• Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Evidence? You mean other than the extensive research, clinical tests, personal stories and confessions of offenders?

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Anything’s possible when you make shit up. You don’t have research to support the claim that viewing any sort of pornographic material leads to behaviors depicted in that material, personal stories and confessions are not even close to the same thing as research and the fact that you bothered listing them together tells me that you’re a fucking moron

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        My dude anything is possible when you gatekeep information. You’re defending making child sexual abuse material (SCAM).

        This is what the entire case was sort of about, and also explicitly not about. Does it harm children and the answer was the first amendment. That’s not really an answer. Honestly this isn’t a problem for the courts to figure out it’s a legislative problem and good luck with that.

        My personal opinion, no one should be able to create any sexualized content of children regardless of whether or not it’s AI generated, authentic CSAM, hand drawn art, or anything else. Children should not be sexualized, I can’t believe this is up for debate.

      • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Oh wow. You seem to be awfully enraged about this. You must have some personal investment in people being allowed to view specific types of “pornographic material”. Well, don’t let something like facts or common sense get in the way of your crusade.