erin (she/her)

I think a better comparison would be modern magnesium, phosphorus, or napalm bombing.

If you could look at a 6 year old and call them “born bad” for any level of mistake, it would make you an asshole. Why would you treat your child self like that?

No action a 6 year old takes is indicative of anything but their immediate environment. If you did something “terrible” when you were 6, maybe think about what that says about who was raising you, and why you’ve been made to think that it’s “terrible.” You desperately need to work through your childhood trauma with a professional.

Would you treat a random 6 year old how you’re treating yourself? Why or why not?

Try not to take it all personally. It’s a public forum, and no one here knows each other. They are just trying to be helpful. You will have more success if you assume people aren’t being mean. There is no need to delete your account. Learning the social rules for an internet space is difficult, especially when it isn’t your first language. Take your time and don’t be so hard on yourself. Your contributions will be appreciated, even if they aren’t perfect English. Have a good day.

There’s a big difference between the weed shop I can walk to down the corner and the nearest safe use site/casino. I think people should be free to engage in whatever recreational activity they choose to, and the existence of addiction doesn’t give the government the right to infringe on those freedoms. Safe use sites and social programs can exist without a semi-dystopian puritan system. I don’t understand why addiction is so huge a problem that it requires such insane overreach. Without capitalist exploitation, addiction wouldn’t be monetized. A different form of government and legalization do a far better job at managing addiction than creating a black market with draconian laws.

A drug casino doesn’t solve those problems though. Better social services for addicts can. Addiction is impossible to eradicate, all you can do is provide good social services for addicts and recovery programs (which aren’t judgemental and Christian). Requiring transportation to go get and use drugs is the same thing as criminalizing it for many people.

Neither does making a drug house that people need transportation to get to. That’s the same as criminalizing it for many people.

I feel like you have issues with the way capitalism takes advantage of people’s vices and you blamed half of it on the vices. If it wasn’t exploited, and drugs weren’t criminalized, with normal and healthy social standards taught instead of total abstinence creating an attractive taboo, none of that would be an issue.

Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they’re mandated reporters.

It’s just an x frontend that correctly embeds lol

I wouldn’t say either. Sex is way more intimate than just hugging. I’d say it’s like “making out” but better. It’s lots of fun, and I don’t care about the societal norms restricting it between romantic partners. Pregnancy isn’t a risk for me, and I’m very careful to avoid STDs. I haven’t had sex with someone without a recent STD panel, and I use protection when necessary. My fiancee feels the same way, so I have sex with my friends all the time

girlcockx.com

For context I guess, here’s my views on the list you posted, as someone who is very much not religious and dated plenty before finding my fiancee:

• Marriage might be awesome for some, but it’s also not for everyone, and there are far too many bad marriages that could’ve been good casual relationships

• Standards are definitely good to have, but I guarantee mine are very different than the average Catholic

• No shame in being single. Better to be single than in a toxic relationship just for the sake of a relationship.

• I probably couldn’t see myself marrying a religious person, but if their beliefs don’t infringe on other’s rights then I guess they can do them.

• Sex is just sex, cohabitation is convenient, cheaper, and pleasant. I’ve never been married and I’ve lived more of my adult life with a roommate or partner than not. I also don’t believe sex needs to be confined within the boundaries of a relationship either, and I have sex with people that aren’t my fiancee, both with and without her, though that’s definitely uncommon and always done with the full consent of all parties.

• Dating could be for finding a future spouse. It could also just be for fun, or for a casual relationship, or a long term relationship with no intent to marry.

• Relatively wide variety in how long people date before marriage, if ever. I never planned on it for years, but I met my fiancee and changed my mind. We dated for a year before getting engaged.

• Normal to date in highschool.

Obviously this is only my perspective. No judgement, to each their own. Other than the views on polyamory (though more accurately, just sex. Open relationship? I don’t have a label for it), these opinions seem very common among the average dating population. My sample may be skewed since I’m bisexual and over half my relationships have been gay.

I don’t love the take “men dressing feminine is a fetish.” Are tomboys a fetish? Just because some people choose to engage in fetish and also are femboys doesn’t make it “in and of itself” a fetish. It isn’t.

Yeah I don’t know if that source or that college make the point you think they do. AI art cannot exist without a constant feed of (non-consensual) human creativity. You can learn everything there is to know about AI “art” in a relatively short time span, because you have the plagiarism machine to do the composition for you. It isn’t so for any other medium. This point isn’t worth arguing, because it’s so self-evident. The knowledge and skill of photography clearly set it apart as an art form, whereas AI does not. AI “art” requires the knowledge and skill of actual artforms to even exist.

Photography’s genesis is fascinating and is taught about in art school. You conveniently left out the other side of that time, where the fledgling artform pushed back to prove its validity through multiple evolving forms and styles, which demonstrated that it is simply a new medium, not trying to replace or replicate any other style. That is explicitly what gen AI stands to do, and it even requires constant input of actual art to exist. Additionally , impressionism was far more a reaction to realism than it was to photography. Every new wave in art creates pushback from the other styles more popular at the time. Never before has every field of art so unanimously opposed what is clearly the cheapening and commoditizing of creativity through soulless reproduction. Gen AI can be fun to mess with, it can be interesting to explore the technology, but it is ultimately just a bubble being propped up by the exploitation of actual artists and consumers alike.

You clearly do not produce or understand the production of art, and why there is such a difference. Prompt engineering is not composition, and the only art that uses AI relies on human composition to give it any form of soul. This conversation isn’t worth having, as you’re still trying to argue that photography is analogous to AI art. Talk to artists.

Repeating it does not make it so. There are no AI art colleges.

I’m not dismissing it, and that doesn’t address the point at all compared to AI. It isn’t that technique isn’t important, it’s just far less of what you learn as an artist compared to the theory. Photography has its own advanced techniques just like all artforms.

I cannot disagree more, as someone that paints with multiple mediums, including oil. It may be much more time consuming, but most of the art is in learning how the human eye views images, how to make the eye be drawn around the image in the order you want, and many other technical and artistic details. I can’t even begin to discuss it here, it’s a field of professional art like any other. Frequently, it intersects with sculpture and other physical and digital mediums. There are colleges of photography that offer the same level and quantity of schooling that other artistic studies do. The skill in art is not in the fine motor controls and techniques, though they are important to learn. Much harder is learning about forms, color, values, how to arrange artwork to be pleasing to the eye (or discordant, like a tritone), and all the other multitude of steps in arranging and capturing the message the artist is trying to convey.

You’re just wrong and misinformed. I’m an artist, and every professional artist I know and went to school with shares my opinion. You have a very limited view of what photography can be, and it shows.

Edit: To be clear, professional photographers can spend huge amounts of time applying the knowledge they’ve learned through study and practice to arrange their subject, which is not simply “point and click.” Look at the work of professional modern photographers. Photography is accessible like a set of cheap acrylics is accessible. High level art of all mediums takes far more study and skill to do well than AI art.

The argument AI fanboys make that it’s the same creative effort as directing or photography is absolutely insane and falls flat with even a tiny bit of critical thinking. Anyone can plug in a prompt. People study and work hard their entire lives to become good photographers and directors. Being able to take a decent picture is not the same AT ALL as a professional photographer, especially one of the successful ones, like all art. It takes incredible patience, timing, creativity, and technical knowledge. It’s an accessible art form, like most forms of art, but doing it at the highest level takes a lot of skill. You need to select and know a great deal about your subject in order to capture it well, and timing is often incredibly important. There are people that spend their entire professional lives pursuing one shot, and when they finally get it, the photo is priceless and nearly impossible to replicate. The idea that an art form people get degrees and spend years pursuing is the same as typing a prompt is crazy. Just because anyone can pick up a camera (or a pen, or a paintbrush, etc) does not make the art form that simple.

Directing is an art form too, and there’s a very good reason the art of great directors is immediately attributable to them on viewing, even with no context. Anyone making that argument has no idea what it means to direct. Just because some directors might be lazy or uncreative doesn’t mean the artform doesn’t exist. AI could never replace it.

Wait until you find out where fish and dolphins poop!