If hating every single instance of CSAM regardless of victimhood makes me weird. Then I’m gladly weird.

Yes. They are both the worst of the worst. I place both in the very bottom of Dantes inferno.

Or do you still struggle to understand what that means?

Ok. You’re right. You saying it’s ok to depict CSAM if there isn’t a victim is not you arguing the opposite. It’s me lying.

You’re so smart. Good job.

That’s not what I said. How are you this stupid?

I said I think they are both, equally morally reprehensible. They both belong in the very bottom of Dante’s inferno.

What exactly have I lied about?

I’ve never once tried to even insinuate that what grok is doing ok. Nor that it should be. What I’ve said. Is that it doesn’t even matter if there are an actual real person being victimized or not. It’s still illegal. No matter how you look at it. It’s illegal. Fictional or not.

Your example of Bart in the Simpsons movie is so far out of place I hardly know where to begin.

It’s NOT because he’s fictional. Because fictional depictions of naked children in sexually compromised situations IS illegal.

Though I am glad you don’t have a dog. It would be real awkward for the dog to always be the smartest being in the house.

Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.

There’s no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You’ve already failed.

But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don’t think there’s a moral difference between depicting “victimless” CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.

I think they’re both, morally, equally awful.

But you said there’s a major moral difference? For you maybe.

It doesn’t matter if there’s a victim or not. It’s the depiction of CSA that is illegal.

So no, talking about whatever or not there’s a victim is not the most important part.

It doesn’t matter if you draw it by hand with crayons. If it’s depicting CSA it’s illegal.

Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated

The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.

Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it’s fictional or not. It’s the depiction that is illegal.

The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.

That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.

Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content.

There ARE victims, lots of them.

As far as I’m concerned, “threatening” to use your own body in an attempt to raise antibiotic resistant bacteria, is self harm.

You don’t have to agree. That’s fine.

Yeah. So we agree that she’s threatening self harm (minimum) to solicit a response from someone. Emotional manipulation.

I’m glad we managed to argue our way to what we already concluded from the start.

If you are promoting antibiotic resistant bacteria in your body, is that not self harm? I sure think it is.

Not all self harm is cutting, starving, or suicide.

What you just said, is that stopping the treatment early is detrimental to the human race. Did you perhaps mean the opposite?

Otherwise I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue with me that one should fulfill their treatment plan. I already agree.

I’m not attributing malice. I’m calling it for what it is. Emotional manipulation, intentional or not is beyond the point.

Just apply some casual emotional manipulation by suggesting self harm and watch the other person trying to ensure you don’t harm yourself.

Is exactly what “Jessica Fletcher” is suggesting. Please don’t…

I don’t know what other companies use, everyone have different requirements and settle for a solution that suits their needs.

We don’t use a webbased solution partly because we do not want our data to leave our servers. And it was deemed an unessesary risk.

No, we don’t work for Bethesda. We just fix the problems we encounter. But that’s beside the point.

Do you know how many programs there are for Linux to manage the payroll for a large company, with various regional taxes? I do.

That’s not what he is saying. Quit that strawman bullshit.

It’s not exactly a secret that competence for Microsoft Solutions is far more frequent than competence of various Linux solutions, if someone built that solution at all.

At my work, If a windows user gets a windows related problem, we probably have hundreds of people that can fix it.

If a Linux user get a Linux related problem. If they can’t fix it themselves, then IT probably can’t fix it either. Not because our IT is useless, but because the Linux guys know know Linux better than IT. So we’d have to call in a contractor to help them.

And they are not cheap. Because there’s not a lot of Linux experts right now.

And each dev is free to make their own font. But if they want to uses someone else’s, it stands to reason they might have to pay that someone else.

If you draw a really cool painting. That doesn’t mean I’m allowed to then just scan your artwork, print it on bottles and sell them.

The problem here is no one had the foresight to realise it’s a pretty big issue when you’re leasing the rights to a specific font for a specific period of time, what happens after the lease expires?

If they did, the contractual language would be different.

It’s not a problem in this sector alone. It’s a problem, in many sectors, but no one seems to learn from others mistakes.

It’s better than water, since no one knows what happens when you get water on magnets.