I have no authority to make any demand. I would be tentatively in support of a complete ban position.
Your response seems like a disingenuous way to not answer the questions I asked though. Again:
Maybe someone using that hypothetical hyper realistic interactive “toy” would argue that it is itself a “harmless outlet” for their urges, and that it should be legal. No actual victim. Are you in support of that argument?
Why not? If there’s no people involved I don’t care.
Right. That’s why modern comics cost so much. It is expensive to hire all of those models and dangle them from wires to pose for the fight scenes.
I am. If someone wants to masturbate using a doll that looks like a child, or a dog, or a demon, i don’t see any victim ant don’t think it’s sinful. Are you arguing that the person using the doll is the victim, and that’s why it’s sinful?
(Let’s drop the legal aspect, as i don’t think it’s relevant to this thread.)
I would own Batman comics but I don’t want to go to prison for murder.
No.
I do see that person as a greater risk to further minimally consume product that had abused real children, and even to act on that abuse themself. (No proof of such but this is as said a circumstance in which I think safety of that has the burden of proof.) But more related to the concept of “sin” … independent of what any religion says I see it as aberrant enough as to be wrong in a more absolute way. Just as victimizing someone is wrong even if religion and some large fraction of society disagrees.
Not every “sin” has to be a crime or something to be outlawed. And not everything outlawed is outlawed because it’s an evil-in-itself.
“Sinful” in our Western traditions has usually meant that which pulls you away from godliness. So it tends to refer to things that violate the precepts of whatever’s your spiritual belief system, or distract you from living righteously. When talking about non-spiritual violations of social mores or personal ethics it is more common to refer to “immorality”.
Meanwhile, not everything that’s called a sin or called immoral is necessarily required to be outlawed by the state or requires me to actively stop you from doing it beyond expressing disapproval. And there are degrees and thresholds. For example some religions say any consumption of alcohol is sinful, some say only excessive drunkenness is; in most Western societies the Law gets involved in identifying a proper place and time for consumption, and intervening when drunkenness is public and disruptive or a threat to public safety e.g. DWI — so the state sees alcohol not as evil-in-itself, but as a potential hazard.
…
IMO then porn qua porn CAN be sinful or immoral or illegal depending on what standard you are using and how it affects your life and others’, but that does not necessarily bind anyone else.
I must be on side with Der here. “What if, in the worst case imaginable, it possibly may lead to…” is not convincing to me, nor was to the Supreme Court of 2002, as a reason for flat out criminally outlawing anything even vaguely adjacent.
(Nor is the “ewww, ick!!” argument FWIW)
The US does already forbids obscene simulations ”indistinguishable from” real minors. Mostly ISTM because “dammit we only have so many resources and we’d rather more urgently investigate what looks like real CSAM”
Which are accessory to the crime you already stated he was arrested for: the online grooming. Your own hypothetical is contaminated by starting from someone actually acting to a child’s detriment.
I agree that there are differences and overlap between what is “sinful”; “immoral” without needing any religious basis; illegal; and just disgusting. The exact nature of that overlap may vary by individual mindset.
To me the overlap between “sinful” and “immoral” are most similar in nature, both accepted to large degree as postulates. And in general I have a cautious attitude to legislation regarding morality let alone sin. I do find child sexual abuse depictions for sexual gratification to be on the side of the line of immorality whether or not there is a current real world victim. And this is a case where my initial thought at least is to support legislation of such.
Interesting. I found this with a quick search. And not quite so. Deep fake yes. Not completely AI generated at a Federal level. That is state by state.
I guess we agree on the source of sin, then.
I have heard arguments both that it increases and decreases the person’s urge to do stuff that actually harms minors. I don’t feel I’m in a position to judge between those two possibilities. So “safety” can go either way. In the absence of a strong argument to ban something, my inclination is to allow it.
From a theistic perspective:
A separate argument is that using various types of porn (for any type of sex that might be “unholy”, whether it’s sex with children, or same sex partners, or demons) might serve to draw a person away from holiness. And … If you are preparing for a religious ritual, i can see that being disruptive. If you are using it to keep you away from your god-endorsed spouse, that might also be sinful from this perspective.
But i think it is also unholy to deny our God-given nature, which for most adults, includes sexuality and sexual desire. You might fast for a day to help you concentrate on holiness, but to fast to the point of damaging your body or your spirit would be unholy, IMHO. Same with sex. And in the modern era, where we don’t marry off children and tell them to be fruitful and multiply as soon as they can, i feel like porn can be a healthy way to exercise sexuality when the situation doesn’t provide a willing human partner.
Hannibal Lecter: Seen the Blake Bad Dragon website, have you?
And I get that.
But imagining myself still with young kids … I’d not be much less uncomfortable finding out my childcare provider had a stash of AI generated hyper realistic child sexual abuse material than I would be if the stash was material of real kids that they had not themselves touched. I’d want both to be on registry of not being entrusted to be alone with my kids. My discomfort level would extend to someone who I knew created “artwork” of child sexual abuse fantasies. Exempting them from such a registry seems wrong to me.
I wrote a long rebuttal, but decided it was off-topic.
Even if it’s off-topic, it’s an interesting subject for a discussion. Maybe you could start a new thread and post your reply there?
Cinnamon! CINNAMON!
It’s going before parliament in Aus sometime soon. I heard the women presenting the bill on radio this morning, and she specifically equated “has had a picture taken” with abuse.
She wasn’t challenged on that, so it’s not clear if she meant “has had a naked picture taken” (which would be wrong, AI isn’t that simple), or if she meant “has had any picture taken” (which is a position some people hold), but in either case I don’t agree with her.
I don’t think nakedness is abuse, and I don’t think that pictures are abuse, and I don’t think that pictures of naked children are abusive, obscene, or inherently ungodly.
Details about that bill. It’s aimed at the AI tools purpose built to create CSAM.
FWIW pictures definitely can be abuse and while not all pictures of naked children are abusive clearly some are.
I was listening to her speaking on radio 4 hours ago. She didn’t say “can be” or “some”. She was using the point that sex-abuse AI could only be created by abuse pictures as a justification for the bill.
There are two possible explanations for that position: she doesn’t understand abuse AI, or she includes all pictures in “abuse”. Both explanations are common: I don’t agree with either.
I was responding to your statement:
As to her statements. The article discusses that these tools use pictures of real children to train the system to create CSAM. It seems to my read that she does understand abuse AI, and she does not include all pictures in “abuse” … CSAM pictures and pictures of children used to then portray them (or composites including them) within CSAM would be. Which is apparently how these purpose built tools work.
Yes this is now way off the OP.
Yeah
Moderating: enough about sexual abuse of children. That’s really not the topic of this thread.
Let me clarify. I was reporting what she said. If something else is written, than it suggests that what she thinks is not what she writes.
I am relatively happy with the way threads evolve in the SDMB. If you think bringing in another topic – a website with an article – is off topic, then I am surprised that you did so.