Technology

59207 readers

3247 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

509

FBI Arrests Man For Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery (www.404media.co)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

304 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.

That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

but is also entirely off-topic...

No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.

your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.

i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.

so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;

or B: the theory isn't wrong after all.

you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)

so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be ~~wrong~~ irrelevant.

or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

you can't have it both ways, but you're sure trying to.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.

My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.

but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)

When did I claim it was ever correct?

I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.

I don't claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.

Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?

then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I've already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?

The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.