Comment on "Censorship" ☠️

• 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

      • fonix232@fedia.io ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Wow. Your cognitive skills definitely need honing buddy.

        First of all, no, that's not what an ad hominem is. Me calling you an idiot would be one. Do try to keep your fallacies in line.

        Second... why do you think that calling someone who supports the continuation of CSAM (even if it's "just" drawn) a paedophile? Why would anyone who doesn't consume such material, support its continued creation?

        This is kind of like the "not a Nazi" argument. I'm sorry but if you're doing Nazi shit, and supporting other Nazis in doing Nazi shit, you're a Nazi. Same with paedos. If you want to enable them, then you're just as bad, and thus deserve to be labelled as such. Period.

        And thus, calling them out is still not an as hominem.

        source
• 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