My argument is that sexuality is defined by the person exhibiting that sexuality, or in the case of a sexbot by the person creating it. It is not defined by whether YOU find its behaviour sexual. IOW, I see sexual behaviour as something defined by the subject, not by an observer objectifying another person.
You say, "The CGI child is not a sexbot because I don't see anything sexual about it." I say that the CGI child was designed with the very purpose of attracting paedos, therefore projects the creators' idea of a sexually appealing child, therefore is a sexbot.
I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.
There is no liability for the parents, just as there's no liability for the cop. A child and a prostitute are allowed to present themselves sexually - it's the adult man who is not allowed to respond to that presentation.
I don't understand what those sentences have to do with each other, unless you think that only feminists hate child abuse.
Explaining the angle from which I hate child sex abuse. Of course other people can hate child abuse.
"...scum of the earth..." Well, sadly, I think you've already betrayed your kneejerk feelings.
What is sexually attractive? If this bot were to include a picture of a scantily clad adult woman and comments about how big her breasts are in the profile, you'd say it was sexual, and thus might satisfy the criteria for a sexbot, right? These are the things which are sexually attractive to many heterosexual males. But they're not sexually attractive to gay men. But we still say it's a sexbot, because it's set up to titillate heterosexual men, even if it doesn't titillate all humans.
Well, what is sexually attractive to a paedophile? If the researchers considered this question, created a bot which satisfies the criteria, and thereby managed to titillate paedophiles, it's a sexbot. It doesn't matter whether the picture and description isn't attractive to you or me, because we're not paedophiles - what matters is whether it's intentionally attractive to paedophiles. And it was. So it's a sexbot for paedos.
No, I'm stating that these guys' actions are at least as creepy as anyone who tried to titillate themselves with the sexbot, and I do not see why any criminal justice system would sanction those messaging the sexbot but not those creating it. Because while the men who talked to it were (looking at the BBC news images) probably just thinking they were engaging in paedophilic role-play - itself creepy - the "researchers" endeavoured to create the CGI form of a sexually appealing and accessible child. Either paedophilic role-play is legal or it is not. If it is not, the creation of a sexbot for the purpose of such role-play (and that WAS the purpose, remember) would surely be illegal.
If you doubt this, find out whether a random 10 year old girl on the Internet has been messaged by 20,000 men and sexually propositioned by 1,000 men.
By your definition, a virtual character on a screen that is not doing anything sexual is a "sex bot" merely because someone wants to see if people will try to solicit sex from it.
A bot which is deliberately designed with features to attract the sexual advances of paedophiles (and, clearly, installed somewhere that paedophiles hang out - because nobody just randomly receives 20,000 messages) is a sexbot for paedophiles. This is not at all the same thing as just putting a random bot somewhere random to see what happens.
You're essentially arguing that an undercover policewoman who stands on a street corner trying to appear like a prostitute is not playing the role of prostitute because she's not actually going to go ahead and entrap anyone: IOW, she's not going to come onto anyone with sexually explicit language. But, of course, that's exactly what the policewoman is doing - she's playing the role of prostitute. Similarly, this bot is playing the role of a child who would be exploited by paedophiles, IOW is a sexbot for paedophiles.
Hiring an undercover cop as hitman implies you want to kill another *real* person. Engaging a sexbot implies does not imply anything about a real person.
Err, I haven't interacted with the sex bot myself, but looking at the pics on the BBC web site, this is obviously CGI. The men may have thought that it was role-playing no more real than, well, any other role-playing game (sexual or otherwise) which occurs online.
The intention of the bot was to lure men into sex chats. It was set up and installed in a way which researchers thought would be alluring to paedos. The purpose of the CGI created of the 10 year old girl was to elicit physical sexual attraction in paedos. That's pretty fucking creepy, if you ask me.
I have "an interest in abuse", but not in the sense that I want to abuse anyone - especially not a real child. For example, I play computer games in which people are punched, shot, stabbed, harpooned, bombed, etc.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, unless you're suggesting that anyone who thinks about anything with criminal associations should be investigated as a likely (potential) criminal.
Anubis IV was going for some No True Sexbot argument, by choosing a definition of sexbot so he could then base his argument on this thing not being a sex bot.
The point is that the sexbot's creators want its users sanctioned on the basis that they intended sexual activity.
I think you're quibbling over definition of "sex bot", because to me a "CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam" with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations is a type of sex bot.
And messaging a bot transmitting a computer generated image isn't soliciting an underage girl, is it?
The problem is that there is no, "It looks like you probably did something bad, so we're going to give you a summary telling-off!" standard of criminal justice. The police gather evidence, but they don't convict. It's bad enough with the accusations of people downloading pirated material, except a false accusation of being a child sex abuser is way more harmful.
I have no problem with wide publication of the information that some "Filipina girls" are in fact European bots logging everything. I have no problem with the publication of the chat logs - although pseudonymised, because chat logs are way too easy to fake, or take out of context, or to misattribute (e.g. someone using another person's account). Let everyone know that evidence WILL be collected, and should you try anything for real, it'll all be there to use against you.
"Possibly believing" something isn't proof of intent. And this all assumes I trust the word of these vigilante self-promoters about the content of the messages to the bot.
Regardless, someone who intends to abuse children isn't a child-abuser. Nor are one-off inappropriate remarks necessarily child abuse. It is harmful and insulting to the victims of abuse to classify everything bad which MIGHT happen to children in this way.
Maoism, Pol Potism and the Juche Idea are all variants of state capitalism as played out by Stalin, and had little to do with Marxism, which requires a progression from capitalism through socialism, and involves the loss of the state.
Titoism was a moderately successful mixture of ideologies.
The application of aspects of communism works fine, say, in the British National Health Service - to which everyone contributes according to ability, and from which everyone may take only according to need. It works fine on the acres of common grazing land behind my partner's family's farm. It would never work applied purely on a large scale - as wouldn't capitalism - because it is an ideal, and ideals are a source of ideas from which we build functioning realities.
Will these researchers be convicted for developing an under-age sex bot?
Or does it not count because they were giving paedos sexual titillation "for research purposes"?
I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists. But this is NOT child sex abuse - and if the authorities spend one moment on it, they are deliberately redirecting resources away from catching criminals, i.e. choosing to take a path which will increase the number of abused children.
I've indicated about three times that I think government regulation is good because it minimises unnecessary deaths.
You obviously missed this, just like you missed that I never argued "capitalism is the problem" (rather "too much capitalism is the problem"), then tilted excitedly at that strawman for pages.
You're just not very bright. Which may explain why your posts suggest a fanatical adherence to an ideal, the hallmark of a lackwit.
And minimising suffering is a common theme of all your Freshman Philosophy name-drops, my IT janitor comrade.
You're entirely missing the point. Perhaps you are coming into this discussion with some bias - do you follow capitalism as a religion, for example?
To be clear: I'm not trying to get communism right. I'm telling you that communism has always followed the Soviet model, rather than the Marxist model. I'm merely stating history.
After the Russian revolution, every country which has labelled itself "communist" has followed the Soviet model, and none has followed the Marxist model.
Maybe this is annoying if you want an easy card to dimiss anything which has the flavour of "communism", such as the British National Health Service, but that doesn't make it less true.
Having worn something for medical reasons in the distant past which makes the machine go BEEP and therefore enjoying regular pat-downs, and having worked with people who have been properly strip-searched, I have to agree that my experience is a walk in the park compared to theirs.
Now, I'd rather not be patted down, but I live in the UK, and we have genuinely had a recurring terrorism problem, and a pat-down is the LEAST intrusive method (way better than your silly body-scanner machines).
Slashdot Mirror
My argument is that sexuality is defined by the person exhibiting that sexuality, or in the case of a sexbot by the person creating it. It is not defined by whether YOU find its behaviour sexual. IOW, I see sexual behaviour as something defined by the subject, not by an observer objectifying another person.
You say, "The CGI child is not a sexbot because I don't see anything sexual about it." I say that the CGI child was designed with the very purpose of attracting paedos, therefore projects the creators' idea of a sexually appealing child, therefore is a sexbot.
I believe that when a cop dresses as a prostitute, they are playing the role of a woman who is sexually appealing to hetereosexual men, even though the cop would never actually do anything sexually explicit. Similarly, I believe that this CGI child is playing the role of a girl who is sexually appealing to paedophiles, even though the CGI child never actually does anything sexually explicit.
There is no liability for the parents, just as there's no liability for the cop. A child and a prostitute are allowed to present themselves sexually - it's the adult man who is not allowed to respond to that presentation.
I don't understand what those sentences have to do with each other, unless you think that only feminists hate child abuse.
Explaining the angle from which I hate child sex abuse. Of course other people can hate child abuse.
"...scum of the earth..." Well, sadly, I think you've already betrayed your kneejerk feelings.
What is sexually attractive? If this bot were to include a picture of a scantily clad adult woman and comments about how big her breasts are in the profile, you'd say it was sexual, and thus might satisfy the criteria for a sexbot, right? These are the things which are sexually attractive to many heterosexual males. But they're not sexually attractive to gay men. But we still say it's a sexbot, because it's set up to titillate heterosexual men, even if it doesn't titillate all humans.
Well, what is sexually attractive to a paedophile? If the researchers considered this question, created a bot which satisfies the criteria, and thereby managed to titillate paedophiles, it's a sexbot. It doesn't matter whether the picture and description isn't attractive to you or me, because we're not paedophiles - what matters is whether it's intentionally attractive to paedophiles. And it was. So it's a sexbot for paedos.
Alles klar?
No, I'm stating that these guys' actions are at least as creepy as anyone who tried to titillate themselves with the sexbot, and I do not see why any criminal justice system would sanction those messaging the sexbot but not those creating it. Because while the men who talked to it were (looking at the BBC news images) probably just thinking they were engaging in paedophilic role-play - itself creepy - the "researchers" endeavoured to create the CGI form of a sexually appealing and accessible child. Either paedophilic role-play is legal or it is not. If it is not, the creation of a sexbot for the purpose of such role-play (and that WAS the purpose, remember) would surely be illegal.
If you doubt this, find out whether a random 10 year old girl on the Internet has been messaged by 20,000 men and sexually propositioned by 1,000 men.
By your definition, a virtual character on a screen that is not doing anything sexual is a "sex bot" merely because someone wants to see if people will try to solicit sex from it.
A bot which is deliberately designed with features to attract the sexual advances of paedophiles (and, clearly, installed somewhere that paedophiles hang out - because nobody just randomly receives 20,000 messages) is a sexbot for paedophiles. This is not at all the same thing as just putting a random bot somewhere random to see what happens.
You're essentially arguing that an undercover policewoman who stands on a street corner trying to appear like a prostitute is not playing the role of prostitute because she's not actually going to go ahead and entrap anyone: IOW, she's not going to come onto anyone with sexually explicit language. But, of course, that's exactly what the policewoman is doing - she's playing the role of prostitute. Similarly, this bot is playing the role of a child who would be exploited by paedophiles, IOW is a sexbot for paedophiles.
Hiring an undercover cop as hitman implies you want to kill another *real* person. Engaging a sexbot implies does not imply anything about a real person.
Err, I haven't interacted with the sex bot myself, but looking at the pics on the BBC web site, this is obviously CGI. The men may have thought that it was role-playing no more real than, well, any other role-playing game (sexual or otherwise) which occurs online.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The intention of the bot was to lure men into sex chats. It was set up and installed in a way which researchers thought would be alluring to paedos. The purpose of the CGI created of the 10 year old girl was to elicit physical sexual attraction in paedos. That's pretty fucking creepy, if you ask me.
I have "an interest in abuse", but not in the sense that I want to abuse anyone - especially not a real child. For example, I play computer games in which people are punched, shot, stabbed, harpooned, bombed, etc.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, unless you're suggesting that anyone who thinks about anything with criminal associations should be investigated as a likely (potential) criminal.
Are you serious? You can't think of why anyone would wear shorts except to titillate you?
Also it looks like she's sharted herself. No sexy.
Perhaps we should execute hysterical parents of abuse victims?
Anubis IV was going for some No True Sexbot argument, by choosing a definition of sexbot so he could then base his argument on this thing not being a sex bot.
The point is that the sexbot's creators want its users sanctioned on the basis that they intended sexual activity.
But the creators also intended sexual activity.
Rape and corporatism are two different forms of the creed of exploitation.
I think you're quibbling over definition of "sex bot", because to me a "CG girl that appears to show up on a webcam" with the intention of eliciting sexual solicitations is a type of sex bot.
And messaging a bot transmitting a computer generated image isn't soliciting an underage girl, is it?
The problem is that there is no, "It looks like you probably did something bad, so we're going to give you a summary telling-off!" standard of criminal justice. The police gather evidence, but they don't convict. It's bad enough with the accusations of people downloading pirated material, except a false accusation of being a child sex abuser is way more harmful.
I have no problem with wide publication of the information that some "Filipina girls" are in fact European bots logging everything. I have no problem with the publication of the chat logs - although pseudonymised, because chat logs are way too easy to fake, or take out of context, or to misattribute (e.g. someone using another person's account). Let everyone know that evidence WILL be collected, and should you try anything for real, it'll all be there to use against you.
It means you're repressed. Report to the nearest police station and declare your resolved demons.
"Possibly believing" something isn't proof of intent. And this all assumes I trust the word of these vigilante self-promoters about the content of the messages to the bot.
Regardless, someone who intends to abuse children isn't a child-abuser. Nor are one-off inappropriate remarks necessarily child abuse. It is harmful and insulting to the victims of abuse to classify everything bad which MIGHT happen to children in this way.
Maoism, Pol Potism and the Juche Idea are all variants of state capitalism as played out by Stalin, and had little to do with Marxism, which requires a progression from capitalism through socialism, and involves the loss of the state.
Titoism was a moderately successful mixture of ideologies.
The application of aspects of communism works fine, say, in the British National Health Service - to which everyone contributes according to ability, and from which everyone may take only according to need. It works fine on the acres of common grazing land behind my partner's family's farm. It would never work applied purely on a large scale - as wouldn't capitalism - because it is an ideal, and ideals are a source of ideas from which we build functioning realities.
Think!
Will these researchers be convicted for developing an under-age sex bot?
Or does it not count because they were giving paedos sexual titillation "for research purposes"?
I fucking hate child sex abuse. I'm one of those bleeding heart feminists. But this is NOT child sex abuse - and if the authorities spend one moment on it, they are deliberately redirecting resources away from catching criminals, i.e. choosing to take a path which will increase the number of abused children.
*[13 today]:-O :==8
OH GOD IT'S ASCII CP ART! Quick, put me on the sex offenders' register!
Then I stand corrected - it is much worse than the National Enquirer.
Just a heads up for you non-Brits. There will be truth in this article... somewhere.
I've indicated about three times that I think government regulation is good because it minimises unnecessary deaths.
You obviously missed this, just like you missed that I never argued "capitalism is the problem" (rather "too much capitalism is the problem"), then tilted excitedly at that strawman for pages.
You're just not very bright. Which may explain why your posts suggest a fanatical adherence to an ideal, the hallmark of a lackwit.
And minimising suffering is a common theme of all your Freshman Philosophy name-drops, my IT janitor comrade.
You're entirely missing the point. Perhaps you are coming into this discussion with some bias - do you follow capitalism as a religion, for example?
To be clear: I'm not trying to get communism right. I'm telling you that communism has always followed the Soviet model, rather than the Marxist model. I'm merely stating history.
So what your'e saying is there is such a thing, but that the detail of the definitions varies - just as with communism as philosophy.
After the Russian revolution, every country which has labelled itself "communist" has followed the Soviet model, and none has followed the Marxist model.
Maybe this is annoying if you want an easy card to dimiss anything which has the flavour of "communism", such as the British National Health Service, but that doesn't make it less true.
Having worn something for medical reasons in the distant past which makes the machine go BEEP and therefore enjoying regular pat-downs, and having worked with people who have been properly strip-searched, I have to agree that my experience is a walk in the park compared to theirs.
Now, I'd rather not be patted down, but I live in the UK, and we have genuinely had a recurring terrorism problem, and a pat-down is the LEAST intrusive method (way better than your silly body-scanner machines).
More appeal to emotion follows
You appear to be dismissing, "One goal of society is to minimise unnecessary deaths," as an "appeal to emotion".
Not smart. Not smart at all.