3 ms·

> If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason t

> If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason to consider it a crime is that it's disgusting. But we don't prosecute people for having sick thoughts, just for acting on them. You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. What you've stated is a nice ideal but often doesn't match reality, and I'm on the fence as to whether that's a necessarily a bad thing in this case (I'm not sure we really know enough about sexual drive and how it interacts with the subconscious to know whether it's actually benign or has a societal cost).

varajelle 4y ago
> You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries.
- kbenson 4y ago
  My point was the last sentence of what I quoted doesn't quite match reality. We do prosecute people for sick thoughts in some of these cases, regardless of whether we should.
noduerme 4y ago
Well... just because some countries prosecute drawings (or homosexuality... or homosexual drawings) doesn't mean there's any logic behind it. There can be enormous, totally illogical public will whipped up in favor of banning all sorts of things people consider abnormal. We can definitely have that discussion, as to what thoughts or creativity cross the boundary to criminal behavior, because likely at least some of them toe the line. But let's at least acknowledge the gradient of criminality between crimes with victims and those without, and not muddy the waters by pretending that every victimless crime is a stand-in or call to arms for a violent one. That way lies totalitarianism. Let's call it what it is when we want to jail people for having sick ideas - or for creating disgusting art: it's persecuting bad aesthetic choices. It's Thoughtcrime. Either this actually harms humans (crime) or not. Either it leads to a crime (prosecutable) or doesn't. The rest is in the realm of policing people's minds, or the future. And while some countries do that, they tend to be places people who have unique ideas to contribute don't want to live, because that type of control is never limited to one particular type of image or another, but mainly serves as an excuse for imprisoning political enemies. Those countries end up poorly because they shoot themselves in the foot by driving away anyone who might paint edgy art or say things like the earth revolves around the sun, or that God doesn't exist, for example. I'm not saying a society can't make the choice to prosecute thoughtcrime, I'm just saying it's a bad idea. And it's especially bad to mix it up with prosecuting real crime, because criminalizing thought is the onramp to the corruption that lets neighbors turn on each other, everyone bribe the police to arrest their petty enemies, and brings societies down. CSAM is an actual evil, one of the most evil things on earth. Using that fact to prosecute people for drawings or offensive speech or thought (since there is no limit to what can be found offensive - even this conversation is criminal somewhere!) is really cynical and purely for power, if you think about it.
- kbenson 4y ago
  My main point was to note that regardless of reason, we do seem to punish thoughts in some cases, so the last part of the statement I quoted doesn't quite match with reality. The second part of my comment was more along the lines as to whether exposure to material such as this (material depicting children sexually) affects desire for material such as this, or behavior, for those that already desire it and/or have urges along those lines. I don't know the answer to that, and so an unwilling to make a blanket statement that it should or should not be allowed. There are plenty of things we restrict as a society through our government because we think it's bad for the whole. Sometimes there's little real reason for that, sometimes there is, and thus I'm on the fence until I know more. My layman's understanding is that some aspects of sexuality are not well defined until puberty and what you're exposed to at that time, and then those are fairly fixed for life. If that's true, there are aspects to consider beyond an individual's desire, and a nuanced informed decision is worthwhile. It's possible the right answer here is not just "freedom of speech and expression" nor "protect the children", but a middle path with the most benefits and least drawbacks.

varajelle 4y ago

> You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries.

kbenson 4y ago
My point was the last sentence of what I quoted doesn't quite match reality. We do prosecute people for sick thoughts in some of these cases, regardless of whether we should.

noduerme 4y ago

Well... just because some countries prosecute drawings (or homosexuality... or homosexual drawings) doesn't mean there's any logic behind it. There can be enormous, totally illogical public will whipped up in favor of banning all sorts of things people consider abnormal. We can definitely have that discussion, as to what thoughts or creativity cross the boundary to criminal behavior, because likely at least some of them toe the line. But let's at least acknowledge the gradient of criminality between crimes with victims and those without, and not muddy the waters by pretending that every victimless crime is a stand-in or call to arms for a violent one. That way lies totalitarianism. Let's call it what it is when we want to jail people for having sick ideas - or for creating disgusting art: it's persecuting bad aesthetic choices. It's Thoughtcrime. Either this actually harms humans (crime) or not. Either it leads to a crime (prosecutable) or doesn't. The rest is in the realm of policing people's minds, or the future. And while some countries do that, they tend to be places people who have unique ideas to contribute don't want to live, because that type of control is never limited to one particular type of image or another, but mainly serves as an excuse for imprisoning political enemies. Those countries end up poorly because they shoot themselves in the foot by driving away anyone who might paint edgy art or say things like the earth revolves around the sun, or that God doesn't exist, for example. I'm not saying a society can't make the choice to prosecute thoughtcrime, I'm just saying it's a bad idea. And it's especially bad to mix it up with prosecuting real crime, because criminalizing thought is the onramp to the corruption that lets neighbors turn on each other, everyone bribe the police to arrest their petty enemies, and brings societies down. CSAM is an actual evil, one of the most evil things on earth. Using that fact to prosecute people for drawings or offensive speech or thought (since there is no limit to what can be found offensive - even this conversation is criminal somewhere!) is really cynical and purely for power, if you think about it.

kbenson 4y ago
My main point was to note that regardless of reason, we do seem to punish thoughts in some cases, so the last part of the statement I quoted doesn't quite match with reality. The second part of my comment was more along the lines as to whether exposure to material such as this (material depicting children sexually) affects desire for material such as this, or behavior, for those that already desire it and/or have urges along those lines. I don't know the answer to that, and so an unwilling to make a blanket statement that it should or should not be allowed. There are plenty of things we restrict as a society through our government because we think it's bad for the whole. Sometimes there's little real reason for that, sometimes there is, and thus I'm on the fence until I know more. My layman's understanding is that some aspects of sexuality are not well defined until puberty and what you're exposed to at that time, and then those are fairly fixed for life. If that's true, there are aspects to consider beyond an individual's desire, and a nuanced informed decision is worthwhile. It's possible the right answer here is not just "freedom of speech and expression" nor "protect the children", but a middle path with the most benefits and least drawbacks.