While the police investigate, the mothers of the affected have organized to take action and try to stop those responsible

Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      131·
      1 year ago

      I’ll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          that you suggested

          I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it’s better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.

          There are laws in place about sexualizing minors.

          Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes “documents of child abuse”.

          You can’t just hand wave my response away

          You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility’s sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don’t know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it’s you who’s trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we’re in an accusatory shouting match)

            • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
              4·
              1 year ago

              You’re presenting this as if we only have these 2 choices

              I MENTIONED A THIRD ONE IN THE SAME FUCKING PARAGRAPH.

              You’re not arguing in good faith so get fucked.

                • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  I asked whether you really meant what I read, you made a statement claiming I said things I very obviously didn’t (because I said the exact opposite).

                  Had you instead asked “Did you mean to imply that there’s only two options, that we really must select one?” you might have realised that I did, in fact, offer a third one from the very start.

                  You might not have intended to argue in bad faith but the result is still the same. If we had been talking about what chocolate pudding I would’ve let it slide but given the topic not applying high standards is irresponsible. Be careless in any other argument, but not here. If you want to claim to take the topic seriously then do.