Comment

On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm

Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.

that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so…

And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy

source

Sort:hotnew top

fonix232@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Okay, repeat after me:

👏 SEXUALISING 👏 CHILDREN 👏 CAUSES 👏 HARM 👏

It's that simple.

and no, naming a mental illness (paedophilia) what it is isn't "poison to democracy".

source
- Allero@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Repeat after me now:
  
  👏USING👏HAND👏CLAP/STAR/WHATEVER👏EMOJI👏DOESN’T👏MAKE👏WHAT👏YOU👏SAY👏MORE👏IMPACTFUL👏
  
  There’s a very clear gap in knowledge that is being raised here, and it’s genuinely unknown whether fictional materials increase or decrease the rates of abuse. Judging by more general examples, it is most likely to decrease, but we need more data.
  
  Also, pedophilia is not classified as mental illness. Pedophilic disorder is, but that requires specific criteria to be filled, namely being an active danger to children (getting into child abuse or consuming CSAM involving real children) and/or having distress about being a pedophile (for example, hating oneself and being suicidal).
  
  source
- Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  You didn’t “name” an illness you talked about ad hominem attacks
  
  source
  - fonix232@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Calling a paedophile (someone sexually attracted to children) a paedophile, is calling the disorder by its name. It's not ad hominem in any manner.
    
    But the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between a paedophile (a person afflicted by a disorder they usually do NOT want, someone who deserves appropriate psychiatric help), and a child rapist (someone who has raped a child, and deserves no empathy, but appropriate steps to ensure they never harm a child) is quite telling.
    
    source
    Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos.
    
    And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so
    
    That is literally an ad hominem you dunce. Your basis for calling them a “pedophile” is nothing but them making some agrument about the topic
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- decolo@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Do you think that lolicon/csam/etc creates pedophiles?
  
  It’s personally revolting, but I think it’s at least worth considering whether something like lolicon can reduce chances of a pedophile acting on their urges.
  
  source