4 ms·
It is far from pointless. Let's put it in a very HN-centric way—and please try to suppress your inherent disgust reaction: There is a certain amount of demand
by danaris 2y ago
It is far from pointless.
Let's put it in a very HN-centric way—and please try to suppress your inherent disgust reaction:
There is a certain amount of demand for images of children in sexual positions.
In the past, the only way to satisfy this demand was to put actual children in sexual positions, or to draw such images.
Now, there may be a way to satisfy this demand with highly-realistic images without harming any real children at all.
If we can reduce or eliminate the demand for actual children to be abused, that seems to me like an unequivocal good in the world.
So long as no actual living children are involved, some people getting off to images that look like they're of children, in the privacy of their own homes, all alone, doesn't harm me or anyone else.
- anigbrowl 2y agoNone of this is responsive to what I wrote. Please read the bits where I talked about how the term could equally well apply to an artificial depiction, and how there was additional specific context in the headline. You brought this up as a semantic thing (talking about how words have particular meanings) and I gave you reply in that semantic context. Now you've switched to talking about it as a policy issue, explaining it as if the concept wasn't immediately obvious to everyone else. If that's what you wanted to talk about you should have said so in the first place.