You made three claims:

1. Fueling the child addiction will harden the persons mental health problem.

2. One of the ways to help a person with such addiction, is to replace it with adult pornography.

3. Fueling it with more of that content won’t do any good.

I asked for a source for these claims because obviously you didn’t just come up with this yourself, so I’m assuming there’s some study to back these claims up which I asked you to provide, and instead you gave me a link that even you admitted doesn’t talk about any of this.

Also:

It’s obviously stated there is psychological help.

From the study you linked:

…healthcare providers must rely on data from international literature. These clearly demonstrate that simple psychotherapies do not lead to a reduction in the risk of reoffending. On the other hand, therapies such as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and, even more so, the combination of CBT with pharmacotherapy targeting hormones, significantly reduces the risk of reoffending.

deleted by creator

I have not once called it CG porn.

Then why do you link that if it has almost nothing to do with what we’re discussing here?

You mind quoting the part where it talks about the role of adult pornography and how fueling this “addiction” makes it worse?

And what if CG porn is that help

That’s not claiming it is benefical. It’s entertaining the idea that what if it is.

I assume it increases it then since you’re so opposed to it

I’d love if you could cite your evidence.

Mind linking the study you’re refering here?

Majority of pedofiles never offend and most of the people in jail for child abuse are plain old rapists with no particular interest in kids per se, they’re just an easy target.

This is the same old “violent games makes people violent” -argument all over again.

It’s kinda crazy sometimes, how I notice I’ve been thinking the same thought for minutes. I don’t think I have ADHD, but probably ADD, my mind is just all over the place through the day, but after a bowl it all just calms down. Kinda like a group of people organizing into a queue.

That’s actually a myth.

Macrobius uses the plural vomitoria to refer to the passages through which spectators could “spew forth” into their seats at public entertainment venues. Vomitorium/vomitoria are still used today by archaeologists as architectural terms.

Source

What do you think was powering it untill this point?

For an autonomous vehicle without radars or LiDAR they do still drive pretty darn well. AI DRIVR makes really good videos about FSD on YouTube and love it or hate it, it’s quite impressive how well it does despite the the lack of these sensors.

If I as an adult still had my mom telling me that’s enough internet for today, and taking away my laptop, I’d hate it but it would objectively be good for me. This is kind of a similar thing. I don’t like that these companies fuck up services I like but there’s no denying that me leaving reddit for example was overall quite positive thing to happen.

I’ve hardly managed to move my Instagram posts there and now they’re already rolling in the features I came there to excape.

Good. As it should be. This isn’t fixing any issue per se but atleast it’s a step into right direction. A paid service where the users are the customer, not the product, is the way to go. Obviously in Facebook’s case it doesn’t really matter because it’s not like you’re also paying to stop them tracking you.

When a self-driving car drives at or below the speed limit on a fast-moving highway, it can disrupt the natural flow of traffic. This can lead to a higher chance of accidents when other human drivers resort to aggressive maneuvers like tailgating, risky overtaking, or sudden lane changes. I’m not claiming that it does so for a fact, but it is conceivable, and that’s the point of my argument.

Now, contrast this with a self-driving car that adjusts its speed to match the prevailing traffic conditions, even if it means slightly exceeding the speed limit. By doing so, it can blend with the surrounding traffic and reduce the chances of accidents. It’s not about encouraging speeding but rather adapting to the behavior of other human drivers.

Of course, we should prioritize safety and adhere to traffic rules whenever possible. However, sometimes the safest thing to do might be temporarily going with the flow, even if it means bending the speed limit rules slightly. The paradox lies in the fact that by mimicking human behavior to a certain extent, self-driving cars can contribute to overall road safety. It’s a nuanced issue, but it underscores the complexity of integrating autonomous vehicles into a world where human drivers are far from perfect. This would not be an issue if every car was driven by an competent AI and there was no human drivers.

I obviously don’t know for sure, but at least it’s conceivable that, in fact, it may be the case that erratic behavior of other drivers, caused by someone else driving slower than them, leads to a significant number of accidents every year that would not have happened had they been driving at the same speed as everyone else.

In this case, forcing the self-driving vehicle to never go over the speed limit literally means you’re knowingly choosing an option that leads to more people dying instead of less.

I think there’s a pretty clear moral dilemma here. I’m not claiming to know the right way forward, but I just want to point out that strictly following the rules without an exception is not always what leads to the best results. Of course, allowing self-driving cars to break the rules comes with its own issues, but this just further points to the complexity of this issue.

ChatGPT writes in very distinct style and it’s quite easy to tell by anyone who has played around with it. The issue here isn’t necessarily being able to tell whose cheating but proving it is the hard part.

Yeah, I use ChatGPT to assist with the grammar in my posts here at times. However, I need to explicitly instruct it to only correct the errors and not make any other changes. Otherwise, it completely rewrites the entire message, and the language ends up sounding unmistakably like ChatGPT. As you mentioned, it’s immediately apparent because it has a distinct style, and no typical human writes in that manner. Like you said, it’s easy to discern but challenging to confirm. Additionally, with the right prompt, you can probably get it to generate text that sounds more conventional.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate how ridiculous claim you’re making here.

Every other technical innovation has made the average person’s life worse.

Washing machine. Let’s hear how that made everyone’s life worse.