Slobodan Praljak

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool The legible part of the response doesn’t line up with what you said at all. Is this solely the blurred part? Did you use inspect element to find it?

justanswer.com/mental-health/… here's an example of a psychologist inferring from the dsm-5 that fantasy about fictional children is included in pedophilia, just to highlight the difference of opinion among psychologists. the convo is blurred after a point but i've highlighted the relevant point here:

Nuke the whole generation

@Roo_VT Blocked, of course.

@feast4brainz @Roo_VT You aren’t saying anything new. You’re just equivocating again, repeating yourself and asserting your own subjective discernment as though it’s stance-independent.

At first I thought, what the fuck that is crazy. Then I did some digging. OP created Loli Porn. Anime CP. I’m sorry but they deserved it. CP is CP, whether it’s a drawing or real. No I don’t think cartoons should be excused at all. It’s just as harmful. I hope this teaches them

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool Both definitions fit without immediate contradiction. It’s undetermined. That isn’t evidence for your side over mine. I gave you the testimony of an expert, which you disparagingly call an “opinion piece,” as though Joe Schmo wrote it, when in reality it breaks the symmetry.

@SlobodanPr32396 @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool my evidence is exclusively the wording of the dsm-5, as that is the most rock solid evidence in psychology itself that psychologists use as a baseline. you're using an opinion piece as evidence vs the actual psychology "bible"

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool It’s advice that only board certified psychiatrists are allowed to give (for legal reasons) on a site specifically for that. You have given no evidence in favour of your position. Instead of updating unbiased when presented with evidence, you double down.

@SlobodanPr32396 @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool that is just an opinion piece that does not include the weight of actual peer review that the dsm-5 does. the honest, honest truth is that psychologists just disagree with each other. in fact this happens a lot in psychology, it's a very squishy science!

@feast4brainz @Roo_VT If it’s drawn in a way that doesn’t look like a flower, but the artist tells me it’s a flower, then maybe.

@SlobodanPr32396 @Roo_VT better yet, I'm sure you look at the drawing of a flower and go "THAT'S NOT A FLOWER, THERE'S NO PROOF THAT THIS IS A FLOWER. WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A FLOWER????" 😭😭💀

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool I sent the wrong link, check my other comment.

@SlobodanPr32396 @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool also this was not even adopted in the final DSM-5 anyway

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool Wrong link, my bad. I meant to send this one. justanswer.com/mental-health/…

@SlobodanPr32396 @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool uh, that's about real child porn, not fantasies lol

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool Like I said, this definitely isn’t how the psychologists in the DSM-5 intended you to interpret their guidelines. Can you find any actual psychologists that affirm that the DSM-5 includes it? I have evidence to the contrary. jaapl.org/content/39/2/2…

if you're attracted to the depiction of a child, yeah. if you want to get REAL abstract, think of the suit of armor kid alphonse from full metal alchemist. if you're attracted to that while knowing the context, guess what, it's a depiction of a child, you're a pedophile by definition!

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool So even if the mental image being formed doesn’t resemble the mannerisms of a real child or the appearance of a real child, if it’s from a context where the story arbitrarily deems it to be a child, you’re a pedo? I can’t actually believe you’re serious…

@SlobodanPr32396 @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool yes because that is how words work in story/fantasy. here's a short story: "I pick up a pencil." now, would you say that the story depicts a pencil?

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool So is this your standard? If, within the context of the story/fantasy, the thing is considered to be an “underdeveloped human?” You seriously believe that this is what they were going for instead of, you know, resemblance to real children??

in the context of fantasy and fiction, these terms do not change. if there's a human in the story, we refer to it as human, correct? so the word child meaning "an underdeveloped human" does not change in concept. if you want to specify if you're referring exclusively to real children, then you'd obviously specify that, ESPECIALLY when talking about fantasies.

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool If you can’t even articulate the definition you have in mind that you believe they’re using which includes fictional things, then your point is moot.

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool I asked you for a definition. If you believe that your understanding of the term is the more common and coherent one and the one you believe these researchers are using for rigorous work, you should be able to articulate. You’re just repeating yourself.

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool What is the definition of “child,” that they’re using that includes fictional things like lolis. I gave you a very clear one. That’s what I’m asking for.

i believe they're including fiction depictions of children in that definition because fantasy is fictional. i'm unsure how to make it any clearer. the grok ai is just kind of regurgitating the argument of the thread, assuming there is proof that it's referring exclusively to real children cause everyone on here seems dead set on that being the case (it isn't)

@Fluffy_Prince12 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT Did you even read this study before sending it? This is about the increasing tolerance in people predisposed to addiction WITHIN an addiction, not from one substance to another heavier substance, like from cannabis (the gateway drug) to cocaine. It’s not relevant to your point.

@SlobodanPr32396 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK59735…

@BarryFruitman51 @Simplesimon82 @MantaVT Equivocation fallacy

@SlobodanPr32396 @Simplesimon82 @MantaVT normal people don't want to see kids being drawn having sex

I want to show support towards a certain UK VTuber that got arrested over drawings, but if I reply/QT I know I’ll be on a watch list. Ladies and gentlemen I officially live in an oppressed country.

@Fluffy_Prince12 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT I’ve responded to this by pointing out you haven’t presented any evidence that this applies here. This mechanism is contested in substances let alone pornography. I’ve even presented you with counter evidence and you pretend it doesn’t even exist. You haven't even addressed it.

@SlobodanPr32396 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT because it is a fictional child and that dopamine rush runs out eventually, making you want more intense versions of the original material, ive explained this so many times

@feast4brainz @Roo_VT I’m not surprised you didn’t even try to answer my question. “It resembles X” is completely subjective.

@SlobodanPr32396 @Roo_VT stop playing dumb to try and defend something like that maybe NOT making drawings that resemble children being fucked would be a good start. It's a choice to make your "fictional character" look like a child, maybe don't and you won't be called a pedo

@Fluffy_Prince12 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT Did you not read what I said? Anything could conceivably lead to you consuming csam. You can’t assign a certain credence to anything besides tautologies. Justify why this specific causal link is greater than, say, watching netflix on Sundays only?

@SlobodanPr32396 @TheKillerAngel_ @Roo_VT but is it worth it if you get short term pleasure with the chance of your life being ruined and you consuming csam?

@CocyxSkeleton @foalester @Patreonexclusi1 @Macishellacool Okay, as ridiculous as this is, I’ll entertain it. What precise definition do you think they’re running with then? I’m assuming that “children,” is referring to real humans of under age 13 or so, or things that are indistinguishable from them in appearance. You?

again, how convenient. this would make sense if we were referring to a crime as there has to be a real life component, but in the sense of something abstract as a philia, it doesn't make sense that it wouldn't apply to fantasy, especially given how many other philias can ONLY exist in fantasy.