Comment by johnnienaked | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnienaked | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Materials don't "produce" sexual thoughts and feelings, people experience those things. Sexual thoughts and feelings are also not a crime (yet).

Certain materials are designed to produce sexual feelings. And I am not saying that having the thoughts is or should be a crime, though I think that having them is morally wrong.

Outlawing materials that are designed to produce pedophilic thoughts and consistently do so for some people is a way for society to say that such thoughts are wrong. I think part of being a responsible human being is controlling ones own thoughts to some ways.

Some materials aren't designed thus yet produce sexual feelings anyway. Some materials produced to generate sexual feelings produce disgust instead. This reasoning is why we have always seriously questioned the banning of anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

> The expression became one of the best-known phrases in the history of the Supreme Court.[4] Though "I know it when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he did not use the word "obscenity" himself in his short concurrence, but stated that he knew what fit the "shorthand description" of "hard-core pornography" when he saw it.

Someone who produces materials that produce sexual feelings in a large proportion of people but didn't realize that would happen is an idiot. There is no way to protect idiots from negative consequences for their actions.

I learned about people who get aroused from other people getting food dumped on them. Sounds weird, but it's a real thing. It's called sploshing.

So your saying that people who use ai to generate videos of children having sex with adults don't realize it would sexually stimulate a certain class of viewers?

I'm saying what's arousing is subjective. No one tries to ban videos of someone getting beans poured on their head because it's consensual and there is no one getting hurt. But it is weird. An AI image of a naked child is not an image of a child (assuming no children in training data etc), and there is no victim. Some people are aroused by this but most people aren't. Why should it be banned? Make an argument.

"is subjective" if you are saying that it varies from person to person, I agree. What is am saying is that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can predict that certain materials will produce sexual feelings in a certain existing class of people, namely pedophiles. The fact that you have not directly denied this indicates that you know I am right but don't want to admit it.

As far as an argument for why this is bad, I produced it in my first comment, and you have not responded to it.

I think that we have both made our positions clear to anyone who has been reading this comment thread, so I am not going to reply to any future comments you might make, and I will just leave it up to people to dedide for themselves which of us is right.

Of course sexual materials of all kinds will stimulate some people. This isn't an argument though, it's just an observation. Pedophiles often have no access to materials but get turned on by their own fantasies. Obviously all abuse material should be illegal, not because it stimulates feelings but because there are actual human victims involved. But with AI generated material, there isn't a victim (theoretically) so why should it be banned? Because it satisfies pedophiles? Or are you making an argument about adding fuel to a fire here- like if they watch AI porn they're more likely to go commit real crimes or get more deep into their twisted desires? Because that would be an argument, and one that I think has merit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com