• Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 days ago

    You have to draw the line somewhere, and personally I’m happy with childlike sex dolls being on the other side of that line same with AI generated CSAM, there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Disgusting for sure but thats a really bad argument to make something illegal. It’s the same rhetoric used to ban queer sexualities.

      The generative ai is often based on real stuff and regularly ends up being deepfakes of real people who are affected, thats not victimless.

    • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.

      That’s the main justification for banning homosexuality as well.

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        9 days ago

        Are you seriously comparing pedophilia with homosexuality?

        You seriously need to take a good look at your life dude.

        • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          Are you seriously going to dodge every single hole people have poked in your flawed reasoning by redirecting attention to the person themselves - questioning their moral purity or hidden motives? Because that’s literally all you’ve done here so far.

    • fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Some disgusting things are quite legal. And have real victims.

      I’m not sure why you would focus on illegalizing something disgusting that’s victimless.

      edit: Your reply is my first sentence but with unnecessary verbosity. My first sentence is not an argument it’s a statement of fact. My second sentence is supporting that initial fact with another fact.

      I express why I’m not sure why you’d focus on the (il)legalization and then you reply into exactly that and don’t seem to care anything at all about the victims.

      Sad.