exist. The same is not true of pedophilia. Though it is interesting if you do see these as the same, are you for the persecution of gay or straight people as you are pedophiles, or are you in favour of pedophiles being able to enact their desires?

Much as we might hate it that some people do have those urges, it’s the reality. Pretending reality doesn’t exist usually doesn’t work out well.

It is the reality, and pretending people will just safely keep their desires to themselves has proven to not work.

I never said any such thing.

I never said you said it, but it is the result of what you’re saying.

we’re also talking about images that resemble children

Since you’re drawing this distinction from the words you decided were thrust in your mouth, they weren’t, would you say “it’s okay to beat off to children who may not exist”?

It should be very clear to anyone reading I’m not defending any kind of abuse

You’re outwardly expressing pedophile apologia.

Or we could give up our rights “for the children” in a way that doesn’t actually help them at all.

What rights are you giving up?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Falmarri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- ram@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Psychologists.
  
  There’s no evidence that CSAM, real or virtual, helps reduce rates of child predation.
  
  source
  - Falmarri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    ram@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    (it’s not)
    
    I’d love if you could cite your evidence.
    
    source
mean_bean279@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
There’s a disgusting number of people on this site that I’ve seen defending ai pedos. I honestly don’t understand where it comes from. Some people cannot and should not be helped as their views are incompatible with society.

Not to mention that AI pedophilia could simply be creating a massive stepping stone to the real thing. Which I’ve also seen a number of people on Lemmy defend people possessing CSAM and saying they didn’t produce it therefore they aren’t the criminal. It’s pure insanity. I’m incredibly liberal and progressive and even I know that’s a slope I don’t wish to have society slip down it’s not worth the risk to children who are innocent to be caught in the crossfire.

source
- Falmarri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - Tibert@compuverse.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Half the answers in this cursed thread. Like wtf is this thread.
    
    Pedophilia IS AN ADDICTION!!! Fueling it with anything, even AI will worsen the ADDICTION!
    
    source
    Falmarri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    [deleted]
    source
    -> View More Comments
- ram@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I can’t say I entirely agree. I do think that they should be helped, but in a measured and rigorous way. None of this “let them find shit online that quells their needs”. Pedophilia, in the psychological profession, is viewed in a similar light to sexual orientations; of that the person I’m responding to is correct. It’s simply that they seem to be blind to nuance beyond that stance that they’re stuck.
  
  AI pedophilia is certainly a very risky move for us to simply accept, when we don’t even have any data on how consumption of real or virtual CSAM impacts those who indulge in it, and to get that data would require us to do very unethical and likely illegal research as far as I can tell. The approach Kerfuffle@shi.tjust.works is suggesting is one that is naive and myopic in the most generous light; which is how I’m choosing to take it so as to not accuse them of something they may not be guilty of.
  
  I’m also someone who’s extremely progressive, and while I can sympathize with people who have these urges and no true wish to act on them, I think it’s outright malicious to say that the solution is to simply allow them to exist with informal self-treatments based on online “common sense” idealism. Mental health support should absolutely be available and encouraged; part of that is making sure people are safe to disclose this stuff to medical professionals, but no part of that is just having this shit freely spread online.
  
  I appreciate your measured and metered response. I think these are extremely tricky conversations to have, but important, especially with how technology is progressing.
  
  source
  - mean_bean279@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The problem is that the technology is progressing so rapidly without any checks or balances that our reaction for the time being should simply be one that enables further research without allowing others to create. This isn’t to say we should be stopping advancements, but we should be taking measured responses and using the input of psychologists to help us better understand the repercussions. It’s the same as if someone could generate AI gore that allows them to make generated videos of them killing someone they have always wanted to kill. It’s something that needs to be evaluated before we just release this stuff into the world. Specifically before this technology gets even better and more realistic. That blending of reality from fiction could be a path we as a society are not prepared for.
    
    My worry is that people with backgrounds in computers are making decisions around things that impact human brains.
    
    source
    ram@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I agree completely. Unfortunately techbros have been making important world-changing decisions for two decades now and our legislators seem mostly fine to let them continue unabated.
    
    source