It's all one conversation that got long
I comment on stuff I take issue with and unfortunately there's a lot of bad discussion on this topic here. I'm also scripting a youtube video on the topic because it's underadressed, so I've already done some research and it hurts seeing ignorant people talk about it
Not linking sources to two people not doing the same. I've done my research a while ago and I will not waste 30 minutes of my life aggregating links for you.
As I said, I'm aware that research on drawn csam as a 'therapeutic' tool doesn't exist and I'll gladly defer to a psychologist suggesting it to an existing pedophile as an outlet.
The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because: a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger to others and morally obligated to seek help if at all possible (it's fine if a psych suggests it, it's not a replacement for a psych) b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam and condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam. That's bad. Very, very bad.
As far as laws go, you're aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam, right? Given how confident you are in your statement that csam and drawn csam are different in the effects on the person consumimg them (obv one is horribly unethical to produce), where's that coming from? I know for a fact (if nothing's changed in the past few years) there's no study even distinguishing between the two.
I'm always going to err on the side of kids' safety over people's ability to watch children get rd,* so given there's no study comparing the effects of drawn and recorded csam, I'm all for it being illegal until someone proves there's any reason to be skeptical of it's harmfulness. The illegality should of course exclude uses suggested by psychologists like trauma processing and use as an outlet.
Absolutely not. Available research suggests there is commonly psychological modelling in relation to consumed pornographic content.
It can maybe be a less harmful outlet for people who have the predisposition in the first place, but it seems by all means you can, especially when young, teach your brain to be aroused by neoteny and the subsequent, more sinister things. Given how terrifying the sparce correlative data between CSA material abuse and actual abusive acts is, this is an unacceptably uneducated statement, validifying the instincts of people who should instead be seeking psychological aid.
As for the 'this sounds like the video games cause violence argument'... I'm worried how some people fail to understand the logic behind an argument and use it's result to draw parallels to things they find similar
The reason the 'video games cause violence' argument is dumb is because the data predominantly shows they don't. It would be perfectly valid otherwise, so some argument 'sounding like it' is NOT A FUCKING REBUTTAL. The fact that even came to mind for you worries me. Please reformulate the way you form your opinions if you plan to share them in online spaces where they can influence others
~~like/hate~~ hate, the default association of femininity with submission has to go
Anexdotal & qualitative evidence is absolutely preferable to no evidence. And there are areas where quantitative evidence is impossible to gather and/or, in individual cases, inapplicable.
I assummed from context that your conclusion was that killing a pedo isn't the answer. Sorry if the assumption was wrong but I think it's reasonable. In that case, the fact that you didn't even bother to provide analysis for that conclusion is NOT A POSITIVE. You can't assert something, then when asked for data to back it up say 'I didn't make a proper argument do I don't need data'.
My suggestion in the first place was: if you cannnot get a danger to children to seek help and/or can't get them locked up a bullet can very well and often be a justifiable course of action. I think you assummed I was drawing a universal moral prescription of how to deal with all cases and I see how, but I wasn't.
All I'm saying is that in many cases, a bullet for those who aren't willing to rehab is a valid way out, and there are a lot of those people.
Sorry for the lengthy ass comment, didn't see a way to shorten what I said while keepin the substance. When I have time I'd rather avoid empty snide quips like those you've been making
Don't call me a guy. And if you don't cite a study, anecdotes are still legitimately a better bet than pulling shit out of your arse
Go on, genuinely willing to have my mind changed. Something tells me you haven't googled any literature on the topic until now tho.
change your name. Assuming you aren't underage so that psychotic pedo fuck would't be interested.
No. Flat out no. There is no competition and they're literally providing what they are capable of to take care of the others' need. Mutual aid is not a marketplace and the fact you instinctually thought of it that way tells me you need a book on capitalist realism.
The continued life & growth of people in a community helping each other is the exact motivation that usually makes the profit incentive useless
I've tried to get a pedophile to see a therapist. I can tell you from a pure harm reduction perspective a bullet is much more likely to be the solution.
unfortunately for a lot of minorities
Bro accidentally pressed V