UK Trial: Pornhub's Chatbot Halts Millions from Accessing Child Abuse Content
_cnt0 @ _cnt0 @sh.itjust.works Posts 7Comments 383Joined 2 yr. ago
_cnt0 @ _cnt0 @sh.itjust.works
Posts
7
Comments
383
Joined
2 yr. ago
Nice rephrasing of what I said (mostly). Homosexuality - and heterosexuality, and any sexuality for that matter - are only acceptable as long as there is consent. The only difference is, as I've pointed out, that with pedophilia there is no scenario which can have consent. That doesn't matter though, as long as it stays in somebody's mind or the virtual realm.
If you strictly distinguish between desire and action, it is an absolutely fair comparison. I do, and I do so explicitly. Some people don't, ignore that I do, and then get wound up about what they think I said.
Btw, you might want to read that wiki page in full yourselves.
Yah, this feels more like a legal protection measure and virtue signaling. There's absolutely no assessment of efficiency or even efficacy of the measures. At least not in the article or the ones it links to and I couldn't find anything substantial on it.
Only a very, very small percentage of paedophiles are exclusive paedophiles. This is more like a bi person becoming more gay (or straight) by exposing themselves to more gay (or straight) porn. People can focus in on particular aspects of their sexuality or ignore others, and that's before fetishisation comes into play where the mind projects sexual meaning onto stuff that's not primitively (as in instinctively) sexual.
I completely agree with that.
Yes. Even if you're a 110% straight dude, if you set your mind to it, with enough practice, you can learn to enjoy sucking dick, ...
And I think that is complete nonsense. If it had any merit, the reverse would also be true and could be used as an argument for conversion therapy. I think we can't proactively develop our sexuality, only discover it. Expressive nuance is happenstance that can be enforced, but is not a deliberate decision. If I see foot fetish stuff it is an instant turnoff and has been for 30 years. My dislike of foot fetish stuff is certainly not due to lack of exposure.
... or at least having your dick sucked by a cute femboy.
Possibly. When it comes to sex I'm pretty visually fixated. If a femboy satisfied all the visual cues I see no problem in getting going by a femboy's blowjob. Though, I have a thing for really big natural tits, so I think that's rather unlikely.
At the same time mere exposure to gay porn doesn't do the same and that's not a contradiction as your usual 110% straight dude has no interest whatsoever to setting their mind to learn how to enjoy sucking dick, there's neither inclination nor reason to, the porn is just going to go straight past them.
Same as above. I don't think you can consciously shift your sexuality. You can only force yourself to act against your sexual nature, but not change it. If you could, conversion therapy would have merit. If you had a heterosexual "life style" and then discovered that you enjoy some homosexual interaction, it would be just that: discovering the predisposition that was already there.
90% straight? Much more likely. Neither is going to lose their original attraction to women, though, the most you get is nothing happening on that front because they're occupied elsewhere. And that's exactly where we want the sexuality of paedophiles to be: Occupied elsewhere.
Almost agree. I think it's naive to assume that you could reliably prevent people from exploring their sexuality by keeping them (pre-)occupied with something else. The mind wanders, and where it goes there are no barriers. What I wonder is if barriers in real life (like the ones described in the article) are the best way to handle pedophiles' desires or if it wouldn't be more effective to guide them on a prepared way that makes them steer clear of harming others. We've seen how well sexual supression works out with church celibacy. I'd say we should at least explore/research options for pedophiles to "express" their sexuality without harming others.
EDIT: I'll assume the downvotes come from people not realizing just how plastic our mind is and not random reactionaries. Not on my lemmy.
For what it's worth, you got my upvote, because I think this is one of the most coherent and reasonable comments in the discussion - even if I do not agree with every point.
Like hydrophile, right? Those damned immoral water molecules shakes fist at heaven
You use some weird definitions.
Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we'd see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.
It would simply obsolete megaupload. Sharing platforms come and go. If one distribution channel stops working, people will use (or create) another.
sexual attraction to children is as acceptable as being attracted to rape and other sexually abusive behaviors, ...
That equation is plain wrong unless you equate thoughts to actions. First of all, not even imagined rape is actual rape. And your premise of being attracted to children being similar to being attracted to rape is also false. There likely are people for whom that is true, but it is not a prerequisite. The problem with pedophilia is, that it cannot be fulfilled in real life without abuse/rape.
Sexual relationships with children are definitionally abusive, ...
Yes. Where did I say anything else?
... and its depiction in media is as acceptable as depictions of rape (e.g., not particularly).
Yes. Where did I say anything else?
If you disagree with that claim, then fucking say so, but don't whine about me misinterpreting you when I'm direct-fucking quoting you.
You direct quoting me is evidently not the same as you understanding what I am saying.
The sexual preference you're comparing with homosexuality is not the same as homosexuality.
It's also not the same as heteosexuality. It would be pretty moot to use different words if they all were identical. What they all have in common is their sexual nature and that nobody chooses them. I'm consistently pretty clear about the distinction of sexual desire and its application in the real world; you keep conflating them. Saying sexual desire A is better or worse than sexual desire B is hypocritical. Fill in A and B arbitrarily - don't forget pedophilia. I think we agree that there can't be a consenting relationship between a child an an adult. And there can't be acceptable pornographic material with actual children.
I don't know how many times I need to say that before you either acknowledge it or amend your comparison.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat and clarify what I said. You keep on ranting against things I didn't say or even hinted at.
The point being, that pedophilia is a sexual orientation/preference (call it whatever you want, denying it is a sexual thing is plain stupid). The comparison could just as well have been to heterosexuality. Abuse of children is as wrong as rape between heterosexuals. Being heterosexual doesn't make you a rapist and neither does pedophilia. Again, the qualitative difference being that pedophile sex cannot have consent. I deliberately made the comparison with homosexuality because it widely has been, and sadly still is, demonized. If it wasn't clear until now (it should be), I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality.
I almost completely agree with that. Though I want emphasize, that I referred to pedophilia as a sexual orientation/preference. Call it whatever you like; if there wasn't a sexual component to it, we wouldn't have to talk about it (at least not in the context of pornography). Even if we do not completely agree on every point, I think we're finally on the same page.
This discussion is pointless. All you do is throwing around accusations and arguing against things I didn't say.
You get hung up on one sentence and take it out of context completely ignoring what I said immediately after that talking about rape and consent. You are pretty much repeating what I said. You're not arguing against what I said, but what you think I said, which I did not. Work on your reading skills.
From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I'm just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society.
That's what I said. I emphasized the relevant passages to help you understand what I said.
Fuck off with your insinuations.
Would you call rape that isn't happening rape?
as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they're urges.
Up until this point everything you said read exactly like you would. Seems we're finally on the same page?
Yah ... I already answered that: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/9541949
but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I'm just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.
Being attracted to an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as being attracted to a consenting behavior between adults.
And I did not even hint at anything even close to the contrary.
We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: ...
Which is exactly the comparison I made.
... it's the normalization of the abusive behavior that we're primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.
I wasn't talking about the normalization of anything anywhere. You inject a component, that wasn't the subject in our conversation before, to defend a point I wasn't questioning (red herring).
While I don't believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, ...
Another topic which we could discuss, but which - again - you just injected.
...it is completely reasonable to suggest that cautioning individuals about the proximity of their search to material that is illegal - and the risks associated with consuming it - would be preventative against future consumption.
And again: I'm asking for qualitative and quantitative proof of that. It is the one and only thing I was and am questioning about the article.
Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn't removing that content generally.
The point to our discussion being what?
It's hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.
You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions.
I wonder where you take that certainty from. I'd like to have that in my life.
but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison
Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I'm just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.
Like exposure to gay people and gay content makes you gay? (/s if it wasn't obvious)
And where is the quantification and qualification for that? Spoiler: it's not in the article(s) and not one google search away. Does Nintendo succeed in stopping piracy with its show trials? If you have a look around here, it more looks like people are doubling down.
Like anything on the internet wasn't tracked. If need be people will resort to physically exchanging storage media.
You see, that's the trouble with our conversation: I did nothing to that effect. Not analogously, not figuratively, not between the lines, not at all.
You keep arguing against things I'm not saying.
Yes, have a good one.