Aaaaaand nowhere in the quoted post do I say "people who fap to loli aren't pedophiles."
Maybe not word for word, but the GTA argument is very common in loli debate, "you're not into killing because you play GTA any more than you are into kids for fapping to loli", which is a stretch to say the least.
Now, I'm gonna be fair and assume you define "loli" as being specifically sexualized images of young girls and that your question entails someone who specifically seeks out that sort of thing, and not just someone who watched an anime that looked innocent on the box but turned out to be skeevy.
The thread seems to be about loli/shota hentai, so instead of saying that mouthful every time, I just say loli.
Watching anime with weird shit in it isn't the same as seeking out hentai. Even if certain elements of an anime are intended to be perverted, that sort of thing is almost unavoidable with anime because Japs are perverts and their culture is weird, you'd basically have to not watch anime at all to avoid it.
Your whole argument for pages now has been that just watching any anime that has dubiously-loli aspects will give the viewer Magical Brain Parasites that override their soul and make them want to molest kids.
What?! That was never my argument. I was half joking about your poor reading comprehension before but now I'm serious. Like I said, creepy shit is unavoidable in anime, that's not going to influence a normal person.
Take Dragon Ball for instance, there's weird scenes sprinkled throughout the franchise, and keep in mind this is the most mainstream anime series of all time (or tied with Pokemon, which, even intended for kids, had its own sus moments). The difference is nobody watches it for this:
But for this:
Holy shit, Goku is so fucking cool.
And you shouldn't either, since its the same bullshit idiots have been using for centuries to try and ban rock music, violent cartoons, D&D, video games....
Banning violent cartoons was never the intention, it was to ban them from advertising them to kids, which I agree with. And comparing loli to rock music, really? You can't see the difference?
Dude, if the one guy posting a dude in a Sailor Moon outfit proves watching anime makes you a pedophile, then posting pictures of priests and saying "this proves religion makes you a pedo" is fair game. If you can do it, so can I.
Did I agree with that?
Also, you know if I had said "anime has less of a problem with pedos than public schools" you'd be telling me that's just a cope. Again: if you can say it, so can I.
No, I'd be telling you to cite your source, but I'd be inclined to agree with you from the outset anyway.
As stupid as adopting Anita Sarkeesian/Jack Thompson arguments and thinking they're valid when they never were before?
Circling back to the GTA defense already? Stop conflating sex & violence.
How is wanting something banned not inherently a hostile stance?
(And even if you're not hostile, the part you're quoting wasn't aimed at you alone).
It just has a connotation that implied more in my opinion, but sure, you're right.
It wasn't aimed at me alone, but it was obviously aimed at the opposition, which would include me.
I wouldn't know--I wasn't alive in the 1950s, and I currently don't have access to time travel.
It's the 50's, not ancient history dude. C'mon.
Who the fuck would be stupid enough to trust statistics and self-reports?
Who else is better at judging one's own happiness than one's own self? Self-reports make sense in that case. Statistics may not be entirely trustworthy, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand unless there's a clear bias.
The thing is, if I thought there was in fact a good logical, moral, or philosophical argument against my position, I would concede the point, but every counterargument I see, I see logical moral and philosophical holes that would make that position unpalatable to me. Or I take that position to the logical furthest conclusion and conclude that I don't want to live in a world based on this logic. So I hold to my position.
If you can't so much as concede that a photorealistic image of an apple is indeed objectively identifiable as an apple, just because the author on a whim can tell you that your senses are wrong, then I don't think that's a reasonable position to hold.
By that logic you could draw a series of images that may appear to be letters of the alphabet arranged in such a way that a person may construe them to be forming a coherent sentence which reads as a death threat to a prominent politician, but then grin and play your Uno-Reverse card tell them that what they're looking at is
ackshually a bunch of aliens which only appear to be forming a sentence. I'm quite sure the authorities would submit to the author's canonical declaration rather than trust their own faculties of reason.
Ironically, that how I approach the abortion debate as a pro-life person. I've seen no real convincing pro-choice arguments that don't come across as immoral, unscientific, illogical, or deranged when honestly considered or taken to their furthest logical conclusion. To me, my position is the natural, rational conclusion. But I understand that people are not rational beings, and put more weight on certain other things than I put on rationality.
Abortion has a clear science to it, regardless of right or wrong though, an honest abortionist could still support abortion and just not care about the moral quandary. The problem with most aborties is they will straight up deny the science often, insisting the human life is a parasite or some such nonsense, despite being scientifically incorrect. Or, more rarely, they'll concede it's a human life but then debate the value of that life, which always boils down to their own subjective opinion that the life in question doesn't have value for whatever reasons, which is invariably hypocritical for a born person who was once unborn.
Loli on the other hand is entirely a subject regarding morality. In this case it boils down to "is it ok to fap to cartoon kids". There's no scientific component to that, only a moral one.
They are not trying to use different terminology Ness. That's the point. They need everything to be child pornography, otherwise, their position isn't defensible, because its based on the assumption that what they are attacking is, in fact, child pornography.
Perhaps, but I think it's just a case of "if it walks like a duck", and using imprecise language out of convenience. I'm sure they all understand the distinction between AI/real, and the implications thereof. It probably wasn't even necessary for me to say anything about it, but I figured I'd say something just for posterity.
"Okay, it might look like a dude buttfucking another dude, but you see, the guy on the bottom is actually a 10,000-year-old female demon who is disguising her vagina as a dude's asshole, so it's perfectly heterosexual."
Bad news, the author retconned it and now you're gay for reals.
