fonix232

More like trying to tell him that you’ll listen to his mixtape as long as he provides drugs for free

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.

Explain to me where I did any of that lol

The very point you took “paedo” as an attack, not an observation.

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.

Or an SSD, for storage too.

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”.

Ah, going from diddling kids to throwing around slurs. But just like how you chose paedo lite, you also went for slur lite. Boring 🥱

Slightly disagrees would be having a different preferred condiment.

This is literally about if I approve of sexualising children. Which I do not, in any shape or form.

Problem with your “solution” is that it’s reactive. “anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed” - that doesn’t help the child that was raped, doesn’t prevent future cases, and so on. Reactive punishments simply don’t work, because there’s diminishing returns when it comes to the layer of society that the law is required because of…

Proactive handling is the ideal solution - destigmatise the issue, while still punishing the act itself. Being attracted to children isn’t the (criminal) problem, acting on that and raping children is. But to resolve that you need to treat the source of the problem, the attraction itself. Which means people need to be comfortable to admit it to a medical professional, and receive appropriate help for it.

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it’s super controversial to begin with.

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, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.

(mind you it’s important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn’t even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they’re real or drawn, cannot consent).

On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it’s actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won’t be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they’ll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.

Again the problem is we don’t have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn’t be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another…

And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they’re literally campaigning for the legalisation of children’s sexualisation in their specific way… which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.

“oh, I only jerk off to fictional underage children, not real ones! I’d never touch an actual child!”

yeah, fuck off paedo. get help. there’s plenty of psychotherapy options to curb these urges.

Was the tramp stamp removed already?

No you didn’t. You literally can’t easily differentiate between the two glasses in public without being up close and personal to the person wearing it.

Meaning by the point you’d see that hey, I’m not actually wearing Meta glasses, you’re already committing a crime against me. Meaning, you just assaulted me for thinking that I am wearing something that could be used to assault your privacy. I repeat, no such thing happened. But you still assaulted me, simply because you believed you can dictate what others wear.

Read. My. Fucking. First. Comment.

These aren’t Meta glasses I’m talking about. They DO NOT FUCKING RECORD. Video or audio. Audio I guess I could hack, but at this point it’s less useful than the keyword triggers for Siri/Google Assistant/Gemini etc.

The camera feed is processed on-glass, and only detected hand-finger positions are sent to the host device, aka my phone.

Will you also target people whose phones happen to be out, because they could be used for recording? What if I go around using a traditional-ish digital voice recorder to record my thoughts? what about people talking on the phone where the other side is recording and you might be heard? What about stores and their CCTV? What about police and private security with a bodycam? These all record, but interestingly, you only have issue with one specific device where you couldn’t even be fucking bothered to confirm it’s a RECORDING device and immediately jumped onto telling me off for even having one.

Not to mention other recording devices. Apple updated their AirPods with built in translation, and it can pick up voices within about 5-6m radius. Other similar translation devices exist. Other video recording devices that aren’t immediately obvious exist. Where’s the hate for that?

it’s illegal in my country to have a camera recording in public spaces anyway

So you’ll drag every single person who’s recorded a video ever in public to court? Will you be suing every single person whose photos you ended up in the background of?

Neither are you, so stfu as well.

Read my fucking comment again, moron. It’s not a Meta glass, it doesn’t transmit any analytics to any megacorp, it DOES.NOT.FUCKING.RECORD.

But please keep going on about how you’re not the sheep here when you can’t even read two sentences into a post without jumping on the hate bandwagon.

Or maybe I don’t want to be pulling my phone out every 5 minutes to check directions…

No, you didn’t mean children’s anonymity, you very heavy handedly implied that I was a paedo.

And, I repeat, THESE GLASSES CAN NOT FUCKING RECORD.

There’s an Artosyn AR9311 SoC inside them, running a barebones Linux firmware. This SoC also has an NPU, running a somewhat basic hand and finger pose recognition model. The two camera feeds are fed into the model, and ANY DEVICE connected to the glasses only gets the processed hand metadata.

Oh, and the only obnoxious person here is you, presuming that I have any interest in your kids, or kids in general, for any recording purposes. Hint: I don’t.

Pathetic.

No, I mainly use it for on the go media, navigation and such, without having to pull my phone out

Ah, so now we go straight to assault and battery if we dislike what someone else is wearing?

Next time, make sure you wear a hat. Or don’t. Whichever you choose, I’ll be punching you in the face for the other.