I almost completely agree with that. Though I want emphasize, that I referred to pedophilia as a sexual orientation/preference. Call it whatever you like; if there wasn’t a sexual component to it, we wouldn’t have to talk about it (at least not in the context of pornography). Even if we do not completely agree on every point, I think we’re finally on the same page.

This discussion is pointless. All you do is throwing around accusations and arguing against things I didn’t say.

You get hung up on one sentence and take it out of context completely ignoring what I said immediately after that talking about rape and consent. You are pretty much repeating what I said. You’re not arguing against what I said, but what you think I said, which I did not. Work on your reading skills.

From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I’m just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society.

That’s what I said. I emphasized the relevant passages to help you understand what I said.

Fuck off with your insinuations.

Would you call rape that isn’t happening rape?

as to condemning of pedophiles, i dont condemn them unless they act on they’re urges.

Up until this point everything you said read exactly like you would. Seems we’re finally on the same page?

Yah … I already answered that: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/9541949

but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison

Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I’m just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.

Being attracted to an abusive sexual behavior is not the same as being attracted to a consenting behavior between adults.

And I did not even hint at anything even close to the contrary.

We would be having the same conversation if we were talking about rape porn between adults: […]

Which is exactly the comparison I made.

[…] it’s the normalization of the abusive behavior that we’re primarily concerned with, not the ethics of watching simulated abuse in general.

I wasn’t talking about the normalization of anything anywhere. You inject a component, that wasn’t the subject in our conversation before, to defend a point I wasn’t questioning (red herring).

While I don’t believe that banning simulated material would be helpful, […]

Another topic which we could discuss, but which - again - you just injected.

[…]it is completely reasonable to suggest that cautioning individuals about the proximity of their search to material that is illegal - and the risks associated with consuming it - would be preventative against future consumption.

And again: I’m asking for qualitative and quantitative proof of that. It is the one and only thing I was and am questioning about the article.

Especially considering Pornhub is only placing cautions around that material and isn’t removing that content generally.

The point to our discussion being what?

It’s hard to read your objections as anything other than pedophilia apologia.

You seem to have major trouble with text comprehension and staying on track with discussions.

I wonder where you take that certainty from. I’d like to have that in my life.

but this is a painfully ignorant and insulting comparison

Only if you condemn the disposition and not its inacceptable form of execution. From where I stand being attracted to children is as acceptable as men being attracted to men. Abusing children is as inacceptable as men raping men. If it is, in your book, fine to condemn pedophiles for being pedophile, then christian fundamentalists are totally fine hating homosexuals for being homosexual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither condoning nor encouraging the (sexual) abuse of children. Unlike you I’m just not a hypocrite about different sexual orientations/preferences that nobody chooses. The only qualitative difference is that in one case one side cannot consent and needs better protection by society. The only point I am (consistently) trying to make here, is that I find it highly dubious that the measures described in the article have any impact on said required protection, and that the article completely fails to provide any shred of evidence or even indication that it does.

Like exposure to gay people and gay content makes you gay? (/s if it wasn’t obvious)

And where is the quantification and qualification for that? Spoiler: it’s not in the article(s) and not one google search away. Does Nintendo succeed in stopping piracy with its show trials? If you have a look around here, it more looks like people are doubling down.

Like anything on the internet wasn’t tracked. If need be people will resort to physically exchanging storage media.

Does it reduce the demand though? Where are the measurements attesting to that? If history has shown one thing, it is that criminalizing things creates criminals. Did the prohibition stop people from making, trading, or consuming alcohol? How does this have any meaningful impact on the abuse of children? The article(s) completely fail to elaborate on that end. I’m missing the statistics/science here. What are the measuring instruments to assess any form of success? Just that searches were blocked and people were shown some links? … TL;DR: is this something with an actual positive impact or just an exercise in virtue signaling and waste of time and money? Blind “fixes” are rarely useful.

Non-paywall link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240305000347/https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/

There’s this lingering implication that there is CSAM at Pornhub. Why bother with “searches for CSAM” if it does not return CSAM results? And what exactly constitutes a “search for CSAM”? The article and the linked one are incredibly opaque about that. Why target the consumer and not the source? This feels kind of backwards and like language policing without really addressing the problem. What do they expect to happen if they prohibit specific words/language? That people searching for CSAM will just give up? Do they expect anything beyond them changing the used language and go for a permanent cat and mouse game? I guess I share the sentiments that motivated them to do this, but it feels so incredibly pointless.

Ja, wer arm ist sollte nichts schönes im Leben haben! /s

Obligatory: how to exit vim

vim > emacs, though.

Yah, that sounds about right.

I still wanna see a redo of Harry Potter with Danny DeVito as Harry, Willem Dafoe as Hermione, and Terry Crews as Gandalf, or whatever that old fart wizard with a hard-on for Harry was called.

I think it’s faster to just chop wood with the axe. I do love to use trolls to get fine wood before I have any metal though.

I’d wager raid 5 would be better, but it would require a special storage controller or hog the cpu with 4 ssds.

The cutest thing I’ve seen this week.