Posts by mommy@nnia.space
(DIR) Post #ACzILwl12TZtPlefIm by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-02T10:31:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@comrade_lecter or it's just a funny challenge people don't actually do. Which is more probable
(DIR) Post #AD099uyH9IuhyF0SUS by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-02T20:22:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsumi @applejack @mushroomfemboy Alleviating pain is a part of the treatment process. "Therapeutic opioids" is a commonly used term. You're so fucking stupid lmfao.
(DIR) Post #AD09GxoSyvj0oMmIN6 by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-02T20:23:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsumi @applejack @mushroomfemboy Also chronic pain IS a disease that requires pain relief treatment. They won't use opiods for children unless it's absolutely neccessary.
(DIR) Post #AD0lDErbRVP6nCtbZA by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T03:29:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsumi @applejack @mushroomfemboy Nice you proved yourself wrong lmao
(DIR) Post #AD0lUhnp6KsdT6SNX6 by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T03:32:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tsumi @applejack @mushroomfemboy You are actually the stupidest person I've ever talked to holy fucking shit lmfao this is hilarious.https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/drug-therapy
(DIR) Post #AD0lq02KVEny6LObPE by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T03:36:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@comrade_lecter Would this apply to people that make "jokes" about raping children who have ties to people that have actually raped children?
(DIR) Post #AD0mGMlsbA8Q8nH3GC by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T03:40:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliot 15% is fucking massive lmao
(DIR) Post #AD0nnvSElfxDDeeWjw by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T03:58:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliot yea sure. It's just frames as id that isn't an abhorrent number. Imagine if 15% of white people were card carrying neo nazis.
(DIR) Post #AD2FyplNGCJ6czYNhw by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-03T20:48:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Spaghettimon @elliot Yeah that 25% number sounds like it's taken way out of context, I'd like to see what the study design was like. Of course people who are terrified of prison aren't going to cede any ground to anything that makes them look worse.
(DIR) Post #AD2cfYHYKOGfr5NaTo by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-04T01:02:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@elliot @Spaghettimon Oh man that b4uact link is a clusterfuck, it isn't accurately representing it's own references and holds the studies with shaky methodology to the same esteem as the more cited and less questionable studies. I respect the intentions but it's very badly put together.25% (26.8% in Schmidt, Mokros, & Banse, 2013) is the most extreme outlier taken from a few studies using viewing times or self-admittance as their measurement. You can say 25% can look at images of children and adults at the same duration, but it's not honest to just outright say only 25% of offenders are MAPs. Over 50% is the most widely cited number based on more accurate multimethod approaches. Most of the article is just repeatedly citing the same Blanchard study in 3 different ways to make it seem like its more prominent than it really is. The majority of these studies that report numbers at the lower end are creating a distinction between "predominantly attracted to minors" and "somewhat attracted to minors", in reality both of these individuals would be considered MAPs. Another thing that really skews the data is that the define pedophilia as having an attraction to children 10 years of age or below, but the sample of offenders always includes people who were convicted for abuse against teenagers. "A possible explanation for this finding is that some nonpedophilic men victimize children sexually, such as antisocial men who are willing to pursue sexual gratification with girls who show signs of sexual development but are below the legal age of consent." (Seto, Michael C.; Cantor, James M.; Blanchard, Ray (2006)) "half of the individuals from that group who admitted at leastsome pedophilic sexual interest (n = 50; 52.6%) ended up in thenonpedophilic cluster" (Mokros, & Banse, 2013)Only 60% of people convicted of downloading child pornography were identified as pedophiles, the number is obviously higher but flawed single method testing like can't *perfectly* detect all of them. The testing they use (PPG) is super boring and doesn't account for the fact that many of the subjects might just be desensitized or suppressing their responses to the testing. You shouldn't take any numbers as absolute gospel, they only exhibit a trend that exists. Even the researchers never say "60% of offenders are pedophiles" instead they say "pedophilia might be a predictor of sexual abuse towards children." Because that 60% has so many unknowable variables attached to it.
(DIR) Post #AD2cqnk1BwBOzD3f7I by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-04T01:04:48Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@elliot @Spaghettimon Oh man that b4uact link is a clusterfuck, it isn't accurately representing it's own references and holds the studies with shaky methodology to the same esteem as the more cited and less questionable studies. I respect the intentions but it's very badly put together.25% (26.8% in Schmidt, Mokros, & Banse, 2013) is the most extreme outlier taken from a few studies using viewing times or self-admittance as their measurement. You can say 75% of offenders can look at images of children and adults at the same duration, it's not honest to conclude outright that only 25% of offenders are MAPs, even the researchers themselves don't say this. Over 55% is the most widely cited number based on more accurate multimethod approaches. Most of the article is just repeatedly citing the same Blanchard study in 3 different ways to make it seem like its more prominent than it really is. The majority of these studies that report numbers at the lower end are creating a distinction between "predominantly attracted to minors" and "somewhat attracted to minors", in reality both of these individuals would be considered MAPs. Another thing that really skews the data is that the define pedophilia as having an attraction to children 10 years of age or below, but the sample of offenders always includes people who were convicted for abuse against teenagers. "A possible explanation for this finding is that some nonpedophilic men victimize children sexually, such as antisocial men who are willing to pursue sexual gratification with girls who show signs of sexual development but are below the legal age of consent." (Seto, Michael C.; Cantor, James M.; Blanchard, Ray (2006)) "half of the individuals from that group who admitted at leastsome pedophilic sexual interest (n = 50; 52.6%) ended up in thenonpedophilic cluster" (Mokros, & Banse, 2013)60% of people convicted of downloading child pornography were identified as pedophiles, the number is obviously higher but flawed single method testing like can't *perfectly* detect all of them. The testing they use (PPG) is super boring and doesn't account for the fact that many of the subjects might just be desensitized or suppressing their responses to the testing. You shouldn't take any numbers as absolute gospel, they only exhibit a trend that exists. Even the researchers never say "60% of offenders are pedophiles" instead they say "pedophilia might be a predictor of sexual abuse towards children." Because that 60% has so many unknowable variables attached to it.
(DIR) Post #ADEmy2rnsXn7dTcKVk by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-09T21:54:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@comrade_lecter They wouldn't be able to whine and complain about being oppressed for their thoughts :/
(DIR) Post #ADFb9rFNtxTKmUTOwS by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T07:17:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@comrade_lecter at this point I'm not sure what you're doing here. Are you even a map?
(DIR) Post #ADGXifL9xQVxKUTc2q by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:13:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TiredCarrot @comrade_lecter Great argument dumbfuck LMAO
(DIR) Post #ADGXmH6M1DlhJRGx4C by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:13:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TiredCarrot @comrade_lecter at this point I'm not sure what you're doing here. Are you even a map? Hey buddy pull your head out of your ass
(DIR) Post #ADGYRSoFOSpJUsRYQa by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:21:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MewzterREVIVED @comrade_lecter How about a vaccine 🤧
(DIR) Post #ADGYo8NxUnDcoUxPea by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:25:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@KayFaraday How to deal with an irrational emotion? Simply don't feel it.
(DIR) Post #ADGZM2EkrUpPaeok8e by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:31:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@butterfly_kisses It's a perfect example of the fact that /only/ moderate change works and radicals will forever be laughed into the most useless and obscure corners of our zeitgeist.
(DIR) Post #ADGZrxCj6o5pFS5ZEO by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:37:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MewzterREVIVED @comrade_lecter Is a vaccine to be trusted? 🤔
(DIR) Post #ADGan1KASmGMX4mT1k by mommy@nnia.space
2021-11-10T18:47:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MewzterREVIVED @comrade_lecter You said it shouldn't be trusted, i wonder for what reason. Why trust a vaccine over a pill? Also how do you decide what should or shouldn't be "cured"? If something causes someone stress, or is a vestigial feature that they'd rather not have then it's their prerogative to get rid of it. I'd guess most people would love to take a pill that gets rid of the need to breathe or sleep too. It's like getting free time added to your life span by getting rid of these time/thought wasters.