It wouldn’t compel me to hurt people, but I definitely get more into kinks the more time I spend with them (to a point). Violence in media has never had a noticeable effect on me though.

A less obvious problem with AIGen CSAM is that the sheer volume of it could make it nearly impossible to track down actual cases of abused children. I am not particularly morally concerned with someone generating it — I don't think it directly harms any child and I'm not entirely convinced it harms the consumer. And if those were the only considerations, I'd say have at it (subject to further research because I don't think it is conclusive that it is harmless to the consumer, either).

But if it means law enforcement agencies have to give up prosecuting pedo rings of actual abusers because they can't tell which images among the thousands are real, well that is real harm to real victims and that is enough to ban it.

Generated CSAM is banned. For the same reason, something like this should follow.

Slippery slope fallacy. We know that consumption of real CSAM might increase frustration and lead to pursuit of real crimes. However, we don't have the same level of evidence for illustrations or sex dolls. It's a massive blind side in the scientific literature. It's very hard to study.

Despite this, the number one risk factor still remains unsupervised access to minors. Regardless of whether the abuser consumes abuse media or not.

They said same sex marriage would lead to bestiality

Reduction in real pictures being distributed is not a real indicator of reduction in CSA and CSE either.

A simple anecdote to show it:
How many pictures of Epstein with children are in distribution? How many for his clients?
vs the actual lives he and his gang destroyed.

The small timers are easier to catch and cull with traditional policing and internet restrictions/surveillance is going to do nothing to them in the face of what it will do to absolutely everyone else.

As far as the company in the post goes, better of letting them sell in your country, so you can easily put their customers on a watchlist, rather than be unknown until they start harming real people.

Disgusting for sure but thats a really bad argument to make something illegal. It’s the same rhetoric used to ban queer sexualities.

The generative ai is often based on real stuff and regularly ends up being deepfakes of real people who are affected, thats not victimless.

Some disgusting things are quite legal. And have real victims.

I'm not sure why you would focus on illegalizing something disgusting that's victimless.

edit: Your reply is my first sentence but with unnecessary verbosity. My first sentence is not an argument it's a statement of fact. My second sentence is supporting that initial fact with another fact.

I express why I'm not sure why you'd focus on the (il)legalization and then you reply into exactly that and don't seem to care anything at all about the victims.

Sad.

there doesn’t need to be a victim for it to be disgusting.

That's the main justification for banning homosexuality as well.

This is 'videogsmes cause school shootings' logic. There are better arguments than this.