The funny thing is that he thinks he's Jewish. Jews would never accept a black man among them. They firmly believe that unless you are a descendant of the OG Jews, you are not a Jew no matter what you believe.
That's how jews have infiltrated other societies. They miscegenate with any locals willing to do so, and use their children to infiltrate and subvert, while their parents gain control of the society via banking, usury, and money printing.
Gonna be honest with you chief. I've seen far more Jewish push to not mix with the goys than I have to actually do so.
If they were going for that angle they wouldn't consistently be such a fractional minority in every country they go to and it would be less blatantly obvious of their machinations by being the elite of everything.
It's how they took control of Saudi Arabia (through miscegenetion, subversion, and infiltration of the Saudi royalty), through creating "Muslim" terrorist organizations, which are actually led and operated by jews, through interbreeding with black slaves in the U.S. (most slave owners were jews, and most of the half breeds were jewish admixture), and how they infiltrated European societies, by mixing with locals and using the "fellow White people" mantra. This is why there's such a wide variety of jews throughout the world, when in reality a race of people is supposed to be homogeneous. If you go back to Biblical times, they were ardent race mixers then, too, often in direct violation of what God commanded them to do.
The entire concept of being sexually attracted to children is revolting, but I find the concept of criminalizing cartoons or AI generated images perplexing.
The whole legal theory behind criminalizing child porn is that the subjects are minors, can't consent, and are therefore victims. AI-generated pictures aren't people and can't be victims.
Barring evidence that viewing fake kiddie porn highly correlates with the person moving on to the real stuff, I'm not seeing the societal benefit to criminalizing this. Yes it's gross and perverted, but that's not the benchmark by which we define what is legal and what is not.
These people are wired wrong, and they can't be fixed, so I'd much rather that they sat in their house satisfying their urges by jerking off to fake kids than messing with real ones.
Look at the comic he drew. He wasn't just a secret deviant, he was using his position to push pro-pedophile propaganda. His comics might not be a crime we can prosecute, but his AI images are.
I'm guessing the Ai was trained off of real-life kid photos? I don't think creating an AI that can take photos of kids and render them into porn is a safe thing. If it was anime shit or something then maybe the argument could be made that its not hurting anyone but if the pictures were based off realistic kids I think that's crossing a line.
I believe that particular case is already illegal, as you can't take a child's face and literally paste it on an adult nude body. Which means the core of the argument is already set up.
I don't think its a foolproof one though, as the company that let the AI be trained on such images would then end up on the hook for something too.
One of the core requirements for society to exist, for humanity to exist, for men and women to be able to pass on their genetics, is to protect our children. The instinct is so strong, because it must be. What benefit is it to society to drop the heaviest hammer imaginable on child predators, on pedophiles, on child porn enjoyed, even if it's AI, is that we can't allow that line to be crossed one inch, and every person who partakes in it must be destroyed, without remorse.
I couldn't care less if the child porn they watch is AI generated. The very fact that they're sexually attracted to kids is an abomination, and must be destroyed. Do not tolerate evil. Destroy it.
You're actively defending pedophiles, people with an aberrant and extremely dangerous mentality. And the reason for your defense of them? Tolerance, and some amorphous concept of "freedom", which you place as the highest virtue, with zero exceptions or requisite responsibilities.
Pedophiles should not, nor ever, be encouraged to just "watch child porn at home" for the "betterment of society", so they don't harm kids in real life. Pedophiles should be executed. Any tendency to pedophilia should be rooted out. Being attracted to kids is an aberration. It does not occur naturally, as there is zero biological reason for it to exist. It only occurs due to rampant porn consumption, free and abundant availability of porn, open degeneracy in society, acceptance of gays, acceptance of hedonism as virtuous, and a never ending pursuit of increasing dopamine hits to assuage the addled minds of the increasingly hedonistic public, inevitably resulting in increasingly degenerate and evil "pleasures" to satisfy that dopamine hit. There's a direct correlation to what's been happening to Western civilization. Even a blind man can see it. Our ancestors didn't need to draw cartoons of child porn to placate the pedophiles that existed in their day, prior to TV, the internet, and freely available porn. Why must we make fictional child porn to placate pedophiles today?
But, you filth defend it. I'm utterly repulsed by the vote totals in this thread.
of criminalizing cartoons or AI generated images perplexing.
Criminals escalate. If you don't stop the small crimes they graduate to larger ones.
I'm not seeing the societal benefit to criminalizing this.
It's the same reason we're pretty harsh about abusing animals. That behavior only leads one direction. It's not worth caring about people who do this and then will stop on their own. The punishment works EITHER WAY.
and they can't be fixed
Yea but they can be so afraid of being put in prison that they keep in their pants all the way into the grave.
Criminals escalate. If you don't stop the small crimes they graduate to larger ones.
Pictures arent crime. No one is being victimized. This kind of logic is how we end up censoring normal sex and violence in media, so it has to be called out.
So I can break into your house and take a naked picture of you and share it without your consent? I mean it's just a picture. What's your problem with it?
No one is being victimized.
Yea, exactly, you didn't even know the picture exists.
This kind of logic is how we end up censoring normal sex and violence in media
Was it hard getting on that high horse?
so it has to be called out.
If you draw naked pictures of children and share them online you are going to jail. And you think this is the moment to "call out" a problem?
This is leftist bullshit. Show me the actual harms here instead a bunch of handwavy excuses to avoid punishments.
So I can break into your house and take a naked picture of you and share it without your consent? I mean it's just a picture. What's your problem with it?
Yes, breaking into my house is a crime, retard. I would definitely have a problem with that.
The rest of your comment is revealing your not worth responding to
When has the legislation "escalated?" It's pretty simple, you can't touch kids inappropriate, can't take naked pictures of them, and you can't draw and then SHARE naked pictures of them.
There's no slippery slope here. More civil damage was done after 9/11 than any of these cases. You're clutching at straws.
The whole legal theory behind criminalizing child porn is that the subjects are minors, can't consent.....
Look, I get it. A fun thought experiment. But then you step back a bit and realize that you are laying the foundational groundwork for the justification for open possession of AI generated super degeneracy. Remind yourself what you are arguing for. You are chewing on a poisoned apple. Just leave it alone. Keep your head holy.
/Don't carry water for your enemies.
//I see a "societal benefit" of it not existing in the first place.
You are chewing on a poisoned apple. Just leave it alone
This line of reasoning equally applies to "don't defend it, let them criminalize thought crimes and things with no legal basis other than they don't like it." Because it never stops at obvious and justified.
Which is why its an actual problem instead of a "fun thought experiment" with an entire Supreme Court case behind it as being 100% legal once.
Are we doing the "meeee, slippery slope" argument?
We are very clearly talking about the creation of images that imitate the appearance of children, designed to produce sexual stimulation and response. A physical recreation. It is not simply a thought crime. It is a clear line.
Acknowledging the obvious argument I will make doesn't make the argument wrong, but good try there.
It is a clear line.
It isn't and the fact that you think it is shows how little thought you've put into it. You should try reading the Supreme Court case on it, you might learn something.
But I guess someone who goes with "hey, you don't want to look like a BAD GUY for defending this do you? Don't defend it, just let it happen" as a rationale doesn't want to delve into complexities and consequences. Better to just stick with "ME NO LIKE" as all legal basis.
You think I care about the Supreme Court's opinion on pornography? I am decades on this earth beyond that. "Know it when I see it" or what John Ashcroft has to say about the matter is irrelevant.
The original point stands. Do not waste your time providing cover for content of such a profane nature. It is not an argument in support of personal freedom. It is an argument in support of cultural degeneracy.
You think I care about the Supreme Court's opinion on pornography?
It was actually on the specific metric when it goes from Child Porn to Not in regards to simulation of such, a very relevant discussion on legality even if you disagree with their conclusion.
But no I didn't, that's what the last paragraph was conveying. You've already plugged your ears to learning or thinking and now are trying to pathetically threaten people into following suit with sad "you will look gross if you do this!" level discourse.
Fortunately for those in charge, useful idiots like you are a dime a dozen to vote for censorship if they package it in "think of the children!" paper.
I dunno, between kidnapping a child to create it and kidnapping an nVidia card to create it...it's the lesser of two evils even if you inevitably hang him on principle.
Here he just won the Andrew Carnegie medal in 2024 and a Pulitzer in 2019. Arrested for creating ai child porn, currently on $1 million bail
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrin_Bell
The funny thing is that he thinks he's Jewish. Jews would never accept a black man among them. They firmly believe that unless you are a descendant of the OG Jews, you are not a Jew no matter what you believe.
That's how jews have infiltrated other societies. They miscegenate with any locals willing to do so, and use their children to infiltrate and subvert, while their parents gain control of the society via banking, usury, and money printing.
I am amazed that an actual, supposedly rational human being could believe that.
It tends to be easier to think when you don't have rabbi cock down your throat. You should try it sometime.
You clearly know what you're talking about. I defer to your lived experience.
Gonna be honest with you chief. I've seen far more Jewish push to not mix with the goys than I have to actually do so.
If they were going for that angle they wouldn't consistently be such a fractional minority in every country they go to and it would be less blatantly obvious of their machinations by being the elite of everything.
It's how they took control of Saudi Arabia (through miscegenetion, subversion, and infiltration of the Saudi royalty), through creating "Muslim" terrorist organizations, which are actually led and operated by jews, through interbreeding with black slaves in the U.S. (most slave owners were jews, and most of the half breeds were jewish admixture), and how they infiltrated European societies, by mixing with locals and using the "fellow White people" mantra. This is why there's such a wide variety of jews throughout the world, when in reality a race of people is supposed to be homogeneous. If you go back to Biblical times, they were ardent race mixers then, too, often in direct violation of what God commanded them to do.
If he says he's a jew, he's a jew, that's how that works. Actually, africans were the original jews, you can ask any Black israelite
I watched this very conversation growing up!
https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/4apc5665ra4.mp4 (30s)
You mean the delusional cult of black israelites?
I hate Jews as much as the next guy, but the whole black israelites thing is fucking retarded.
"lol, lmao"? 🤡🌎
Some lively discussion over at T_D on the matter.
DAS RITE!
His cartoon was accurate, although not how he intended it.
Become what cartoonist pedophiles fear.
Google image him, it's kinda scary
Oy vey. He's got the hair. He kinda looked more Muslim than black to me oddly enough.
I was going by the nose, but you're right Osama had that nose too.
He looks very black to me.
He has very dark pigment but he has semitite facial features, in my layman opinion
Calm down with the afrophobia
LOL. Looks like a black Chuck Schumer! 🤣
Can you think of any reason why someone would portray opposition to pedophilia as being equivalent to Nazism?
And he's a father of a six-year-old.
AI child pornography? Imagine being that much of a predator you have to make your own porn.
Also, of course this guy is the literally anti-right wing stereotype lmao.
The entire concept of being sexually attracted to children is revolting, but I find the concept of criminalizing cartoons or AI generated images perplexing.
The whole legal theory behind criminalizing child porn is that the subjects are minors, can't consent, and are therefore victims. AI-generated pictures aren't people and can't be victims.
Barring evidence that viewing fake kiddie porn highly correlates with the person moving on to the real stuff, I'm not seeing the societal benefit to criminalizing this. Yes it's gross and perverted, but that's not the benchmark by which we define what is legal and what is not.
These people are wired wrong, and they can't be fixed, so I'd much rather that they sat in their house satisfying their urges by jerking off to fake kids than messing with real ones.
Look at the comic he drew. He wasn't just a secret deviant, he was using his position to push pro-pedophile propaganda. His comics might not be a crime we can prosecute, but his AI images are.
I'm guessing the Ai was trained off of real-life kid photos? I don't think creating an AI that can take photos of kids and render them into porn is a safe thing. If it was anime shit or something then maybe the argument could be made that its not hurting anyone but if the pictures were based off realistic kids I think that's crossing a line.
I believe that particular case is already illegal, as you can't take a child's face and literally paste it on an adult nude body. Which means the core of the argument is already set up.
I don't think its a foolproof one though, as the company that let the AI be trained on such images would then end up on the hook for something too.
The benefit to society?
One of the core requirements for society to exist, for humanity to exist, for men and women to be able to pass on their genetics, is to protect our children. The instinct is so strong, because it must be. What benefit is it to society to drop the heaviest hammer imaginable on child predators, on pedophiles, on child porn enjoyed, even if it's AI, is that we can't allow that line to be crossed one inch, and every person who partakes in it must be destroyed, without remorse.
I couldn't care less if the child porn they watch is AI generated. The very fact that they're sexually attracted to kids is an abomination, and must be destroyed. Do not tolerate evil. Destroy it.
Yeah we should scare pedos away from generating fake child porn on PAIN OF DEATH so they are instead encouraged to wife up and have kids of their own!
You people disgust me.
You're actively defending pedophiles, people with an aberrant and extremely dangerous mentality. And the reason for your defense of them? Tolerance, and some amorphous concept of "freedom", which you place as the highest virtue, with zero exceptions or requisite responsibilities.
Pedophiles should not, nor ever, be encouraged to just "watch child porn at home" for the "betterment of society", so they don't harm kids in real life. Pedophiles should be executed. Any tendency to pedophilia should be rooted out. Being attracted to kids is an aberration. It does not occur naturally, as there is zero biological reason for it to exist. It only occurs due to rampant porn consumption, free and abundant availability of porn, open degeneracy in society, acceptance of gays, acceptance of hedonism as virtuous, and a never ending pursuit of increasing dopamine hits to assuage the addled minds of the increasingly hedonistic public, inevitably resulting in increasingly degenerate and evil "pleasures" to satisfy that dopamine hit. There's a direct correlation to what's been happening to Western civilization. Even a blind man can see it. Our ancestors didn't need to draw cartoons of child porn to placate the pedophiles that existed in their day, prior to TV, the internet, and freely available porn. Why must we make fictional child porn to placate pedophiles today?
But, you filth defend it. I'm utterly repulsed by the vote totals in this thread.
Very based.
Criminals escalate. If you don't stop the small crimes they graduate to larger ones.
It's the same reason we're pretty harsh about abusing animals. That behavior only leads one direction. It's not worth caring about people who do this and then will stop on their own. The punishment works EITHER WAY.
Yea but they can be so afraid of being put in prison that they keep in their pants all the way into the grave.
Pictures arent crime. No one is being victimized. This kind of logic is how we end up censoring normal sex and violence in media, so it has to be called out.
So I can break into your house and take a naked picture of you and share it without your consent? I mean it's just a picture. What's your problem with it?
Yea, exactly, you didn't even know the picture exists.
Was it hard getting on that high horse?
If you draw naked pictures of children and share them online you are going to jail. And you think this is the moment to "call out" a problem?
This is leftist bullshit. Show me the actual harms here instead a bunch of handwavy excuses to avoid punishments.
Yes, breaking into my house is a crime, retard. I would definitely have a problem with that.
The rest of your comment is revealing your not worth responding to
So does legislation. That's usually more harm than good.
When has the legislation "escalated?" It's pretty simple, you can't touch kids inappropriate, can't take naked pictures of them, and you can't draw and then SHARE naked pictures of them.
There's no slippery slope here. More civil damage was done after 9/11 than any of these cases. You're clutching at straws.
Selfish people treating pets as children is the real reason and a problem in itself.
/Don't carry water for your enemies.
//I see a "societal benefit" of it not existing in the first place.
This line of reasoning equally applies to "don't defend it, let them criminalize thought crimes and things with no legal basis other than they don't like it." Because it never stops at obvious and justified.
Which is why its an actual problem instead of a "fun thought experiment" with an entire Supreme Court case behind it as being 100% legal once.
Are we doing the "meeee, slippery slope" argument?
We are very clearly talking about the creation of images that imitate the appearance of children, designed to produce sexual stimulation and response. A physical recreation. It is not simply a thought crime. It is a clear line.
Acknowledging the obvious argument I will make doesn't make the argument wrong, but good try there.
It isn't and the fact that you think it is shows how little thought you've put into it. You should try reading the Supreme Court case on it, you might learn something.
But I guess someone who goes with "hey, you don't want to look like a BAD GUY for defending this do you? Don't defend it, just let it happen" as a rationale doesn't want to delve into complexities and consequences. Better to just stick with "ME NO LIKE" as all legal basis.
You think I care about the Supreme Court's opinion on pornography? I am decades on this earth beyond that. "Know it when I see it" or what John Ashcroft has to say about the matter is irrelevant.
The original point stands. Do not waste your time providing cover for content of such a profane nature. It is not an argument in support of personal freedom. It is an argument in support of cultural degeneracy.
It was actually on the specific metric when it goes from Child Porn to Not in regards to simulation of such, a very relevant discussion on legality even if you disagree with their conclusion.
But no I didn't, that's what the last paragraph was conveying. You've already plugged your ears to learning or thinking and now are trying to pathetically threaten people into following suit with sad "you will look gross if you do this!" level discourse.
Fortunately for those in charge, useful idiots like you are a dime a dozen to vote for censorship if they package it in "think of the children!" paper.
I dunno, between kidnapping a child to create it and kidnapping an nVidia card to create it...it's the lesser of two evils even if you inevitably hang him on principle.
the germans were right considering what was happening during the weimar time.
The iron law of woke projection never, ever misses.