• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you use AI to nudify her pictures, you’re manufacturing child pornography, and deserve the full consequences for doing that.

    No, equating this to an actual child being raped is incorrect. These are not crimes of remotely equal magnitude.

    Comparing a person who raped a child, made photos and distributed them to a person who used Photoshop or an AI tool is, other than just evil, reducing the meaning of the former.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      It is weird how hard you have been defending the production of child pornography in this thread.

        • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          They are now at the point of calling me a disgusting person who doesn’t belong in civilized society because I am against the production, and use, of child pornography.

          Give me a million attempts and I would never have guessed that is the person I would encounter today. haha

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        What this conversation is about has as much to do with child pornography as hentai with loli characters.

        You just can’t argue without unsubstantiated accusations, can you?

        When real living people are being murdered and abused in droves, you are still worried more about glorified automated Photoshop and accusing its users of being the same as actual rapists.

        • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          What this conversation is about has as much to do with child pornography as hentai with loli characters.

          Creating sexually explicit images of minors is child pornography.

          You just can’t argue without unsubstantiated accusations, can you?

          You literally confirmed my claim in your first sentence, and your last.

          When real living people are being murdered and abused in droves, you are still worried more about glorified automated Photoshop and accusing its users of being the same as actual rapists.

          Production of child pornography is production of child pornography. It does not need to involve rape. Producing child pornography is a separate crime.

          Its users are pedophiles because they are producing child pornography. You are defending them.

          These are the facts.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Producing child pornography is a separate crime.

            Victimless crimes are not crimes. Thus producing any pornography is a crime only when it involves violating someone’s rights.

            Its users are pedophiles because they are producing child pornography. You are defending them.

            Ah, so you are dumb enough to think it’s bad to defend pedophiles who have not committed a crime against a real person?

            Damn right, I am defending pedophiles who are being persecuted for being born with that deviation alone. I am also defending pedophiles who satisfy that via any means not harming real people. I will do both till my last breath.

            If your argument is that they are disgusting and you don’t want them in society, then so are you.

            • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              Victimless crimes are not crimes. Thus producing any pornography is a crime only when it involves violating someone’s rights.

              You mean like when someone takes a photo of a minor, removes their clothing to make a sexually explicit image, and uses that image to harass, bully, and extort?

              Ah, so you are dumb enough to think it’s bad to defend pedophiles who have not committed a crime against a real person?

              Taking a picture of a minor, making that image sexually explicit, and using it to harass, bully, and extort that minor is not a “crime against a real person”?

              Damn right, I am defending pedophiles who are being persecuted for being born with that deviation alone. I am also defending pedophiles who satisfy that via any means not harming real people. I will do both till my last breath.

              You should stop “defending” their “right” to child pornography and start advocating for them to get real help with the very serious mental disorder that causes them to want sexual activity with a minor instead.

              If you argument is that they are disgusting and you don’t want them in society, then so are you.

              My argument is that they should not be given child pornography. Your argument is that they should.

              The disgusting people I don’t want in society are people who use child pornography, and those who defend their use of child pornography.

              Kindly see yourself out and take the rest with you.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                Taking a picture of a minor, making that image sexually explicit, and using it to harass, bully, and extort that minor is not a “crime against a real person”?

                Doesn’t matter, that’s not what we are talking about here. You don’t have to use a face of a real child.

                Oh, you wanted to pretend it is? Cheating doesn’t work with me.

                Your argument is that they should.

                No, my argument is what I myself already said.

                The disgusting people I don’t want in society are people who use child pornography, and those who defend their use of child pornography.

                It’s really not your concern what other people create for themselves. Nobody owes you any shame for being born with a flaw.

                It’s really a good thing that people with this particular deviation can get materials satisfying them without harming real people. And if one can generate those materials - then that’s a noble endeavor. For every decent person, that is.

                Kindly see yourself out and take the rest with you.

                No, you are the one unwanted in civilized society.

                BTW, for any normal person any pedophile that doesn’t hurt children is better than you.

                • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Doesn’t matter, that’s not what we are talking about here. You don’t have to use a face of a real child.

                  Oh, you wanted to pretend it is? Cheating doesn’t work with me.

                  Despite your shit attitude, AI nudification is, in fact, what we are talking about. It’s what the OP article is about. Actual children were exploited and harmed.

                  You have decided to change the subject to “what if the child porn is 100% synthetic?”, which is a different thing than what everyone else has been talking about, but is fucked up just the same.

                  When confronted with the near universal attitude that CSAM is morally reprehensible, you have decided to lash out in anger and act like nobody knows what you’re talking about.

                  Don’t worry, we get it. You make fucked up pedo shit with Stable Diffusion on your gaming PC, and you get scared every time you see the very real consequences. You think you can change our minds about it by talking down to us, as if being against child pornography was a remotely controversial take.

                  And you are downplaying the very real crime against very real children the OP article describes because you are compelled to defend your own disgusting habit.

                  Seek help, and don’t fucking look at child porn. You’re doing irreparable damage to yourself. There are resources available to you: https://troubled-desire.com/

                  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    I’m actually interested in dark grey eyed blondes just a bit taller than me, and dark hazel-eyed brunettes just a bit lower that me, and none of them have been much younger.

                    But thanks for confirming that you can’t argue without calling your opponent a pedo.

                    And even more that you really can’t comprehend that someone would argue hard in defense of someone else.

                    How can one be such a miserable creature is beyond me.

                • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  The only people who defend child pornography this hard are pedophiles, and I am not going to continue to argue with a pedophile.

                  I hope you get the help you desperately need before it is too late.