A South Korean man has been sentenced to jail for using artificial intelligence to generate exploitative images of children, the first case of its kind in the country as courts around the world encounter the use of new technologies in creating abusive sexual content.
This is like telling someone to “stop liking rock music” or “stop enjoying ice cream.” People don’t decide what their preferences are, they just have them. If we can give pedophiles a way to release those urges without harming children that should be a good thing. Well not good, but positive in the relative sense at least.
Isn’t it less accepting and more realistically doing damage control to avoid legitimate damage?
Like sure we can shun them to the point of violence but then they just will hide it, bottle it, and we just have to hope they never actually do anything with those bottled emotions.
We’re very quick to get uncomfortable about people’s issues, but very slow to do anything to actually prevent those issues from leading to more serious issues.
The reason we’re even going in this line of reasoning, is the possibility that it could lead to no actual children being harmed by it. And it’s mainly because it has the advantage of deterring people you don’t actually know have those issues, which is the #1 issue at the moment with it.
Incels already have an outlet (regular porn), and they still join far right terrorist groups because they can’t pull girls in real life. Imagine incels but they also molest kids.
It’s idiots like this that make me think of that story I saw the other day on lemmy. Where a disabled man was taking pictures of kids damaging his property, someone saw him and called the cops. Cops came, questioned him, found out what was up and released him, meanwhile morons in the neighborhood hear he was taking pictures of kids and got arrested, and that was enough for them to brutally beat and kill him that same night.
But do you actually have a reply to the content of the comment? You’re essentially pulling a “smells like communism, it bad” instead of addressing the points brought up.
This is like telling someone to “stop liking rock music” or “stop enjoying ice cream.” People don’t decide what their preferences are, they just have them. If we can give pedophiles a way to release those urges without harming children that should be a good thing. Well not good, but positive in the relative sense at least.
Sounds exactly like MAP acceptance rhetoric to me.
That’s because you’re not very bright.
You should accept everyone for who they are!
Who they are: a fkin kiddy diddler
Isn’t it less accepting and more realistically doing damage control to avoid legitimate damage?
Like sure we can shun them to the point of violence but then they just will hide it, bottle it, and we just have to hope they never actually do anything with those bottled emotions.
We’re very quick to get uncomfortable about people’s issues, but very slow to do anything to actually prevent those issues from leading to more serious issues.
The reason we’re even going in this line of reasoning, is the possibility that it could lead to no actual children being harmed by it. And it’s mainly because it has the advantage of deterring people you don’t actually know have those issues, which is the #1 issue at the moment with it.
Incels already have an outlet (regular porn), and they still join far right terrorist groups because they can’t pull girls in real life. Imagine incels but they also molest kids.
It’s idiots like this that make me think of that story I saw the other day on lemmy. Where a disabled man was taking pictures of kids damaging his property, someone saw him and called the cops. Cops came, questioned him, found out what was up and released him, meanwhile morons in the neighborhood hear he was taking pictures of kids and got arrested, and that was enough for them to brutally beat and kill him that same night.
But do you actually have a reply to the content of the comment? You’re essentially pulling a “smells like communism, it bad” instead of addressing the points brought up.