@Iarimas7 @SoulReveat @TheoryChum Same, he is deliberately trying to obfuscate its clinicial definition. I could tell he is reading my responses because he ends up using my own words to twist it for his own narrative
English
Percivius
470 posts
@SoulReveat @TheoryChum He will now reply to this saying I’m lying despite the fact our conversation can be found here on Twitter so I can easily bring anything up he tries to say because again, he doesn’t seem to be all well up there due to his admitted disorder.
English
Antis threads: just words without evidence
Lolicon defense threads: psychological confirmed and quoted evidence
Why antis keep being believed when their evidence is a nothingburger?
Seeh@SeehIsMe
Actually, you know what, since it's sunday and i have some free time, and this is a topic i care about since i've been a victim of CSAM, no, lolicons are not pedophiles Gonna use the little knowledge that i got from studying neuropsychology for some years, so ay, silly emote🧵
English
@TheoryChum @Iarimas7 @SoulReveat Yet you refused or ignored to engage with any of my points. You are trying to use the absence of wording to shoehorn your own broad interpretation when it is already clear that the terms of biologically anchored that you convieniently ignore
English
@TheoryChum @AbbysDaddyOwner @SeehIsMe The DSM 5 is a clinical framework, precision is significant and you are interpreting it too broadly. The criteria frames it as biological indicators which implies ontological definitions, not connotative and subjective interpretations x.com/percidsang/sta…
Percivius@PerciDsang
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo That is too broad. The requirements are development, age, and traits. They define a number for the age. They define what stage of development. These are requirements that can be measured. These must factor in together, not solely on what you see visually
English
@AbbysDaddyOwner @SeehIsMe Since the definition is dependent on attraction, and attraction targets what we can observe, not its ontological existence, saying the DSM 5 clearly states real child is an absolute falsehood
English
Actually, you know what, since it's sunday and i have some free time, and this is a topic i care about since i've been a victim of CSAM, no, lolicons are not pedophiles
Gonna use the little knowledge that i got from studying neuropsychology for some years, so ay, silly emote🧵
𓃬@samarieous
LOLICONS ARE IN FACT PEDOPHILES! <3 I'm going to explain why japanese lolita media and media involving violence are NOT comparable. + explaining how dumb them kiddy diddlers look 🧵
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs You are mixing legality with actual scientific research methodology. In this way, you are using it interchangeably. They define what they actually used in their research, you cannot ignore this. You need to be specific in the context of the research
English
@PerciDsang @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs lolicon is considered CSAM in a multitude of country.
English
>be Alex
>try to out a “lolicon” as a diddler
>turns out the diddler isn’t a lolicon, just a general anime watcher
>get outed for using CSAM to lure diddlers
The clock is fucking spinning at this point
Alex Rosen@iFightForKids
ORDER 66! USELESS @IMPDnews Indianapolis Police let's ADMITTED CHILD MOLESTOR WALK FREE!! Dillon Kruger is being protected by cops despite admitting to molesting 2 kids.
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs You’ve already conflated lolicon and CSAM by referring to it via legality. In Seto’s research, it specifically says they used real nude models via photographs. The depiction of children refers to real depictions, you keep mixing up the two and skipping their methodology
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs Ah so you conflated lolicon with CSAM then used the studies that were those who seek CSAM material as a higher likelihood of pedophilic interest. Even though the studies had to do with real depictions of minors, it seems you asked leading questions. Context matters
English
@mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs >study says that there's a higher likelihood of pedophilic interested amongs those who seek / view CSAM material
>lolicon is considered CSAM in multiple first world country
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs I am reading the studies you cited. They had no fictitious material, they used sexual stimula involve real nude models
English
@PerciDsang @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs brother, if you get sexual stimuli from drawn children such as lolicon you are 100% a latent pedophile.
English
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs This is an extrapolation. The virtually draw children were made to depict real ones. You conflated lolicon and the AI hallucinated
English
@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs The study you listed (Seto) used actual depictions of real children. Did you extrapolate the drawn/animated yourself from it via AI?
English
@mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs wow the pedophile would agree about a non-scientific survey downplaying pedophilias! THATS CRAZY!
also
>This is not an empirical sexology or psychology study. It is a cultural studies ( ABOUT JAPAN ) / media analysis paper
English
@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo People tend to confuse indecency with obscenity. These are distinct. Obscenity is deemed under the court of law met by 3 prongs
The statue discusses what the scope of the material it can apply to, but obscenity must be proven. It cannot be inherently obscene
English
@PerciDsang @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo I don’t see how it wouldn’t apply to "Lolicon", as the essence of it is depicting what appears to be children in obscene ways
English
@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo The law can apply to it, but the material isn't inherently obscene until it is deemed obscene under the miller's test. It is just specifying what the obscenity laws can apply to, not that the material is broadly criminalized
English
@PerciDsang @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo Context plays a role in every court case
"Lolicon" falls under 1466A clearly
English
@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo No, obscenity is just context dependent. It is like saying guns can be criminalized if you don't have a licenses. It is misleading. It doesn't set precedence for all material with those depictions. Normal porn can be criminalized under obscenity laws if it is deemed obscene
English
English
@TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo Obscenity laws require context of what the material was used for and conducted case by case. Materials cannot be inherently obscene, that is determined by the Miller's test in court. Any pornographic material is subject to obscenity laws if it is deemed obscene
English
@SuperBearNeo 'Some people dont do research' posts 1 section out of thousands not knowing theres a literal law against this material, section 1466, states the child need not exist.
Charges made from this are as recent as 2022 where an appellate court approved their illegality (US V ARTHUR)
English
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo That is too broad. The requirements are development, age, and traits. They define a number for the age. They define what stage of development. These are requirements that can be measured. These must factor in together, not solely on what you see visually
English
@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Yes, the DSM defines prepubescence biologically, you’re right about that. But it defines the category of the target, not a requirement to physically measure it in every case. Recognition of that category can still occur through represented traits.
English
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Fantasy and fiction are indeed imaginary, but this is a false equivalence. Fantasy is defined as the mental process of imagination as per its psychological definition, not the subgenre. This is an apples to oranges argument
English
@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo It does not refer to ontological definitions. Fantasy is factually fiction, theyre literally both imaginary scenarios by definition. Thats not conflating at all.
And even ontological representations in fantasies and fiction are still fiction.
English
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo DSM defines attraction to prepubescent children. This targets prepubescence and child as the target of attraction. They define how prepubescence and a child can be measured via biological age and development. You cannot specifically ignore the biological status
English
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Prepubescence can only be achieved from the existence of children. It cannot be applied to something non existent or human. When it has criteria for it, it refers to one that can be measured from a real child
English
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo They do not need to make the distinction because fiction cannot be prepubescent. It is not about representation, it is about actual measured factors for that would clinically define as a child.
English
@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Yes, they would absolutely have to make that deviation, that 'the same traits do not count in fiction', because its the same traits being targeted thats being represented. Thats a deviation from the original inclusion, anything else is drawing an implied conclusion.
English