@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl >POCD people experience groinal arousal to kids
>you say it's not from attraction, physiological testing has proved this
>ask for your source
>refuses to give source
>claims victory
Many such cases
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl I'm just asking for the sources you mentioned here. Unless you're full of shit and I just caught you in a lie, it should be pretty easy just to go back to the comment with one of these sources you mentioned
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl Anyway, to reiterate the half of my comment you completely ignored: Your sources did not mention arousal testing. If they did, link it again with a screenshot of the passage
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl And if I said "I have constant graphic sexual thoughts of children" you would be right to call me a pedophile. But no, your sources did not mention arousal testing. If they did, link it again with a screenshot of the passage
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl (c1) is that the taboo thoughts do in fact involve sexual gratification. Again, you're basically arguing the same thing as conversion therapy camps that try to cure gayness. All those dudes have anxiety from gay thoughts and claim no homosexual arousal, but they're still gay
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl (c) reduction in taboo thoughts (significantly less, according to the article) could mean that they are, in fact, paraphiles. That bit of data is different, which means it's different for a reason. And without evidence, you can't dismiss the possibility that the reason (c1)
@FORGOTTEN_GIRL_@NerdAthleticz@MadamSavvy@KirscheVerstahl Okay, so we agree there is zero data on the effectiveness of ERP for paraphilias
THEREFORE, it COULD be effective in a small number of patients or to a small degree with many patients, given the RP of EX/RP. Which means the fact that "POCD" "patients" experiencing less (c)
@DLose52544@Karan1vrm That's actually false. Siegel and Shuster didn't come up with the -el thing, and it was originally just -L. It's just kind of a series of insane coincidences lol
@JoseSanche89405@Karan1vrm (c2) saves a squirrel in the middle of a kaiju fight ever have the motivation of "my parents I never met want me to do this." He would always know that his virtue comes from within, and that would always be his primary motivation -- to do good because he wants to. (End)
@JoseSanche89405@Karan1vrm (c1) that his moral compass doesn't come from a voicemail his bio parents left him, whom he has never met. The fact the movie insists Clark only does Superman shit because of his bio parents message is F tier Superman writing. In no universe would the guy who (c2)
@JoseSanche89405@Karan1vrm (c) Kal's choice is now "use my powers for good the way I've been doing" or "become rape Hitler." That is not a moral dilemma. Obviously he isn't going to be rape Hitler, because that was never in the cards. He's already a good guy, and as a man in his 30s he SHOULD know (c1)
@JoseSanche89405@Karan1vrm That's actually the same theme as the first Superman movie. Except they were able to accomplish it with a modicum of nuance, and without making Kal's parents evil. In fact, making them evil does the EXACT opposite. Allow me to explain (c)