this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
-3 points (44.4% liked)

libertarianism

397 readers
2 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to "imitation" children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won't try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I've heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don't think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I'm just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jesterraiin 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Should AI Child Porn and Sex Dolls be Illegal?

Yes.

Extremely evil and twisted tendencies should be both forbidden and treated, not allowed and accepted. In this case, it's not an outlet - it's encouragement. "Oh, I don't need to seek help, I can manage it thanks to AI".

Hard stop.

[–] elbarto777 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Gosh, I can't believe I'm typing this, because I find the topic of child abuse horrendous, heinous and disgusting.

But I don't think your argument against it is enough. There are couples who consensually roleplay stuff like rape, murder, necrophilia, sex slavery... aren't we encouraging these behaviors if we allow them too?

And I don't want to think of the things people do to sex dolls, which are perfectly legal to own, in their privacy of their own homes.

The AI part, I can agree if said AI was trained with actual illegal material (yuck!)

But banning dolls? There has to be a better argument than "because it's morally wrong."

Again, I reject child abuse 100%.

Now, if you excuse me, I'll go take a shower.

[–] PropaGandalf 6 points 1 year ago

I totally agree with you. I don't even want to know what people do in their private spaces. But if the training of an AI or anything similar caused real harm it should be strictly prosecuted even more if it comes to abusing children.

Nevertheless, I cannot support a ban that is based on personal attitudes and emotions and imposed on others. There are opinions and actions that I deeply detest and yet would not condemn as long as no one is harmed in any way in the process.

[–] HappycamperNZ 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I feel disgusting sounding like I'm protecting them, but the fact is its not a choice, only acting upon it is and many dont. Give them an out that doesn't harm others, that stops them seeking elsewhere, and make sure they have a way to get help to change.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MentalEdge 3 points 1 year ago (50 children)

Do normal adults who watch porn have difficulty controlling themselves around people? Maybe. I don't. Not raping anyone isn't difficult, no matter how attractive someone is to me. And no matter how much porn I consume, my ability to respect the concept of consent isn't going anywhere, either.

There is no treatment of paedophilia which cures it. Unfortunately, research has shown that's not possible. What modern therapies actually consist of, is moral rehabilitation, and self control training. Stuff that any normal person already knows. For a paedophile to actually act on their urges, they have to lack the things that stop any given person from raping, in addition to being a paedophile.

I'm nowhere near as convinced of the "no, allow none of it, ever" as you. I can't imagine life without any outlet for my libido, be that porn or actual sex. I think most people with paedophilia, live their lives fully capable of never raping a child, no therapy necessary. No clear-minded person needs to be told they shouldn't rape, and nothing about the condition itself means the person afflicted cant be clear-minded. A paedophile with the self-awareness to seek help isn't doing it because they are attracted to kids, but because they are attracted to kids, and also aren't sure they can stop themselves. If that was how humans worked by default, we'd all need "don't rape" therapy.

Nothing about the condition means it would always be paired with an inability for moral thought or self control. If it did, the therapies we do have couldn't work without curing the actual condition. And they do work. Just not the way most people probably think they do.

I'm not sure where the line should be, but due to the intense evil done by offending paedophiles, there is a well deserved stigma around the condition. The general public knows almost nothing about it except the damage it can do to those they care about. And yes, that means we should start with a line drawn as safely as possible, but we should also do the work and the actual research, to figure out how much can be done for these people, without harm.

And for the reasons above, I don't think "nothing", and "make it all forbidden" is that.

load more comments (50 replies)
[–] HappycamperNZ 1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I disagree on the hard stop, but it would need to be really carefully considered.

"Heres a pile of underage everything you can explore all you want" - no.

"deal with urges and satisfy in a way that harms no one, that you can use in your own time away from everyone" - borderline

"As a part of your treatment, and to explore what your triggers are, and help us learn to mitigate these aspects so you can live a normal life" - should be considered.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] LouNeko 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

As for the first part. Since the images AI generates aren't photographs but somewhat artistic renditions, they can essentialy be classified as art. And art containing nudity of minors is already regulated in many countries and a legal gray area in others.

For the second part. In my and the majorities opinion, no you can't have "imitation" children for pedophiles, for the same reason why you can't have "imitation" bodies for serial killers or "imitation" buildings for arsonists. It is not our social duty to provide an outlet to people that can't function in society. Giving leeway to evil, gives it a chance to bundle up and organize, making it harder to fight against - see for example drug cartels or sexual misconduct of the church. Giving an outlet is one step closer to normalization of any crime.

I also know that we tend to close our eyes on some peoples pedophilic tendencies like Elvis Presley or Charlie Chaplin because of their "social value". Which is probably why this question comes up far more often than something along the lines of should it be okay to murder people?. A good quote comes from the comedian Jim Jefferies: "How talented do you have to be to fuck a kid?". Most famous pedophiles are innl part a product of their enviroment. The entertainment industry, is basically crimes on top of crimes. Drugs, union busting, fraud, money laundering, verbal, sexual and physical abuse and pedophilia. To bring this back to your question let me paraphrase it. Should we give leeway to pedophiles? I say no, I would gladly sacrifice a couple of songs from my playlist or a few DVDs if it meant that the crimes of those people would be undone.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unambiguously no. No victim exists, so no crime should be created. Creating laws based on the standard of "well, something bad could, at some point, happen, but we don't know if or when" is how we've arrived at the massive regulatory state we have now.

[–] nomadjoanne 2 points 1 year ago

I don't have a solid opinion on this. I know very little on the topic. I'm inclined to say no, unless very solid evidence exists that more children are being molested as a result of it.

[–] aidan 2 points 1 year ago

IIRC studies showed that in areas where fake CP was available real victims of pedos decreased.

load more comments
view more: next ›