The Normalization Fallacy

[Chie]

Sigh… there has to be something we can use to blow them out of the water aside from calling out the fallacious nature of it. I’ve never been a fan of “cultural harm” as a means to justify censorship, wherein the justification is the thoughts themselves. That approach in and of itself undermines the very prospect of freedom and it makes me very depressed to think about. It reminds me of North Korea.

This will be perhaps the biggest test of faith ever. Otherwise I may just learn Japanese or Danish and immigrate. I’m not into the dolls or even porn. I just want to live in a free country where I shouldn’t have to second-guess my own thoughts.

Fingers crossed on the study, though. hopefully there are others available to step up. I’m hoping it doesn’t seem biased, but we have other bits of literature to use, namely the ones for pornography consumption and Danish study showing that virtual/fictional CP having no causal relationship.

There’s an overwhelming lack of consensus with this realm of science on the effects of pornography, as well as research into pedophilia and sex abuse.

I’m very glad this charity exists. it helps me sleep at night.
I can’t live in a society that enforces draconian censorship and restrains the hearts and minds of its people.

[Chie]

Alright.
I’ve figured that I should bump this thread up so that way it maintains visibility, as well as re-addressing some of the fallacious points raised by @Gift_For_All (even though they were banned for violating the forum rules).

@Gift_For_All

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT FAKE CP WILL REDUCE CRIME

There actually is evidence that it decreases crime.

The Milton Diamond studies actually documented a stark decrease in contact sexual offenses against adults and children where pornographic materials, including those which appealed to non-normative interests or child pornography.

Milton Diamond’s findings aren’t the only one’s which show this inverse correlation.

Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic - Archives of Sexual Behavior

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-10442-001

http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-porn.html

@Gift_For_All

Don’t abolish obscenity law. Use prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors should leave you alone UNLESS 1) you share it with minors or real minors were involved in any way. or 2) the obscenity was NOT consensual. If two adults agree to consent to porn that is “obscene”, prosecutors should use discretion to avoid bothering them. If an ex shared revenge porn, prosecutors should go after them.

This is the same line of reasoning that racists used when defending laws targeting racial minority groups were being reassessed. Conservative and racist groups argued prosecutorial discretion was needed so that way certain use cases or scenarios intrinsically linked to racial or cultural standing would receive sound enforcement (interracial sexual violence) while appeasing liberal reformist/progressive groups by turning a blind eye to cases where, they argued, racial and cultural standing were not relevant.
Deference to the arbiter of prosecutorial discretion in matters of obscenity does not change the fact that obscenity laws, like laws targeting interracial marriage or common law which proscribed disproportionate penalties to racial or ethnic minority groups, are unjustified and unconstitutional.

There is simply no rationale by which the obscenity doctrine can continue to exist. It is a blatant violation of fundamental civil liberties and serves no valid purpose and serves no legitimate government or social interest that are based on proven fact.

@Gift_For_All

Only in the most extreme forms of adult pornography. Most obscenity prosecutions in recent history have been aimed at revenge porn offenders. Like the woman who shared ex-bf’s dick pics. Of course I’d rather have a federal revenge porn law. But for the moment, prosecutors are more likely to use obscenity law to go after revenge porn offenders.

This isn’t even true.

Texas and Alabama continue to target the sale and distribution of pornographic DVDs and sex toys and there has been an effort to target child-like sex dolls on both a federal and state level.

Revenge porn has been targeted via specified legislation that defines or classifies the nonconsensual dissemination of sensitive or intimate imagery and harassment laws, and the Constitutionality of revenge porn laws are uncertain, as the SCOTUS has refused to hear cases from states where these laws were challenged and struck down.
The death of the obscenity doctrine would have no bearing on the government’s ability to target “revenge porn”.

@Gift_For_All

Don’t abolish obscenity law.

Abolish it.

As I’ve proven already, the doctrine is simply not compatible with our Constitution and is fundamentally antithetical to the ideals grounded therein. They are not grounded in fact, as studies have consistently failed to link pornography consumption of any kind with subsequent harm or the risk of it, and relevant laws do nothing to prevent or punish harm.

It will be gone by the end of this decade. Even conservatives know that they can’t maintain the facade.

@Gift_For_All

Support for segregation as well as a prohibition of interracial marriage never rose above 40% among the overall population in states like Alabama and Florida. The myth was that the south of america was full of racists, in reality, it was usually the elite that were racist. If you went back to 1890 on a vacation, what you will find is that most people don’t really have a problem with blacks, but the elite do as well as a sizable MINORITY of racists.

This isn’t even true.

Back then, and even today, we still see politicians elected at all levels of governance, from municipality positions to state legislatures, to even Congress, who have expressed support for allowing individual states to decide whether interracial marriage should be allowed or recognized within that state, and the amount of conservatives who believe Obergefell v. Hodges should be overturned has not changed, as they do not recognize the legitimacy of gay marriage.

I come from a Southern state where racism was common. I grew up watching my own family members profess the virtues of racial equality while acting against those very virtues, expressing overt racial prejudices and perpetuating these cultural scourge by instilling them on my cousins and siblings.
Growing up, I was discouraged by my older relatives and neighbors, and in many cases, disallowed from socializing with black people outside of school, and when I did so anyway, I faced punishment or scolding and was fed awful stereotypes in an attempt to force me to accept their biases against my own better judgement, and I knew this type of behavior was nothing new.

[Giacobbe]

@Chie

I come from a Southern state where racism was common. I grew up watching my own family members profess the virtues of racial equality while acting against those very virtues, expressing overt racial prejudices and perpetuating these cultural scourge by instilling them on my cousins and siblings.
Growing up, I was discouraged by my older relatives and neighbors, and in many cases, disallowed from socializing with black people outside of school, and when I did so anyway, I faced punishment or scolding and was fed awful stereotypes in an attempt to force me to accept their biases against my own better judgement, and I knew this type of behavior was nothing new.

Jesus Fucking Christ, I’m so, so sorry about these circumstances. I’m Virginian born and raised, the very state that featured that deplorable display at Charlottesville. I feel you, man. The local high schoolers protested mask mandates a couple months ago. Insanity, simple insanity…

I’m lucky that my father grew up around different people. Despite having racist cousins, he grew up on a military base in Germany with Americans of every color. When his fam moved to the States, he grew up close to the black ghetto, had lots of friends from there. He even has a very particular way of speaking he picked up from his friends. He sympathizes with black people being discriminated against because he remembers being discriminated against when visiting the ghetto. “Hey, whiteboy, where d’ya think you’re goin’?” His friends always defended him, and he always defended them from his cousins.

So yeah, he never got any racist bullshit instilled in him, and he never instilled it in me. The fact my sister and I am mixed race (albeit 3/4, 1/4) is a testament to this.

[suky]

I think the argument that it only normalizes fiction and not reality is more than enough, as it would force people to have to prove it actually normalizes real life abuse. It’s an alternative that will make some people to try to offer a more substantial argument, if such exists. The other alternative is they will deny what you said back, and lead to a cycle until someone comes up with a better argument.

“But it will create a culture where it’s okay to think in this way! It will promote harmful behaviors!” No, it will only create a culture where it’s okay to consume fiction, and it will only promote one behavior: consuming fiction. This feeds into one of your criticisms, that people can distinguish reality from fantasy. People can separate and understand that while some things, such as lolicon, are okay in a fantasy context, they are not okay on real life.

I think the key argument is that people can compartmentalize and separate reality from fiction.

[island]

I remember when Superman, the movie came out in 1979. A few kids tied blanket capes around their necks and dove out of second story windows thinking they could fly. Well, I remember doing that long before the movie. Jumping off a 6ft. wall in the backyard, not a second story window! I didn’t get hurt. It’s something kids fantasize about, flying. Being a superhero. But suddenly, the Superman movie was “normalizing” and “encouraging” kids to tie blanket capes around their necks and jump out of high windows.

That’s the typical “scared sheep” mentality that exists. One person does something stupid, and suddenly people are scared that others will follow. Some do. Because they’er just stupid people, thinking “monkey see, monkey do”. The idea of dolls and lolicon “normalizing” victimization of children falls apart when applied to any other idea of “normalization”. The same argument that people with AR-15s and high capacity magazines tend to go on killing sprees is false. Yet they constantly use those few kooks that went and did something stupid as the reason those guns should be banned.

Or cars should be outlawed because someone drove over a bunch of protestors a couple of times. I remember an English fellow telling me, with a car you can “get” more people that way. With a gun you’ll only hurt a few people and get killed.

Australia and the U.K. bans guns, stabbings increase, now acid attacks, murder rates don’t really fluctuate all that much. The “war on drugs” hasn’t put an end to drug trafficking and use worldwide. Yet it hasn’t been “normalized” and become and every day use item among the masses. It’s still stigmatized and frowned upon. Alcohol is regulated and legally approved of, yet overuse stigmatized and frowned upon. Everyone sees the damage drugs and alcohol does and it doesn’t deter them when the desire overwhelms them. If people desire it, they will get it one way or another. Law or no law.

Point being, alcohol is controlled by gov. and widely available. Are they promoting “normalization” of being an alcoholic? People say, “sure, a drink after work is nice! I like having a beer at the end of a long day.” It’s “normal”. Yet become addicted, oh, now you’re a “bad” person! Is it the gov.'s fault for not making it illegal? They deemed drugs should be illegal, yet people get and use them every day regardless of the laws. There was no promotion of “normalization”. Yet drug users feel “normal” among other drug users. I understand these are physically addictive substances that are real.

How many people smoke marijuana or take hallucinogens regardless of local laws? Those people feel that’s “normal”. Even though it’s not widely “promoted”. Not like, “Oh I got some fake weed to try it out and see what it’s like!” Doesn’t work that way. Same way fictional characters and objects don’t act and behave the same way as real life.

Being a doll owner, I’ve heard more than once, a child molester isn’t satisfied with a doll. They get a doll, and within a couple of months, get rid of it. They really want, desire, to see the fear in that kid’s eyes while they destroy the rest of their life. Sick!! Labelling all doll owners as child molesters and predators is the same as labelling every gun and car owner a murderer. Or anyone that lives in a house a cannibals. (For those that were caught being cannibals and murderers.)

But when it comes to fictional material “normalizing” a behavior, those ideas go right out the window with the little boy who thought he could fly, and never saw Superman. Sex addicts will see and find sexual stimulation in everything they see. The overwhelming urge to rape someone doesn’t deter that person from doing something they know is wrong and illegal. They didn’t need porn, a cartoon, or a doll to prod them in that direction.

Grand Theft Auto video games consist of beating, shooting, stealing from people, driving fast cars and being an all around thug. Are those violent video games not promoting the “normalization” of violence in our society? Again. The kids playing them don’t have those tendencies within them. (Maybe a few people? I’ll give you that.) For the most part, the people that do those sort of things have likely never played the video game and could care less about it. So why haven’t they banned violent video games?

With that said then, you’re telling people that a lack of women and porn “normalizes” sodomy in prisons and jails? When in a heterosexual society, man on man sex is taboo. But for gay men it’s fine. And for straight men in prison is acceptable and considered “normal”? Ok. None of this makes any sense whatsoever!

Your grandmother fed you pasta as a kid. Now you eat pasta. You love pasta! Is it because of the pasta, or the memory of your grandmother as a child? Eating pasta has been a “normalization” for you. Whether or not you actually like the pasta remains in question. It’s a stupid argument to label anything as a “gateway” to “normalization”.

[Larry]

@island

Being a doll owner, I’ve heard more than once, a child molester isn’t satisfied with a doll. They get a doll, and within a couple of months, get rid of it. They really want, desire, to see the fear in that kid’s eyes while they destroy the rest of their life. Sick!! Labelling all doll owners as child molesters and predators is the same as labelling every gun and car owner a murderer.

AOC Goes After DEEPFAKE PORN, Newest Consequence of AI

Ignoring the part about banning deepfake porn, which I agree with, these talking heads start discussing CLSDs. With the usual “eeeewww” response and knee-jerk ban them we have come to expect. They make the automatic conclusion that this won’t stop anyone, because offenders will need the “rush” provided by attacking a real child. One commentator states that mocktails were supposed to cut down on drinking and that didn’t work. I believe this is arguing by analogy, which is usually fallacious. However, if anyone knows of any studies, one way or the other, that scientifically address this issue, I’d like to know.

[island]

I guess everyone’s missing the point? People who take the time, effort, and investment to buy a doll aren’t looking to harm or stop themselves from harming children. They have no, none, zero interest in harming a real child. They know how horrible it is for everyone involved. They get a doll to satisfy a need they know they can never fufill in real life. Mine and others are emotional. Not being able to have children of my own.

Loneliness is another reason for many. Also sexual gratification for some. Better their piece of rubber than harming someone. They can “eeeww” all they like. Where’s the “eeeww” when they find out grandpa’s been molesting the grandkid for the past 8 years since she was 3? Or Uncle Fred? How about cheating husbands and boyfriends that are never caught? Where’s your “eeeww” when people are doing ALL sorts of things in private. None of it anyone’s concern! Stop fantasizing the worst and surmising crime and harmful actions. She negates her own argument with the “mocktails”.

Oh but a doll!! Holy shit!! They are so far apart from each other, deepfake porn and olls! Is that all these people think about is sex? “No evidence…”! Yeah, of any of their BS! Just more rhetoric.
They assume ALL doll owners are pedophiles, meaning “child molesters”. And even the larger dolls she’s against. Seems like her attitude is, “MEn should only have sex with women!”. We need to outlaw dildos and see how long all this lasts? Make it a crime to shove anything up her vagina except a human penis! Just tack “ban dildos” onto the end of these laws. Watch these bitches squirm!

[Obin]

Why would someone buy a doll or view fictional material merely to replicate reality? Often, fiction is about experiences reality doesn’t have to offer.

Fiction is viewed as distinct from reality and, equally, as an escape from reality. It’s a fundamental human endeavor. Punishing for fiction is evil.

If it can be said that a behavior normalizes itself, then it can be said that doing no harm normalizes doing no harm and that confining content to fiction normalizes confining content to fiction.

Most don’t purchase dolls to simulate overpowering someone anyway; most buy dolls simply because they like the doll. Most view dolls merely as toys to be handled in any way desired. They don’t view what they are doing as any more harmful than undressing to shower.

That one will no sooner confuse a person for a doll than expect for a doll to eat breakfast renders doll play as distinguishable from acting out as undressing to shower is from undressing to board a bus. Undressing to shower does not normalize or lead to undressing to board a bus.

It is dishonest to not acknowledge the disparity between what it takes to pillage the neighborhood and what it takes to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter.

Replace doll with cartoon in that text anywhere.

Perplexity is something else. Should I stop doing this? I used only the first paragraph.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Reword-this-Why-NSs2Ii9IQvGyO0KzcNzE2Q

Quote:

Here’s one way to reword that:

The Allure of Fiction

The appeal of dolls and fictional works lies in their ability to transcend the boundaries of reality. While reality is confined to the tangible and the mundane, fiction opens up a realm of limitless possibilities. It allows us to vicariously explore realms, scenarios, and experiences that defy the constraints of our everyday existence.

Fiction is not a mere replication of reality but a canvas upon which our imaginations can run wild. It invites us to step into worlds where the extraordinary becomes ordinary, where the impossible is made possible. Through the lens of fiction, we can confront profound questions, grapple with complex emotions, and delve into the depths of the human psyche in ways that reality often cannot accommodate.

Whether it’s a cherished doll that sparks the imagination of a child or a captivating novel that transports us to distant lands and times, fiction serves as a gateway to the boundless expanse of human creativity and storytelling. It is a realm where we can escape the confines of our daily lives, explore the depths of our souls, and emerge with a renewed appreciation for the richness of the human experience.

[Chie]

@Larry

One commentator states that mocktails were supposed to cut down on drinking and that didn’t work.

Incomparable comparison. The drive to behave sexually with a child is not the same thing as achieving gratification from relevant or preferential stimuli. The argument that this will only exacerbate and not staid is also not founded on any evidence because the overwhelming majority of CSAM offenders do not go on to perpetrate contact offenses against children, yet nobody will ever justify the use of real minors because it involves real victims, which is fine. The issue is extending any bans to things that do not involve real minors based on nothing more than scientifically unfounded speculations based on nothing more than fear.

These people are looking at what is basically a sexual orientation and the desire for gratification and need for catharsis thru the lens of an alcoholic or a drug addict when they’re not the same at all.
The argument that it’ll ‘whet the sexual appetites’ or ‘wind them up like a spring-loaded trap’ and increase risk has been tested but never conclusively supported by the evidence, both with regard to forensic and non-forensic populations. Both CSA and CSAM offender typologies show that you don’t need to have a primary, or even secondary interest in children to be a high-risk offender

It’s more akin to someone who is unable to satisfy their sexual needs with another human being looking to do so with a substitute, or more or less the ‘incel’ or ‘volcel’ phenomenon.

[island]

It seems they’re basing their “lack of evidence” opinions on their personal “ick” factors? Along with religious morality indoctrination. People love fishing and fishing for catfish. I find that absolutely disgusting! Does that mean I should advocate banning fishing because people are killing fish?

They would think no different about the fish’s rights than the rights of their vacuum cleaner. “Did you ask permission from the vacuum cleaner to use it to suck up dirt? Maybe it doesn’t want to do that today?” So why in the Hell does this tart say, “did they ask the doll for consent?” How stupid do you have to be to think that’s even a plausable statement? “Did you ask the cucumber or dildo’s consent before you masturbated with it, shoving it into your vagina?!” These people infuriate me!!

The entire reasoning is based on the fact they can’t deal with the idea of the way CLSDs look. It disturbs them and they start imagining scenarios along sexual lines. Ignoring any other idea similar to the way they treat their real children. You wouldn’t have sex with your child. As for me, I wouldn’t either. So why do they think I’d have sex with my doll? Oh, that’s right. THEY KNOW IT’S NOT A REAL PERSON!! Therefore makes no difference in how a person treats their doll or their vacuum cleaner!

They need to get past their ideologies and stop their fascist ways!

[Obin]

The media effects assumption posits that individuals desire something different from what they actively seek or consume through media. However, this premise is fundamentally flawed because there is no reliable way to determine whether the content or material being consumed is not precisely what the individual genuinely desires. The assumption crumbles under the weight of its own logic, as it fails to account for the possibility that the media consumption itself may be the true and intended desire of the individual. In essence, the media effects assumption erroneously presumes to know the desires of individuals better than they know themselves, rendering it an untenable and unsupported conjecture.

The mocktail analogy entails substituting a substance that is addicted to with one that isn’t. For sure, however, no one compared substituting beer with wine or substituting apples with pineapples for a fruit snack. The media effects conjecture posits that one wants other than what is sought. One can even like two different things and like them equally but seek to indulge in only one of them.

If someone who has never consumed alcohol went to consume a mocktail, there’d be no way to know that the consumer doesn’t just like to consume mocktail drinks. Drinking a mocktail will not cause someone to become an alcoholic any more than consuming pineapple juice would.

To the extent that fictional material is thought to offer everything abuse material has to offer, the mocktail analogy is rendered irrelevant.