CorruptBuddha @ CorruptBuddha @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

118

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wrong.

Not saying it is impossible, but the simple fact that internet exists or not is absolutely not indicative of porn having a positive or negative effect. It is a pretty weak article to use as evidence against what I am saying when it states clearly that these are only associations and correlations and essentially guesswork.

It's more than you've provided.

Because they're computer generated images not children.

Sorry, I really don't support your perspective. If you have reasonable suspicion to believe real child porn is being used in these models prove it to a judge and get a warrant. If someone is a bad actor to the point of criminal intent, prove it to a judge, and bring it to court.

Woo!

This makes me happy! I've been working to re-engage my skepticism, and called this one!

Dude how are you going to regulate AI?!!

Like by all means go after people harming others, but man... You realize you have no control right? Black markets THRIVE in this world. Like fuck, they can't even keep drugs out of prison.

Eh... I'm skeptical.

This took me 2 seconds to google.

Perhaps the most serious accusation against pornography is that it incites sexual aggression. But not only do rape statistics suggest otherwise, some experts believe the consumption of pornography may actually reduce the desire to rape by offering a safe, private outlet for deviant sexual desires.

“Rates of rapes and sexual assault in the U.S. are at their lowest levels since the 1960s,” says Christopher J. Ferguson, a professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University. The same goes for other countries: as access to pornography grew in once restrictive Japan, China and Denmark in the past 40 years, rape statistics plummeted. Within the U.S., the states with the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and therefore the least access to Internet pornography—experienced a 53 percent increase in rape incidence, whereas the states with the most access experienced a 27 percent drop in the number of reported rapes, according to a paper published in 2006 by Anthony D’Amato, a law professor at Northwestern University.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/#:~:text=Perhaps%20the%20most%20serious%20accusation,outlet%20for%20deviant%20sexual%20desires.

It doesn't seem right to me to prosecute someone for computer generated images.

Okay... So correct me if I'm wrong, but being abused as a child is like... one of the biggest predictors of becoming a pedophile. So like... Should we preemptively go after these people? You know... To protect the kids?

How about single parents that expose their kids to strangers when dating. That's a massive vector for kids to be exposed to child abuse.

Wait until you hear about X-Men.

And people can criticize that choice.

We're in the comments on an article about a woman being thrown in jail for endangering her fetus, and you're arguing that because a fetus could turn into a person that's fine.

I'm an antinatalist, I just find your arguments bad.

Women aren't houses, so criminalizing their behavior because of the impact it might have in a person who does not yet exist is not great.

Women "not being houses" is irrelevant to the point I made. We criminalize actions all the time when harm isn't actual, only potential.

It seems weird to me that you're trying to create a disconnect when cause and effect is cause and effect.

I can't work on my own electrical for my home without getting it inspected. If my house burnt down and harmed someone I could be held responsible. Even without harm I could be liable.

Privacy, freedom, and corruption? Like Trump banned international travel from how many Muslim countries? The fact that that happened at all is insane. You don't think these tools will be abused? Like the UK banned fetish porn (which has been thankfully overturned). You would be fine if say.. these tools were used to monitor your sexual habits?

I can't boobietrap my own home because there's the potential of a firefighter, or someone innocent hurting themselves.

Sorry but no.

In the reflection it looks like he was turning super low. That's pretty dangerous since your body will swing out horizontal during the turn, and then you can slam into the ground as you swing back.

He shouldn't have been that close to homes in the first place though, I assume they must have really fucked up, and he didn't have a safe spot to land.

÷

My assumption would be the purpose is to shame people.