Percivius

467 posts

Percivius banner
Percivius

Percivius

@PerciDsang

Words use to mean something

เข้าร่วม Nisan 2024
51 กำลังติดตาม4 ผู้ติดตาม
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
0
0
6
101
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@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
1
0
1
279
Seeh
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🧵
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
81
1.1K
7.3K
281.7K
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
0
0
6
39
Mike Honey 🐮⚗️ 🌠🎀 🎋🍭
Mike Honey 🐮⚗️ 🌠🎀 🎋🍭@mikehoney_·
>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
142
1.1K
20.8K
1.2M
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
0
5
72
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
1
13
138
Nemo
Nemo@HehehehePiss·
@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
5
0
0
881
Nemo
Nemo@HehehehePiss·
@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
2
0
1
881
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
0
0
7
79
Elster
Elster@lstr_51213·
@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
4
0
1
109
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
0
6
105
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
0
9
135
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
0
13
192
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@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)
TH3ORYCHUM tweet mediaTH3ORYCHUM tweet media
English
5
0
1
1K
Percivius
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
1
0
9
193
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@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
1
0
0
120
SuperBearNeo
SuperBearNeo@SuperBearNeo·
This is why nobody likes debating Antis
SuperBearNeo tweet media
English
43
175
1.4K
12.7K
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
0
0
2
27
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@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
2
0
0
40
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
1
0
6
166
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
2
0
8
97
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@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
0
0
2
14
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@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
1
0
0
22
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo The manual specifically relies on ontological definitions because it has a clinical framework. It has measurements that can accurately be measured via biological development and tanner stages. You are trying to present "representations" as a strong indicator, but it's superficial
English
0
0
0
21
Percivius
Percivius@PerciDsang·
@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo It does not need to include whether it is fiction or not because they clearly define what prepubescence is. To stretch it beyond its ontological definition is inaccurate. To define representations as included is an overreach that the manual does not support
English
3
0
9
128
TH3ORYCHUM
TH3ORYCHUM@TheoryChum·
@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo And yes, fictional constructs represent children all the time. They even do it across species. Daniel Tiger PBS has a baby tiger, children tigers, parent tigers. To say theres no possible representation is totally false
English
1
0
0
126

ค้นพบ

@TheoryChum @AbbysDaddyOwner @SeehIsMe @HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs @lstr_51213