Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[skykiii]

Just humor me then.

I will add one thing too--there's a focus specifically on "fapping to Loli" in these responses, when my original stance (and why I'm anti-ban) was I understood it as just people looking at or perhaps drawing something that could be considered lolicon. That's why I did that test a few pages back where I asked a poster whether certain anime kids were lolis.

(FWIW his impressions actually kinda meshed with my own).

But to keep it basic:

Looking at lolicon isn't gonna magically turn you into a pedo if you weren't one already.

Drawing lolicon does not mean you're a pedo (plenty of artists draw things they don't necessarily like themselves).

If you're fapping to it.... at that point I would say "don't let him be alone with the kids."

If they're on Twitter self-identifying as a MAP, shoot them. Even if they're not actually dangerous (like they like to insist), they're still retards who willingly outed themselves and they should win a Darwin Award.

Everybody can claim everything is "minor",

Indeed apparently a lot of this thread has been people trying to figure out which cartoon drawings are actual minors

It's a big world, trannies can go groom in another country, just like loli fappers can go to Japan for their fetish (not suggesting cartoon porn is anywhere near as bad as troons literally grooming, before anyone insinuates it).

You say that, and yet this tangent came out of you responding "why should we allow everything under the fucking sun?" to a relatively simple "are these pictures really worth banning?" question... and then doubled-down on it by going on about trannies grooming kids.

So it really does come off like in your head, these things are related and part-and-parcel of each other.

You realize I said 1950, not 1850, right? They had movies and shit dude, it wasn't THAT different. It was just safer, saner, and more prosperous. Yeah, no video games or Internet but it's not a whole different world, man.

You'd be surprised. There's a reason people say "the past was a different country."

I mean, I've even seen people get confused just going back to older video game consoles, and needing someone like me who grew up with them to explain things.

What always happens is there's a million little things that are such a part of your daily life you never even notice them, until they're suddenly taken away.

Like here's one--let's say you go back in time, but then break your leg in an accident and can't work. No problem, just get on social security OOPS, didn't exist yet, and the more workaholic culture of the 1950s means you're gonna be seen as just "being lazy" or "making an excuse." So now you're either a homeless bum or else basically someone else's freedomless pet all because you can't walk.

I mean, to be fair, that's just what I think it would be like.... without time travel I can't ever know for sure. But that's what I mean: it could be heaven.. or it could be hell.

There's wisdom in the old saying, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

 

[The Ugly One]

I think we can find a middle ground. Loli porn shouldn't be illegal, but neither should it be illegal to run over someone who's into it with your car.

 

[skykiii]

I think we can find a middle ground. Loli porn shouldn't be illegal, but neither should it be illegal to run over someone who's into it with your car.

Well yeah, if someone is fucking your car, they're asking to be run over.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Apparently you've never heard of sexual experimentation. Ironically, most gays would agree with your sentiment; they are sexual identity absolutists, to the point they generally despise men who even say their bisexuals, believing they are just gays in denial. So, you and the gays have a lot in common.

It's a forgone conclusion that engaging in gay acts is gay, so sexual experimentation with other men is just determining to what degree you're gay.

I do have a hatred of bisexuals in common with them but our reasons are quite different, I don't think bisexuals are gays or straights in denial, just mentally ill men with an insatiable, disordered sexual appetite.

If you make fantastical claims, the onus is on you to back it up, period.

If it's a fantastical claim that being attracted to depictions of men is gay then there's nothing that's not fantastical to you.

The only thing that's "objective" is what can be proven and demonstrated scientifically. If you can't do that, then its not really objective reality.

Then nothing can be demonstrated until you first rule out that we're not just brains in a vat. Your thinking is contrary to all great thinkers in history, crying for citations isn't something they did with each other. That's just admitting hour own faculties of reason are inept, that you are unable to discern truth yourself.

Again, your precious science is often wrong and says currently that men can become women and vice versa. If you can't articulate a rational arguement which reasonably construes reality in your favor then the solution isn't to call for citations but to do introspection and consider your own defect of thinking on the subject.

And what of the girly men? The traps? Are they the "splitting image of masculinity"?

In real life? Yes, at least if you strip away the girly clothes with which they hide their masculine frame and make anatomy, if you remove the photography tricks and look at them in person, if you wipe away their makeup and hair dye.

A man can disguise his masculinity, not eliminate it. I'm sure you could scrounge up a heavily modified image of a biological male who carefully crafted the picture he takes of himself and can create the illusion of femininity, but he's at his core the spitting image of masculinity because that is a man's nature, to have distinctly masculine features, many being exclusive to their sex.

Why do you keep harping on "photorealism"? You've done this for awhile now, and I don't know why. Is it because your point is only really strong when we talk about photorealism?

No, it's just the furthest logical extreme. I've also brought up stick figures as well, as it's the opposite extreme.

My point is that there's a level of nuance you refuse to accept exists, you somehow manage to not concede things like "a person attracted to a photorealistic image of a cat can reasonably be inferred to be attracted to real cats". You won't accept even the truth regarding these logical extremes, immediately asking for scientific proof, and this demonstrates that you hold a disingenuous position you can't defend with your own arguments. Thus, I certainly have no chance of convincing you on less realistic imagery.

Because this thread is about lolicon and shotacon. You know, manga and anime characters? I consider photorealism a completely different discussion from characters that are obvious cartoons. You want to talk about photorealism, start a new thread and talk about it.

But your defense is "they're not real people", which applies to photorealistic characters too, so if your basis of defense hinges on the fictional status of the subject then you must logically defend photorealistic depictions too on the sane grounds, which you do. So it's not off-topic in the least to scrutinize your own defense of loli, as this thread isn't about loli, but whether it should be considered "drawn child pornography", which it is since it is:

1) Drawn
2) Depicts children
3) Is pornography

You go on about loli which isn't pornographic in nature, but this topic is about loli which is, and that meets the above criteria, logically.

The fact is that Astolfo is A MAN, and is actively referred to as such, and refers to himself as such, throughout Fate: Grand Order.

So what? I could generate an image of a woman and say "lol it's a man" but it wouldn't be. If there's no Adam's apple, if the bone structure is female, if the musculature is indicative of the female sex, then I have objectively depicted a woman since defining make traits are absent and defining female traits are present.

Now if Astolfo is depicted with his genitals visible then they've essentially drawn an intersex person, someone with both male and female anatomy.

Yes, he literally looks like a female character. That's the point. This is something that's only really achievable in animated/illustrated medium. Even the best passing crossdressing man in real life isn't that freaking good.

Correct, it is a pretty cute waifu, and so since the depiction is literally that of a girl (minus if the genitals are depicted), it wouldn't be gay to fap to Astolfo, unlike with the male characters I posted earlier. You'll say canonically he's a male, but if Toriyama said Broly is canonically female it'd change nothing about how gay it would ge to fap to him.

Hell, by your logic even depicting a cock wouldn't make these characters make if the author said they're female. Broly's raging hard Legendary Super Saiyan dick is now female anatomy because Toriyama said so and it's now magically not gay to imagine his garden hose-sized cock veins between your fingers. This is patently absurd and I do not need the science to back me up on this.

Its why I say trying to compare real life attraction to attraction regarding cartoon characters is kind of stupid. Its not really a comparable situation to real life.

Your view is black & white, that's true but not in every case. It's really a lot more nuanced than you're willing to admit.

I will add one thing too--there's a focus specifically on "fapping to Loli" in these responses, when my original stance (and why I'm anti-ban) was I understood it as just people looking at or perhaps drawing something that could be considered lolicon.

It comes down to whether it's pornographic or not. Liking "loli" characters for reasons unrelated to arousal is outside the thread's subject. I like Pan from Dragon Ball GT & Dragon Ball Super, there's nothing wrong with that, she's cool.

Looking at lolicon isn't gonna magically turn you into a pedo if you weren't one already.

Drawing lolicon does not mean you're a pedo (plenty of artists draw things they don't necessarily like themselves).

Why would you be seeking it out if you weren't attracted to kids?

Now drawing something for others is different, yes. It's still immoral but drawing degenerate things wouldn't be indicative of any personal desires.

If they're on Twitter self-identifying as a MAP, shoot them. Even if they're not actually dangerous (like they like to insist), they're still retards who willingly outed themselves and they should win a Darwin Award.

Yeah, if they actually weren't dangerous then they'd keep it to themselves, normalizing that as a tolerable sexual identity is jeopardizing kids, at the very least indirectly. That movement is all about increasing their ease of access to prey, like the LGBT.

You say that, and yet this tangent came out of you responding "why should we allow everything under the fucking sun?" to a relatively simple "are these pictures really worth banning?" question... and then doubled-down on it by going on about trannies grooming kids.

So it really does come off like in your head, these things are related and part-and-parcel of each other.

I don't see the logic in that, but at any rate it's certainly not true. Tranny groomers deserve to be in prison for life at the very least, lolicons just deserve social ostracism.

There's wisdom in the old saying, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

Eh, fair enough. I guess it just depends on how much all this bothers you, and I think that's why the MAGA slogan really caught on.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It's a forgone conclusion that engaging in gay acts is gay, so sexual experimentation with other men is just determining to what degree you're gay.

I don't think engaging in homosexual acts necessarily makes you homosexual, anymore than a homosexual man performing a sex act with a woman makes him a heterosexual. There is a difference between being a homosexual or identifying as a homosexual, and engaging in an act that is homosexual. The former requires a mindset/mentality. But all this talk about homosexuality is off topic.

If it's a fantastical claim that being attracted to depictions of men is gay then there's nothing that's not fantastical to you.

The fantastical claim is that everyone involved with or with an interest in lolicon is a pedophile. The gay stuff is neither here nor there.

That's just admitting hour own faculties of reason are inept, that you are unable to discern truth yourself.

There are literally entire books of philosophy tackling this subject. Descartes famously tackled this subject and came to the one profound conclusion: "I think, therefore I am". In other words, the only real, unfalsifiable absolute is that I exist, because I'm a thinking, conscious being in the first place. Even if everything else I perceive is lie, that much is true. Even if I live in the Matrix, I have to exist to be in the Matrix in the first place.

Again, your precious science is often wrong and says currently that men can become women and vice versa.

LGBT gender politics isn't science. Its bullshit. Science is merely a method for testing hypothesis to try to understand and figure out natural truths about the world. If the world is God's creation, Science is man's method of attempting to understand that creation and how it works. The existence of a male and female sex is scientific truth. All that gender theory bullshit is just bullshit with no actual scientific basis. A lot of what people call "science" today isn't science. That isn't on science, that's people attempting to twist science to their ends.

In real life? Yes, at least if you strip away the girly clothes with which they hide their masculine frame and make anatomy, if you remove the photography tricks and look at them in person, if you wipe away their makeup and hair dye.

A man can disguise his masculinity, not eliminate it.

We aren't talking about real life. We are talking about art. Of course a real man can't 100% hid his masculinity. Nobody argued such. That has no bearing on animation or illustration whatsoever. Why do you keep harping on things nobody is talking about? All your doing is deflecting.

No, it's just the furthest logical extreme. I've also brought up stick figures as well, as it's the opposite extreme.

That's the problem. ALL YOU EVER DO IS BRING UP EXTREMES. And these extremes don't reflect 99% of art. So they aren't dispositive towards anything. Photorealism is pointless to bring up in this discussion. Stop doing it. Same with stick figures. It doesn't even help your case.

My point is that there's a level of nuance you refuse to accept exists,

LITERALLY THE ONLY THING I'VE BEEN ARGUING IS THAT NUANCE EXISTS.

you somehow manage to not concede things like "a person attracted to a photorealistic image of a cat can reasonably be inferred to be attracted to real cats".

There's no need to concede a position I'm not trying to take. I've already stated that I consider photorealistic imagery to be a separate class and topic of its own. It deserves its own considerations. You keep bringing up these edge cases because you simply don't want to deal with the real issue at hand.

But your defense is "they're not real people", which applies to photorealistic characters too, so if your basis of defense hinges on the fictional status of the subject then you must logically defend photorealistic depictions too on the sane grounds, which you do.

Actual photorealistic images, as in images that are truly hard to discern whether or not they are real, deserve their own conversation about their efficacy. The topic of this thread is about Lolicon and shotacon, aka anime and manga, which is certainly not photorealistic. Talking about that muddies the issue by lumping in edge cases for which different arguments must be made, vs. the much more muddy majority of art which simply doesn't fall under that umbrella. You are the one who keeps bringing up photorealism. Not me. And you are doing so because you think it strengthens your point. Its a weak argumentative retort that shows that you are actually not strong in your position. Its like pro-choice people who attempt to argue the efficacy of abortion based on the few "hard cases" of abortions done because of rape, incest, or a danger to the health of the mother, when those only make up like 2% of abortions. Most pro-life people would be willing to accept or at least have a discussion on those hard cases if they could just ban the other 98% of elective abortions. The "hard case" abortion are worthy of their own discussion or acceptance. But the pro-choicers want to focus on those because its stronger to argue the efficacy of those than the moral uprightness of abortion in general. Photorealistic images deserve special consideration because they are photorealistic, thus very hard for the untrained eye to tell from the real thing. They should be considered and potentially regulated, differently, but the vast majority of art simply does not fall into that category.

"drawn child pornography", which it is since it is:

1) Drawn
2) Depicts children
3) Is pornography

Now you are twisting terms and language to support your point. Its like a pro-choice person who emphasizes that a baby in the womb is just a "fetus" or a "clump of cells" which isn't technically incorrect, but the terminology is being misused and twisted in such a fashion to remove human and personhood from the baby in the womb. Child pornography is pornography that depicts children. As in real children. Actual children who really exist. Its part and parcel to what child pornography is. Its why its regulated and shunned by most people. Drawn child pornography is child pornography which is drawn. As in its drawn pornography that depicts real, actual children doing sexual acts. Like someone who watches two kids having sex and sketches what he sees. Or someone who traces an actual pornographic picture of two children having sex. The point is that its actual children who are committing the depicted sex acts. Regardless of the medium. Lolicon and Shotacon don't fall into this category. They aren't depicting real children.

You go on about loli which isn't pornographic in nature, but this topic is about loli which is, and that meets the above criteria, logically.

The point is that the term "loli" doesn't just refer to pornographic works. It covers work which isn't pornographic. So when people make statements about banning loli, they do so ignorant of the fact that loli is not an inherently pornographic term.

So what? I could generate an image of a woman and say "lol it's a man" but it wouldn't be. If there's no Adam's apple, if the bone structure is female, if the musculature is indicative of the female sex, then I have objectively depicted a woman since defining make traits are absent and defining female traits are present.

No. If you produce an image of a character that looks like a woman in everyway, but its actually a man...the character is still a man. It just looks like a woman. That's the power of art. A man can look like a woman in anime and a woman can look like a man. And still be their actual sex. A drawing can't objectively be either genre. Because its a drawing. IT IS DEFINED BY ITS CREATOR OR THE AUDIENCE. It has no objective existence outside of being artwork.

Correct, it is a pretty cute waifu, and so since the depiction is literally that of a girl (minus if the genitals are depicted), it wouldn't be gay to fap to Astolfo, unlike with the male characters I posted earlier.

That's a whole lot of words to say its not gay to fap to traps lol.

Hell, by your logic even depicting a cock wouldn't make these characters make if the author said they're female...This is patently absurd and I do not need the science to back me up on this.

Welcome to art Ness, where men can be women and women can be men and scientific logic need not apply and it doesn't matter what you say, its what the artist says.

Your view is black & white, that's true but not in every case. It's really a lot more nuanced than you're willing to admit.

Except, once again, my entire argument is LITERALLY that there is a lot of nuance to the subject. You are the one who is LITERALLY trying to argue that there are black in white situations. "Everyone who likes lolicon is a pedo." "Everyone who faps to yaoi is gay." These are literally black and white statements. Your entire argument is based on a black and white view of morality, dude.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don't think engaging in homosexual acts necessarily makes you homosexual, anymore than a homosexual man performing a sex act with a woman makes him a heterosexual.

With the possible sole exception of rape as a means of dominance like in prison or something, or some fantasy scenario where Bill Gates gives you a billion dollars to suck his dick, it's gay. If you're attracted to men sexually that is gay.

If a fag has sex with a woman then he's bisexual, which is just a fag who also is attracted to women. You're either straight or some degree of fag, your exact degree of preference at that point is irrelevant, and anything to the contrary is cope.

The fantastical claim is that everyone involved with or with an interest in lolicon is a pedophile.

I've said many times that I think there's exceptions, and detailed that extensively, repeatedly.

Look, some people will call you a pedophile if you fap to Bulma, whose art style is so unrealistic that Bulma looks the same age at 16 and 46, I've sent over this much earlier in the thread before too. So age ambiguity exists, but that's one of the exceptions. There's what are obviously little kids, drawn in more realistic art styles, and I find that repulsive.

LGBT gender politics isn't science. Its bullshit.

You can't cherry pick when you're appealing to science and demanding citations, if you were to argue with a tranny they'd be right that they're a woman according to every reputable source.

This is why I don't outsource my thinking to 3rd parties, I'll consider their input but science is not an authority because it's often wrong, just look up examples of it throughout history.

We aren't talking about real life. We are talking about art. Of course a real man can't 100% hid his masculinity. Nobody argued such. That has no bearing on animation or illustration whatsoever.

That's why depicting a man bereft of his masculinity, like Astolfo, is actually a depiction of a woman because not only is "he" lack any male traits he actually features distinctive female ones.

Art imitates life, friend. If you're depicting a human being (not an animal, alien, etc) then you must choose one of the two genders to depict that human as, there is no 3rd gender and if you create one then you've not depicted a human being.

Astolfo is female in design, how do you think an art school would teach you to draw people? They actually have naked human subjects for art, they don't put a man up on a stool when you're instructed to draw a woman dude. Men have broad shoulders, etc. That's what they're trying to teach you. Art isn't entirely subjective, it's got a basis in real life, you can manipulate it if you want but if you're not doing that and are just drawing a female, them that's it, it's a female.

That's the problem. ALL YOU EVER DO IS BRING UP EXTREMES.

That's untrue, I have touched on everything on the spectrum, that just includes extremes. It's simply easier for you to dismiss me by misrepresenting what I've done, but my posts are available for anyone to see that's 100% false.

There's no need to concede a position I'm not trying to take. I've already stated that I consider photorealistic imagery to be a separate class and topic of its own. It deserves its own considerations.

I don't recall you stating that, in fact I recall you saying it's all equally fiction, not that it deserves its ow considerations. But if that's your new stance then good, we've made some progress in finding where the line in art is (or rather, establishing that there is a line, as previously you said the line was real people).

LITERALLY THE ONLY THING I'VE BEEN ARGUING IS THAT NUANCE EXISTS.

Not at all, you've defended it all as fiction and therefore the line is drawn at real people. Nuance would be "these images too greatly resemble human children, they should be banned", and discussing exactly at what point that is (which is why I brought up the stick figure-to-photorealism spectrum which you don't like because it necessitates a discussion of limits somewhere).

Stephen Crowder's Change My Mind segments often feature him with a gestation timeline and he asks pro-abortionists where the limit should be. Their reluctance is telling, wishing not to engage with it or deflecting, because the act of pointing to an image of a fully developed baby and saying it should be killed causes cognitive dissonance. It's a lot easier in the abstract to verbalize "abort all fetuses" than do that. I think it's a similar situation here.

The topic of this thread is about Lolicon and shotacon, aka anime and manga, which is certainly not photorealistic.

It's usually not but that doesn't mean it can't be, anime is just a Japanese term for animation, and animation could technically be photorealistic. But that's not even necessary imo, I think even approaching that level of realism is a problem, like the art by Takehiko Inoue's Vagabond illustrations I posted.

Its a weak argumentative retort that shows that you are actually not strong in your position. Its like pro-choice people who attempt to argue the efficacy of abortion based on the few "hard cases" of abortions done because of rape, incest, or a danger to the health of the mother, when those only make up like 2% of abortions. Most pro-life people would be willing to accept or at least have a discussion on those hard cases if they could just ban the other 98% of elective abortions. The "hard case" abortion are worthy of their own discussion or acceptance. But the pro-choicers want to focus on those because its stronger to argue the efficacy of those than the moral uprightness of abortion in general.

Right, but I'm not exclusively arguing the outliers like they are, I'm merely pointing to them to try to get you to concede there's a limit SOMEWHERE so I can work backwards from there in debating where it should be (which, to be honest, is nowhere since I advocate for the exact opposite of you, wanting to ban it all, but I'm coming from a sort of devil's advocate position here in trying to find a middleground).

Drawn child pornography is child pornography which is drawn. As in its drawn pornography that depicts real, actual children doing sexual acts. Like someone who watches two kids having sex and sketches what he sees. Or someone who traces an actual pornographic picture of two children having sex. The point is that its actual children who are committing the depicted sex acts.

But that's merely a legal distinction, and technically you'd have no way of knowing whether it was traced or not anyway. But even assuming it's not, it's still depicting the exact same thing, except in one case it actually occured and in the other it allegedly didn't but is identical to the end user.

You could show someone two images, one traced from actual porn and one generated based on imagination of what that would look like (or based on their own childhood experiences, or from memory of such porn they've seen), and there would be no way to determine which image was traced and which was not. One would be legal, the other not, but from a moral perspective you're still viewing simulated child pornography, which while being far less immoral is still degenerate and an undesirable interest to cultivate in people for a healthy society.

The point is that the term "loli" doesn't just refer to pornographic works. It covers work which isn't pornographic. So when people make statements about banning loli, they do so ignorant of the fact that loli is not an inherently pornographic term.

Fine, but their ignorance is still aside from the topic's question. It's obviously stupid to advocate for banning everything featuring young girls, but porn is the topic.

A man can look like a woman in anime and a woman can look like a man. And still be their actual sex.

But the person fapping to the """woman""" who looks like a man is still a fag, which is the point. If you fap to an anime cat you're a zoophile, that's it. LOOK AT THIS:



If you're jacking off to that cat then you want to fuck cats. That's it. It's not a real cat but it sure looks like one and if that gets you hard then you would get hard for a real cat, and I don't need science to deduce this. Maybe you won't act on that in real life, perhaps the feel of their fur turns you off, but it's impossible to tell me you are not sexually interested in cats whatsoever. Your sexual interests at least include cats to some degree, you cannot dispute this.

And if the author turns around and says it's a dog, then that doesn't mean you want to fuck dogs, because that's clearly a depiction of a damn cat. Pretty realistic too.

That's a whole lot of words to say its not gay to fap to traps lol.

Lol. Maybe anime "traps" aren't, because they are literally just designed as cute girls who the author says are men, but if the idea in the back of your head that it's a dude is what contributes to your attraction then that's gay. However, just the design in and of itself is not gay.

Back to Broly, I'm not going to suddenly be turned on by him just because Toriyama says he's a woman either. I'm attracted to female anatomy, and that doesn't suddenly change when it comes to art, that's illogical. Art isn't magic.

Welcome to art Ness, where men can be women and women can be men and scientific logic need not apply and it doesn't matter what you say, its what the artist says.

Okay, confirm or deny:

Broly's raging hard Legendary Super Saiyan dick is now female anatomy because Toriyama said so and it's now magically not gay to imagine his garden hose-sized cock veins between your fingers.

"Everyone who likes lolicon is a pedo." "Everyone who faps to yaoi is gay." These are literally black and white statements.

Except I consistently said there's some age ambiguity even in real life, so obviously in art as well to a greater extent, so the former is not what I said, just that there is a massive overlap.

The latter, however, is almost entirely true though, with the slight possible exception for "traps" when their genitals aren't depicted (still highly sus). That's an extremely specific image, which essentially equates to a female design.

To put it simply, there is not a single straight man alive who would fap to Goku, who is unambiguously male. There could conceivably be a man isn't a pedo who faps to, say, Chronoa. He could argue she's just petite, and offset some of the concern with the fact she's not human.



But if that guy was fapping to Pan he should be on a list:

 

[LargeChoonger]

Is this the worst thread on this site?

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

With the possible sole exception of rape as a means of dominance like in prison or something, or some fantasy scenario where Bill Gates gives you a billion dollars to suck his dick, it's gay. If you're attracted to men sexually that is gay.

If a fag has sex with a woman then he's bisexual, which is just a fag who also is attracted to women. You're either straight or some degree of fag, your exact degree of preference at that point is irrelevant, and anything to the contrary is cope.

As I already said, all this talking about gays is off topic. Not sure why you keep harping on it.

I've said many times that I think there's exceptions, and detailed that extensively, repeatedly.

Look, some people will call you a pedophile if you fap to Bulma, whose art style is so unrealistic that Bulma looks the same age at 16 and 46, I've sent over this much earlier in the thread before too. So age ambiguity exists, but that's one of the exceptions. There's what are obviously little kids, drawn in more realistic art styles, and I find that repulsive.

So you personally find certain art styles repulsive and some not. So what? Get to the point.

You can't cherry pick when you're appealing to science and demanding citations, if you were to argue with a tranny they'd be right that they're a woman according to every reputable source.

Any high school biology text book will still talk about the male and female sexes as they actually are. All that gender theory bullshit isn't the least bit scientific and any person who actually being true to science will tell you that. Its not cherry picking. Its reality. There is no scientific experiment or fact that backs up separating sex from gender. Or supporting the existence of 50 pronouns. Or supporting that man can change his sex to become a woman. Trannies and their allies operate in defiance of scientific fact, not with it. Its why there is such a pushback against them in the first place. Where does that pushback come from? From the fact that they are ignoring objective reality, that's easily demonstrable with science, such as human biology, to trade in their bullshit.

This is why I don't outsource my thinking to 3rd parties, I'll consider their input but science is not an authority because it's often wrong, just look up examples of it throughout history.

Nobody argued that science was infallible. Once again, you raise a straw man to knock it down. Science is merely a way of understanding the natural world. And your feelings are in no way, shape, or form more reliable than science. If you want to argue that, feel free to do it somewhere else. You're just wasting your time. Its besides the point.

Art imitates life, friend.

Are imitates life. It isn't life.

If you're depicting a human being (not an animal, alien, etc) then you must choose one of the two genders to depict that human as, there is no 3rd gender and if you create one then you've not depicted a human being.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Yes, you can depict humans with a third gender, BECAUSE ITS ART. Why is this something you can't grasp? Are you autistic? Its ART MOTHERFUCKER. Seriously. You can depict ANYTHING in art. There is no arbitrary rule that says you can only depict things as they exist in reality in art. Its like you are determined to make art fit your arbitrary definition of reality. The world does not work according to your whims. Art doesn't have to make sense to you. It doesn't have to depict a world you agree with, or a world that exists. You are determined to do this and I don't know why. The only answer I can come up with is there is something your brain that won't let you grasp this concept.

That's untrue, I have touched on everything on the spectrum, that just includes extremes.

No, this is untrue. The only thing you do is harp on extremes. From the very beginning of the discussion. All you do is bring up "photorealism" and "stick figures". You never actually deal with the nuance. Its a rabbit hole. You keep chasing down rabbit holes instead of focusing on a single, actual point.

I don't recall you stating that

I literally said this in the post previous to the one you are responding to. To quote:

I consider photorealism a completely different discussion from characters that are obvious cartoons. You want to talk about photorealism, start a new thread and talk about it. We are not talking about that here.

I literally already said that I consider photorealistic images to be a separate topic, worthy of its own consideration. You are so dead set on chasing rabbit holes, you forgot things I said only two posts ago.

Not at all, you've defended it all as fiction and therefore the line is drawn at real people. Nuance would be "these images too greatly resemble human children, they should be banned", and discussing exactly at what point that is (which is why I brought up the stick figure-to-photorealism spectrum which you don't like because it necessitates a discussion of limits somewhere).

I've stated that drawing the line between fiction and non-fiction is a safe and easy point from which to regulate. Do you not agree? Fictional characters are fictional and shouldn't be treated like they are. I've made this point clear so many times by now I can almost say it verbatim.

Photorealism, as in art that is near indistinguishable from the real thing, is a separate issue entirely. But one that is simply irrelevant for most artwork because only a small amount of art even comes close to approximating that standard.

But that's not even necessary imo, I think even approaching that level of realism is a problem, like the art by Takehiko Inoue's Vagabond illustrations I posted.

Well, then we are not talking about photorealistic artwork then. Vagabond has great art, but its not photorealistic. Its clearly still artwork.

technically you'd have no way of knowing whether it was traced or not anyway.

Irrelevant. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Its not traced unless proven otherwise. You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive.

But even assuming it's not, it's still depicting the exact same thing, except in one case it actually occured and in the other it allegedly didn't but is identical to the end user.

Wrong. Its depicting a similar situation, in the same way that a comic book with a murder scene is depicting a similar situation to an actual murder. But they aren't the same thing. One is an actual murder scene, the other is only a drawing created for a story. For lolicon and actual child pornography its the same difference.

You could show someone two images, one traced from actual porn and one generated based on imagination of what that would look like (or based on their own childhood experiences, or from memory of such porn they've seen), and there would be no way to determine which image was traced and which was not.

Untrue. It would be impossible for a random person, ignorant of the first image's original model, to tell. But someone familiar with the original image, like a law enforcement official who has seen it or the actual victim, would realize it immediately. Police have entire databases of child porn. Anyone who attempted to trace actual child porn would be quickly found out.

One would be legal, the other not, but from a moral perspective you're still viewing simulated child pornography, which while being far less immoral is still degenerate and an undesirable interest to cultivate in people for a healthy society.

Whether or not you personally find something moral or immoral is irrelevant Ness. The fact is, one is actual child pornography. The other isn't. It isn't even "simulated" child pornography. Its just a drawing.

Fine, but their ignorance is still aside from the topic's question. It's obviously stupid to advocate for banning everything featuring young girls, but porn is the topic.

Their ignorance matters because they use vague terminology. And any legislation will use similar vague terminology.

If you're jacking off to that cat then you want to fuck cats. That's it. It's not a real cat but it sure looks like one and if that gets you hard then you would get hard for a real cat, and I don't need science to deduce this. Maybe you won't act on that in real life, perhaps the feel of their fur turns you off, but it's impossible to tell me you are not sexually interested in cats whatsoever. Your sexual interests at least include cats to some degree, you cannot dispute this.

And what if the person is only interested in the drawn cat Ness? What if they have zero interest in real cats at all. But they like animated ones. What then? Does it even matter, as long as they don't actually harm a real cat? I could care less if someone is interested in the drawn cat. I have far more hatred for the zoophiles like Kubo, who torture real freaking animals than for the hypothetical guy who likes the pink cat in that picture.

Back to Broly, I'm not going to suddenly be turned on by him just because Toriyama says he's a woman either. I'm attracted to female anatomy, and that doesn't suddenly change when it comes to art, that's illogical. Art isn't magic.

All that is is personal preference Ness. Which is fine. Broly is a big burly dude. Yes, more than likely, only a gay person would be in to him. But he's not the end all, be all to men in anime. He's just the most extreme example of a man you could find. Astolfo is the other extreme. And you will likely find far more ostensibly straight men who are in to him than Broly.

Except I consistently said there's some age ambiguity even in real life,

No you haven't. You've refused to acknowledge that there could be any ambiguity in fiction, let alone real life.

The latter, however, is almost entirely true though

Prove it.

There could conceivably be a man isn't a pedo who faps to, say, Chronoa. He could argue she's just petite, and offset some of the concern with the fact she's not human.

But if that guy was fapping to Pan he should be on a list:

There is no difference between Chronoa or Pan. Neither one exists. They are both characters in a Tv show about fighting. That doesn't mean you can't find the guy who faps to Pan weird or creepy. That's okay. But, at the end of the day, Pan isn't real and doesn't need anybody's protection. We put people on lists because they've shown themselves to be a danger to other people. Not to anime characters.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

As I already said, all this talking about gays is off topic. Not sure why you keep harping on it.

But it's not, because if being attracted to cartoon children isn't pedophilia then neither should attraction to cartoon men be homosexuality. But that's exactly what it is, even if there's some femboy exemption that leaves the majority of yaoi as undebatably gay for a man to be aroused by. I've already stated that gender is more rigid than age, so it's not a 1:1 comparison but it's close enough.

So you personally find certain art styles repulsive and some not. So what? Get to the point.

It's not about what I find repulsive or not, it's about the fact that the closer you get to accurately reflecting reality things become proportionally more disturbing, that's just how it is.

It's like comparing Atari 2600's Custer's Revenge (in which you rape a woman) to some top of the line PS5 VR game about rape. You'd only oppose Custer's Revenge on principle if you disapprove of rape porn, but you'd be be downright mortified by the PS5 VR entry.

Any high school biology text book will still talk about the male and female sexes as they actually are.

Maybe, but they'll still tell you that you can become the opposite sex through sex reassignment surgery.

your feelings are in no way, shape, or form more reliable than science.

Nobody's feelings are, which is why I rely on logic. You know, the opposite of feelings?

Are imitates life. It isn't life.

Spoiler

You keep saying it isn't life, it isn't real. You wanna talk about strawman? That's a strawman, I'm not saying it's real, but fiction can be objectionable and obscene too.

Yes, you can depict humans with a third gender, BECAUSE ITS ART.

No, because there are only two genders humans have, so if you depict any fantasy gender then it's no longer in the realm of humanity, you've depicted a humanoid but not a human.

Why is this something you can't grasp? Are you autistic? Its ART MOTHERFUCKER.

lol calm down

No, this is untrue. The only thing you do is harp on extremes.

We'll just have to let anyone bored enough to read through this debate decide for themselves, but if I wasn't so lazy I'd just quote one of the many times I spoke on nuance. If anything I'm being too agreeable on the subject, it's you who is just an immovable object on this. You get challenged and immediately cry out to science to save you instead of engaging in debate, which is the purpose of this thread.

I've stated that drawing the line between fiction and non-fiction is a safe and easy point from which to regulate. Do you not agree?

In other words, don't regulate fiction? Then no, fiction can be obscene.

Well, then we are not talking about photorealistic artwork then. Vagabond has great art, but its not photorealistic. Its clearly still artwork.

I didn't say it was photorealistic, the very thing you quoted by me even said as much. But it's very detailed and very realistic, if he were to draw loli it would be horrifying. From there it becomes less objectionable as the art styles become less realistic, do you understand?

Irrelevant. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Its not traced unless proven otherwise.

No, ou're hyperfocused on the legality of it, which is what's irrelevant. I'm talking morality. Go over what I said again from that lense, you'll conclude it's obscene. And obscene material should be banned.

Its depicting a similar situation, in the same way that a comic book with a murder scene is depicting a similar situation to an actual murder. But they aren't the same thing.

You're conflating sex and violence.

It would be impossible for a random person, ignorant of the first image's original model, to tell.

Which was exactly my point, it's immoral because it's sexualizing something so realistic and so evil that people wouldn't even be able to distinguish the two. Why, pray tell, should that not be banned then? Is that not obscene? If it's not then nothing is.

Whether or not you personally find something moral or immoral is irrelevant Ness. The fact is, one is actual child pornography. The other isn't. It isn't even "simulated" child pornography. Its just a drawing.

It does matter what I find immoral though, and others, because this is our country and we have a right to norms and standards of behavior. That's why you aren't totally free, you have a multitude of restrictions on your behavior both public and private.

It isn't even "simulated" child pornography. Its just a drawing.

Why not? It literally is simulated, definition (definition; "imitate the appearance or character of", which the drawing does).

Their ignorance matters because they use vague terminology. And any legislation will use similar vague terminology.

Okay, fair enough, I certainly agree.

And what if the person is only interested in the drawn cat Ness? What if they have zero interest in real cats at all.

That makes zero sense. They cannot, because they have an attraction to what is factually a realistic, albeit not photorealistic, depiction of a cat. The depiction is highly accurate, very reminiscent of an actual cat. You know that is illogical.

As I said maybe they have no intention of acting on that attraction, which is fair, because a real cat has a feel and makes sounds and behaves in ways which may be offputting or otherwise unattractive to them. But to say the sight of a cat nigh identical to what they fap to is not something they'd find attractive is unfathomably nonsensical.

This is what's frustrating, you won't concede even the most clear and self-evident points any reasonable person would.

Does it even matter, as long as they don't actually harm a real cat?

It matters less than if they actually harm a real cat, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Society discourages certain behaviors and incentivizes others, and attraction to cats should be discouraged.

All that is is personal preference Ness.

Sure, and your preferences determine whether you're classified as gay, bi, or straight, which was the point.

No you haven't. You've refused to acknowledge that there could be any ambiguity in fiction, let alone real life.

You DO realize in this very post of yours you quoted me saying Bulma looks the same as a teen as in her 40's, correct...?




Literally the only difference lazy ass Toriyama made was a haircut, which she often changed. So fapping to Bulma in DB is no different than fapping to her in Z because this art style does not reflect age well. Vagabond it most certainly is not.

There is no difference between Chronoa or Pan. Neither one exists.

And neither one needs to exist to inform one's sexual proclivities regarding age, stop hiding behind the uncontested fact they don't actually exist.

That doesn't mean you can't find the guy who faps to Pan weird or creepy. That's okay. But, at the end of the day, Pan isn't real and doesn't need anybody's protection. We put people on lists because they've shown themselves to be a danger to other people. Not to anime characters.

Yes, I'm sure the little girl who visits his home on Halloween dressed as Pan will agree.

Anyway, it's again just a behavior that should be discouraged. That guy might no longer be satisfied with his gateway drug and graduate to harming real victims.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Harping on this is pointless. The fact is, continuing to dwell on unknowables gets nobody anywhere. The point is, it is certain that not every who looks at lolicon is a pedophile. Hell, lets not beat around the bush, most people who look at lolicon don't care for kids. These are simply two different paraphilias.

Someone may have already responded to you on this but this is such a weak ass point. How do you know that a person who jerks off to shota/loli isn't a pedophile? Because they say they're not interested in real children? Do you really think they're going to confess that they like children IRL? When every single fucking pedophile on earth knows how socially taboo it is to find children sexually desirable? Of course they're going to say they're not into children IRL. That is social suicide and puts a hit target on your back. If you jerk off to drawings of children, you're a fucking pedophile regardless of whether or not you're sexually attracted to kids irl. No normal person gets off to pictures of children. Only a pedophile does. Just like no straight person gets off to pics of people of the same sex to them. Only a homosexual/bisexual does. What you jerk off to defines your philias.

It doesn't make you a child molester. But it does make you a pedophile.

There are no distinctions between fictitious attraction and real life attraction in the majority of paraphilias. There are a few that clearly can only apply to fictitious entities, such as exophilia being the sexual attraction to extraterrestrials, which have never been proven to exist. We don't know if aliens actually exist or not (which it is entirely possible given the size of the known universe). Ergo it serves both fictitious and real. Same applies for pedophilia. Being sexually aroused by a child, real or not, is pedophilia.

that there is fundamental difference in how attraction works compared to real life and between animated figures

To the human brain (ESPECIALLY the male brain, which has a lower disgust factor when it comes to sexual interest, which is partially why men are more likely to be aroused by weird ass fetishes), there isn't. You can train a man to get sexually aroused to images of shoes. Your brain still reacts with the same horny areas whether you're looking at a cartoon or a real drawing of the shoes (depending on what you're sexually aroused by).


In other words: Some men can be aroused only to drawings of shoes. Some only aroused to real photos of shoes. Some can be aroused to both. Some can't be aroused unless the female is wearing shoes. Just the sight of shoes is able to trigger an arousal. But the fact remains that they're ALL AROUSED TO THE SHOES. THEY'RE ALL SHOE FETISHISTS.

Apply to pedophilia: Some get off to drawings of children. Some get off to real photos of children. Some get off to both. But the fact remains that they're ALL AROUSED BY CHILDREN. THEY'RE ALL PEDOPHILES.

I don't think you should go to jail for jerking it to loli/shota. But you should be ostracized because, as everyone knows, fetishes CAN evolve into desiring it in real life (even if it doesn't majority of the time, it CAN). And I don't want to be associated with a nigger who coomed so much they eventually started wanting the young poon irl.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I don't think engaging in homosexual acts necessarily makes you homosexual, anymore than a homosexual man performing a sex act with a woman makes him a heterosexual. There is a difference between being a homosexual or identifying as a homosexual, and engaging in an act that is homosexual. The former requires a mindset/mentality. But all this talk about homosexuality is off topic

My guy you are homosexual, big gay, if you take it up the ass. This is not debatable. You are a faggot.

Is this the worst thread on this site?

It's certainly cancer

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Someone may have already responded to you on this but this is such a weak ass point. How do you know that a person who jerks off to shota/loli isn't a pedophile? Because they say they're not interested in real children?

And how do you know they do have an interest in children? You don't. That's the point. We can go around and around in circles here and never come to a satisfactory conclusion, because there is no answer. We can't know what anyone's interest is until they express it explicitly. But there is no objective evidence that people who like shota/loli also like real children in any appreciable numbers. Barring lack of evidence, we air on side of caution.

Of course they're going to say they're not into children IRL.

And yet we've got pedophiles openly calling themselves MAPs on the internet. The internet isn't real life. Its anonymity affords people the ability to speak openly about subjects without fear of retribution. There is no real reason for people to profess themselves lolicons, and then openly despising pedophiles. They'd do better to say nothing at all; the path of least resistance. They openly express disgust because they are in fact disgusted.

There are no distinctions between fictitious attraction and real life attraction in the majority of paraphilias.

That's not how paraphilias works. Attraction to cartoon characters is in and of itself a niche paraphilia that doesn't cross over with others. To be attracted to the real life thing, you'd have to have the actual paraphilia for that thing.

To the human brain (ESPECIALLY the male brain, which has a lower disgust factor when it comes to sexual interest, which is partially why men are more likely to be aroused by weird ass fetishes), there isn't. You can train a man to get sexually aroused to images of shoes.

This is a vast oversimplification of how the human brain works. People have certain interests that generally will remain consistent across their lives. A person who's not into pedophilia will not jack off to child porn no matter how much you expose them to it, because there is a visceral disgust there. Same with scat, pee, furry, etc. Or gay porn. Same with cartoon porn. Human sexuality isn't that flexible.

Your brain still reacts with the same horny areas whether you're looking at a cartoon or a real drawing of the shoes (depending on what you're sexually aroused by).


In other words: Some men can be aroused only to drawings of shoes. Some only aroused to real photos of shoes. Some can be aroused to both. Some can't be aroused unless the female is wearing shoes. Just the sight of shoes is able to trigger an arousal. But the fact remains that they're ALL AROUSED TO THE SHOES. THEY'RE ALL SHOE FETISHISTS.

Once again, a vast oversimplification. A man who's a shoe fetishist (is that a thing? I've only heard of feet fetishists) will be aroused by shoes in a real world context. Because its the physical shoes themselves that arouse him. Some men who are shoe fetishists may get aroused by the drawn version. Most probably won't, because that requires a confluence of different fetishes. But the thing is, a shoe fetish is a primarily visual fetish. It is the shoe itself, in its physical appearance, that arouses a person with that fetish. Same with a person with a fetish for big breasts. With that in mind, an animated approximation of those things may pass enough for a person with those fetishes to feel arousal, in at least some contexts. But pedophilia is not a visual fetish, or physical fetish. The pedophile's attraction is a confluence of different interests that animated characters can't fulfill. Once again, I draw everybody to Secret Asshole's explanation, which I've already linked to, as he's explained this better than me, having studied the subject extensively.

Apply to pedophilia: Some get off to drawings of children. Some get off to real photos of children. Some get off to both. But the fact remains that they're ALL AROUSED BY CHILDREN. THEY'RE ALL PEDOPHILES.

Once again, this is just wrong. A person who is not aroused by real children, by medical definition, IS NOT A PEDOPHILE. They CAN'T BE a pedophile. And this generalization of the term "pedophile" doesn't help anyone.

I don't think you should go to jail for jerking it to loli/shota. But you should be ostracized because, as everyone knows, fetishes CAN evolve into desiring it in real life (even if it doesn't majority of the time, it CAN). And I don't want to be associated with a nigger who coomed so much they eventually started wanting the young poon irl.

Its fine to hold a visceral reaction to lolicon/shotacon. Nobody here is actually arguing that you shouldn't. Its fine to not want to be associated with people who get off to that. Once again, nobody is arguing against this.

My guy you are homosexual, big gay, if you take it up the ass. This is not debatable. You are a faggot.

Tell that to all the straight men who get pegged by their girlfriends. Or all the gay men who don't have anal sex at all. Anal sex is not unique to gay sex, anymore than blowjobs (the other half of sodomy) are unique to gay sex.

But it's not, because if being attracted to cartoon children isn't pedophilia then neither should attraction to cartoon men be homosexuality. But that's exactly what it is, even if there's some femboy exemption that leaves the majority of yaoi as undebatably gay for a man to be aroused by. I've already stated that gender is more rigid than age, so it's not a 1:1 comparison but it's close enough.

I was mainly talking about all this real world talk about homosexuality. It was entirely off topic to the discussion.

It's not about what I find repulsive or not, it's about the fact that the closer you get to accurately reflecting reality things become proportionally more disturbing, that's just how it is.

It's like comparing Atari 2600's Custer's Revenge (in which you rape a woman) to some top of the line PS5 VR game about rape. You'd only oppose Custer's Revenge on principle if you disapprove of rape porn, but you'd be be downright mortified by the PS5 VR entry.

So have a visceral reaction to more detailed art. Once again, get to the point.

Maybe, but they'll still tell you that you can become the opposite sex through sex reassignment surgery.

I have yet to read a text book that says that. Now, teachers are another thing entirely. Some absolutely do say that. And even if a textbook does say that, it would still be absolutely scientifically wrong.

Nobody's feelings are, which is why I rely on logic. You know, the opposite of feelings?

As much as we'd like to believe so, our logic is not divorced from our feelings. In fact, your argument is fundamentally emotional in nature, not logical. You constantly mention "morality" and "encouraging a moral society", which is an emotional plea for morality. You bring up obscenity, which is a subjective, not objective standard based on personal morality. You try to couch your arguments in logic, but they are entirely emotional and subjective, not logical.

No, because there are only two genders humans have, so if you depict any fantasy gender then it's no longer in the realm of humanity, you've depicted a humanoid but not a human.

FICTION, DUDE! FICTION! Seriously, are you autistic? This is a completely serious question. Can you not understand that in the realm of fiction, "humanity" can be whatever you want? Yes, the author can create a race with three genders and call them "human". Because its FICTION. Seriously, why is this so hard for you to get? Why? Most normal people can understand fiction and fantasy. The humans in Dungeons and Dragons can wield magic, which real humans cannot. They are still human, but the definition of that universe. Humans in My Hero Academia have super powers. They are still human, within MHA. Its FICTION. Humans can do all kinds of things that normal people can't do in fiction, while still being human.

lol calm down

No.

You get challenged and immediately cry out to science to save you instead of engaging in debate, which is the purpose of this thread.

Science and objective fact are part and parcel of any real debate on a situation. The fact that you keep harping on science is because you can't actually cite any to support your point. You hide behind logic, yet you ignore and attack science, which is entirely based around coming to logical, tested, thought out conclusions to questions and hypothesis.

I didn't say it was photorealistic, the very thing you quoted by me even said as much. But it's very detailed and very realistic, if he were to draw loli it would be horrifying. From there it becomes less objectionable as the art styles become less realistic, do you understand?

And do you understand that that's still not photorealism, which is the point I was making? It being "detailed" and "realistic" is neither here nor there. At that point in the discussion we were talking about photorealism. Vagabond gets lumped in with all the other artwork. No point talking about it separately.

You keep saying it isn't life, it isn't real. You wanna talk about strawman? That's a strawman

That's not a strawman, that's just a statement.

No, ou're hyperfocused on the legality of it, which is what's irrelevant. I'm talking morality. Go over what I said again from that lense, you'll conclude it's obscene. And obscene material should be banned.

Perfect example of you making an emotional argument, not a logical one. My statement had nothing to do with legality. I was talking about a societal ideal. One that drives the United States and much of Western Civilization. That you are innocent of a claim/crime until the accuser proves it. That the onus is on someone making a claim to prove it. It means absolutely nothing to say that something could be traced unless you can prove it actually was. Just like it means nothing to claim that an author is a plagiarist unless you can actually prove he's plagiarizing. So saying "it could be traced" literally means nothing. This isn't just a legal principle, its a societal principle.

You're conflating sex and violence.

No, I'm not. I'm comparing two similar situations. The fact that one is sexual and one is violent is irrelevant to the point.

Which was exactly my point, it's immoral because it's sexualizing something so realistic and so evil that people wouldn't even be able to distinguish the two. Why, pray tell, should that not be banned then? Is that not obscene? If it's not then nothing is.

What kind of argument even is this? So because it depicts something that could happen in real life, it should be banned? Is that the long and short of your argument? Should any fiction depicting rape be banned? Or any situation depicting torture? Murder? Child abuse? Because it simply depicted something that was evil and could happen in society?

It does matter what I find immoral though, and others, because this is our country and we have a right to norms and standards of behavior. That's why you aren't totally free, you have a multitude of restrictions on your behavior both public and private.

In the grand scheme of things, Ness, NO, it doesn't matter what you in particular find immoral. You are one person. Even if a lot of people agree with you, they don't necessarily reflect society. And even if they did, society is subject to its laws. In Japan, the constitution protects freedom of expression. In America, there is the First Amendment. Society can set its "norms and standards" and of course you overlook that that works both ways. But those norms and standards are neither static nor set gospel, nor do they override the legal principles of society. You are attempting to appeal to some greater societal standard that hasn't actually been established, essentially arguing that if the majority agrees with you, then that means that your right. That's called appeal to majority, and its a common logical fallacy.

Why not? It literally is simulated, definition (definition; "imitate the appearance or character of", which the drawing does).

The umbrage I take is more with the "child pornography" part than the "simulated" part, though simulated generally has a real world definition that gets iffy if applied in this context.

That makes zero sense. They cannot, because they have an attraction to what is factually a realistic, albeit not photorealistic, depiction of a cat. The depiction is highly accurate, very reminiscent of an actual cat. You know that is illogical.

Sexuality doesn't have to be logical, Ness. It doesn't have to make sense.

As I said maybe they have no intention of acting on that attraction, which is fair, because a real cat has a feel and makes sounds and behaves in ways which may be offputting or otherwise unattractive to them.

So basically, they have zero interest in real cats. You basically conceded my point.

It matters less than if they actually harm a real cat, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Society discourages certain behaviors and incentivizes others, and attraction to cats should be discouraged.

Sure, we should discourage their attraction to real cats. That doesn't mean I give a shit about them liking drawn cats. I mean, I despise furries as much as the next Kiwifarmer, but that's because of the shit a lot of them do in real life. I could care less about their attraction to cartoon animals as long as they don't stick it in my face.

Literally the only difference lazy ass Toriyama made was a haircut, which she often changed. So fapping to Bulma in DB is no different than fapping to her in Z because this art style does not reflect age well.

Except, by your own arguments, anyone who was attracted to Bulma from the early years of Dragonball was interested in real teenagers in real life just on the basis of being attracted to Bulma, who was one. The fact that Toriyama basically had her never age later on is irrelevant to that argument. Especially since anyone who started reading the series from the beginning wouldn't have known he was going to do that.

And neither one needs to exist to inform one's sexual proclivities regarding age,

The fact is being interested in any one of these characters does not in fact inform what one' s preferences for real world ages are.

That guy might no longer be satisfied with his gateway drug and graduate to harming real victims.

Except there is no research or even anecdotal real world incident that supports the idea that people who read loli/shota will eventually graduate to harming real children.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Tell that to all the straight men who get pegged by their girlfriends. Or all the gay men who don't have anal sex at all. Anal sex is not unique to gay sex, anymore than blowjobs (the other half of sodomy) are unique to gay sex

Brother getting pegged makes you 55.9% gay. You are a homosexual of some sort if you get your bussy smashed while playing smash.

 

[The Ugly One]

or some fantasy scenario where Bill Gates gives you a billion dollars to suck his dick, it's gay

That is my exact fantasy, relieved to know I'm not gay (plus I only fantasize about a drawing of Bill Gates paying me to suck his dick)

 

[WelperHelper99]

That is my exact fantasy, relieved to know I'm not gay (plus I only fantasize about a drawing of Bill Gates paying me to suck his dick)

The drawing of a crusty old man stealing all the farms, yes, fantasizing about sucking dick for cock, in this case Bill Gates, is definitely not le big gay

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I don't think you should go to jail for jerking it to loli/shota. But you should be ostracized because, as everyone knows, fetishes CAN evolve into desiring it in real life (even if it doesn't majority of the time, it CAN).

They certainly can, but common sense isn't enough for some people, they will hide behind the supposed fact that since there doesn't seem to currently be any research supporting that assertion that it's magically not true. But that isn't how it works, a lack of research on a particular subject doesn't disprove it.

Also, I don't trust our degenerate society to generate accurate results for sexual studies, they're proven to be a bunch of weirdos who push agendas in that field.

There is no real reason for people to profess themselves lolicons, and then openly despising pedophiles.

Sure there is, plenty actually. Shame? Denial? Prudence? I could go on.

People have certain interests that generally will remain consistent across their lives. A person who's not into pedophilia will not jack off to child porn no matter how much you expose them to it, because there is a visceral disgust there. Same with scat, pee, furry, etc. Or gay porn. Same with cartoon porn. Human sexuality isn't that flexible.

Funny you say that, Daily Wire got a Project Veritas-esque undercover scoop featuring a reporter recording a major employee at PornHub, the biggest porn company on Earth, admitting they do this on purpose. They introduce gay porn to straight viewers to broaden their appeal.

Even without that admission however what you're asserting is untrue, it's common for people to be introduced to different fetishes and adopt them. It's particularly true of younger people when they're more malleable, but true of adults as well.

But pedophilia is not a visual fetish, or physical fetish.

That's an insane claim, children look different than adults, what mind of claim is it that they aren't visually attracted to them? Men are known to be very visual in terms of sexual attraction, which tracks with how many more men than women seem to be offenders.

So have a visceral reaction to more detailed art. Once again, get to the point.

It's a pretty obvious point, obscenity rises proportionally with realism.

And even if a textbook does say that, it would still be absolutely scientifically wrong.

I agree, but the medical consensus doesn't. However, most, if not all, major medical authorities disagree. Libtards often flaunt this in debates, they rub it in Ben Shapiro's face as a gotcha, and he rightly dismisses it because science isn't perfect and doesn't determine truth. That's why you repeatedly falling back on asking for the science is pointless, if you can't defend your position or rebut my assertions with a compelling refutation then that's telling.

You constantly mention "morality" and "encouraging a moral society", which is an emotional plea for morality.

If you want to be technical, sure, but so is the opposition of anything immoral. We should strive for a good society, which means eliminating the bad where possible, striving for the highest net good to yield the most healthy, prosperous, and happy society we can.

If someone wants to live in an Aztec society or Sodom & Gomorrah then they're free to go rebuild a nation with those sorts of ideals. Enjoy their human sacrifice or whatever I guess, it's fine, just let us maintain or restore our nation to being one for a moral and religious people.

If we had a truly purely logical society ran by robots it would be hellish, which is why moral considerations are mandatory. That doesn't mean morality is illogical, in fact it's illogical to not factor in morals if our goal is an optimal society. So, I think your view of logic and morality, and especially the relationship between them, is skewed.

FICTION, DUDE! FICTION! Seriously, are you autistic?

Okay? You can create all the fake genders you want, they're still fake. If you draw someone with a cactus for a cock then your cactigender is neat and all, but isn't reflective of reality and nobody will care as much. Someone jacking off to Pokemon like Lopunny won't disturb people's much as if they were jacking off to an actual rabbit.

I think you're the autistic one if you're not playing dumb. People are opposed to loli because it looks like they're jacking off to kids bro, this is pretty simple shit. If they jack off to something that doesn't look like a kid, or only vaguely resembles one, like a Pokemon such as Smoochum, then they'll be less opposed.

You're genuinely autistic if you truly think someone telling people that the undeniable depiction of a child they're masturbating to is "just a cartoon bro, it doesn't suggest ANY level of attraction to the subjects upon which it's based" and they'll just go "oh ok I believe this, please babysit my child, she's not a cartoon so I trust her with you".

You ACTUALLY think people are that stupid? It's an insult to everyone's intelligence, and I say this as someone who concedes there's certain exceptions, which most people probably WOULDN'T; they'll just see the intent and not analyze it on an overly intellectualized level as I have, and will just deem everyone interested in ANY of that shit to ANY degree pedophiles. And it'd be hard to tell them they're wrong. They won't make concessions based on art style or realism or age ambiguity, they'll just say "do a flip pedo".

This is to say, even my devil's advocate arguments would be roundly rejected by the majority of people and understandably so. I'm trying to make you understand why you're wrong but it's clearly futile.

Yes, the author can create a race with three genders and call them "human". Because its FICTION. Seriously, why is this so hard for you to get? Why?

And why is it so hard for YOU to get thst no matter what they call them, they're NOT drawing a human? Words have definitions, art doesn't change reality. Human has a definition, and that includes a sex binary. If you draw an obvious cock then that cannot belong to anything other than:

1) A man
2) An intersex person

Yes, even in ART. COCK has a definition. You can draw that cock on a woman, a tomato, or another cock, but you're still DRAWING A COCK. Do you masturbate to what's identifiable as cocks? Then you're gay. I don't care if it's a fictional cock or what it's attached to, nigga you gay.

Same for kids, if it's identifiably a kid, you are attracted to kids, or at the very least the appearance of children/childlike features, which is at bare minimum pedophile-adjacent. This is an extremely forgiving take, and yet you're still going to spit at it, but I guarantee you'll find no more generous a read than this outside of people who agree 100% with you.

I begrudgingly conceded there's technically a thin veneer of plausible deniability in some cases, but that's insufficient for you.

No.

The fact that you keep harping on science is because you can't actually cite any to support your point.

The reason you keep crying for scientific citations is because you can't articulate argument yourself. The mere lack of scientific citation doesn't automatically invalidate my point, this isn't how Socratic debate works, you're entirely shutting me down with an appeal to authority fallacy because you simply cannot debate the issue.

You realize this isn't a thread for sharing scientific research on the topic, but is intended for debating the issue, right?

Vagabond gets lumped in with all the other artwork. No point talking about it separately.

No, it doesn't. If you can't tell the difference between these then you are blind and since art is a visual medium you have no place to debate the topic:




But in a sense you're actually correct, most people would still rightly oppose loli in either art style, but that actually hurts your position, so keep going actually

It means absolutely nothing to say that something could be traced unless you can prove it actually was.

That doesn't make its consumption any less immoral. Although if it was traced it'd be worse just because real subjects were involved, it's STILL bad if you're generating something you yourself conceded is INDISTINGUISHABLE from it.

No, I'm not. I'm comparing two similar situations.

What you're doing is comparing apples and oranges, sex and violence are two separate subjects. You whined at me for bringing up sexual comparisons, which are at least in the sane realm, yet you hypocritically bring the subject of violence into this with the generic GTA-type arguments.

What kind of argument even is this? So because it depicts something that could happen in real life, it should be banned? Is that the long and short of your argument? Should any fiction depicting rape be banned? Or any situation depicting torture? Murder? Child abuse? Because it simply depicted something that was evil and could happen in society

Intent matters in both law and morality. You can depict anything you want, but if it's obscene then it's ripe for the banning.

Even if a lot of people agree with you, they don't necessarily reflect society. And even if they did, society is subject to its laws.

And laws ostensibly exist to serve the good of society. Thus, banning loli would be fine as it's good for society and there's no downside. Unless you're an anarchist then what I'm saying makes sense.

In America, there is the First Amendment.

Free speech isn't absolute, never was and never will be.

You are attempting to appeal to some greater societal standard that hasn't actually been established, essentially arguing that if the majority agrees with you, then that means that your right. That's called appeal to majority, and its a common logical fallacy.

No, it'd only be a fallacy is I hinged my entire argument on justman appeal to majority, which I'm not, I'm merely bolstering my position with it. I'm arguing there's objective morality, that society's right to norms & standards should be respected; I'm also arguing that this content should constitute legal obscenity, and I'm arguing the First Amendment should not protect pornography.

Your only argument is that it's currently legal and that there's no science saying it's bad or whatever. Very flimsy.

The umbrage I take is more with the "child pornography" part than the "simulated" part, though simulated generally has a real world definition that gets iffy if applied in this context.

It features depictions of fictional children and is pornography, that doesn't make it pornography featuring real children (it is distinct from that and not its moral equivalent), but that doesn't make the description of "drawn pornography featuring fictional children" any less accurate whether you like it or not. That's what it is.

Sexuality doesn't have to be logical, Ness. It doesn't have to make sense.

But what does make sense is that a person attracted to imagery depicting a realistic cat would be similarly aroused by imagery depicting a real cat. Why WOULDN'T they be attracted to it, visually? They're nigh indistinguishable.

And no, "just because" is not a compelling answer.

So basically, they have zero interest in real cats. You basically conceded my point.

Zero interest in having sex with real cats, yes, but not zero interest in them generally. They are quite obviously attracted to what is virtually indistinguishable from actual cats, so it is unreasonable to assume there's zero overlapping attraction.

So while I concede many factors may very well prevent them from desiring to sexually engage with real cats, I am unconvinced they would not attracted to an image of a real cat.

Sure, we should discourage their attraction to real cats. That doesn't mean I give a shit about them liking drawn cats.

That's a classic example of doublethink. That's like saying we as vegetarians should discourage consumption of meat, but let's make a movie about how great eating meat is and depict everyone enjoying it, eating realistic looking meat. Do you think that movie woukd be more likely to encourage carnivorous dietary inclinations or discourage them?

Except, by your own arguments, anyone who was attracted to Bulma from the early years of Dragonball was interested in real teenagers in real life just on the basis of being attracted to Bulma, who was one. The fact that Toriyama basically had her never age later on is irrelevant to that argument. Especially since anyone who started reading the series from the beginning wouldn't have known he was going to do that.

No, and you're missing the point. Bulma is visually identical to legal adults in Dragon Ball at all ages, my entire point was the opposite of yours, that canon irrelevant. Bulma looks like an adult and behaves like one, she is not a child and nobody would confuse her design or character for one. She's intelligent and capable, she's not some ignorant little schoolgirl designed to appeal to degenerates.

Her canon age entirely irrelevant, Toriyama could retcon her into a 10 year old if he wants, but she's not 10, nobody will confuse her for 10, and you and Toriyama can be alone in caring that he says she is 10, because she is obviously not a depiction of someone 10 regardless of his statement.

The fact is being interested in any one of these characters does not in fact inform what one' s preferences for real world ages are.

Maybe for Chronoa, considering she's obviously not human and is of an ambiguous age both visually and character-wise. But Pan in DBS is literally a toddler. You cannot convince anyone that if someone faps to Pan that doesn't imply an obvious attraction to children.

You don't think there's something fucking wrong with a person who can fap to this character? You don't think they should be in a fucking mental institution?

Except there is no research or even anecdotal real world incident that supports the idea that people who read loli/shota will eventually graduate to harming real children.

Cool. Now convince me they won't.

That is my exact fantasy, relieved to know I'm not gay (plus I only fantasize about a drawing of Bill Gates paying me to suck his dick)

But the big question is if you fapping to the drawing is gay. I'm asking the real questions here.

 

[skykiii]

Making a deliberate effort to not talk as much because YEESH, I'm understanding people who are dismayed at how autistically long the posts are.

Why would you be seeking it out if you weren't attracted to kids?

Nobody mentioned "seeking it out." The way anime is these days you might run into it by complete accident.

Now drawing something for others is different, yes. It's still immoral but drawing degenerate things wouldn't be indicative of any personal desires.

Agreed.

Yeah, if they actually weren't dangerous then they'd keep it to themselves, normalizing that as a tolerable sexual identity is jeopardizing kids, at the very least indirectly. That movement is all about increasing their ease of access to prey, like the LGBT.

I feel like this is making MAPs out to be more intelligent than they actually are, but they still deserve bad things.

Eh, fair enough. I guess it just depends on how much all this bothers you, and I think that's why the MAGA slogan really caught on.

I certainly wouldn't mind a return to older values in a lot of ways.

Just as long as we don't go too far in the opposite direction. You probably noticed that's a theme in a lot of my posts--I don't wanna wake up one day and find I'm suddenly on a watch list because I happen to have seen an episode of Dennis the Menace and some lawmaker declared it counts as Shotacon now.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Even without that admission however what you're asserting is untrue, it's common for people to be introduced to different fetishes and adopt them. It's particularly true of younger people when they're more malleable, but true of adults as well.

That's introducing people to a new fetish that they've never interacted with before. Yes, when people come across a new fetish, they may find themselves drawn to it for whatever reason.

That's not the same as people interacting with a fetish they are aware of, but have already hard rejected. And just to be clear; I'm generally speaking about adults, who are not nearly as malleable as children, are generally set in their ways regarding sexual tastes. Adults may be willing to experiment somewhat, but people really do have hard limits and lines they won't cross.

That's an insane claim, children look different than adults, what mind of claim is it that they aren't visually attracted to them? Men are known to be very visual in terms of sexual attraction, which tracks with how many more men than women seem to be offenders.

There is a visual aspect to pedophilia, because of course pedophiles are attracted to children physically, but that's not the only aspect of attraction for them. Pedophiles have this entire complex surrounding their attraction to kids that's completely alien to anyone that doesn't have that interest. Seriously, read Secret Asshole's post that I've linked. He goes over all of this.

It's a pretty obvious point, obscenity rises proportionally with realism.

Where do you even get his stuff? It rises proportionately? And how do you determine the proportions? What does that even MEAN?

However, most, if not all, major medical authorities disagree.

Their disagreement isn't based on science, its based on politics. Ben Shapiro and others on the right dismiss the activists because they realize this. Their arguments aren't scientific, they are emotional. They got medical authorities to pander to them through political pressure and emotional blackmail. That's not a mark against science, that's a mark against humanity. But anyway, we're getting off topic with this science stuff. These replies really are very long, so it would behoove us to cut down on these rabbit holes. Some rabbits, we just don't need to chase here. There are just some issues we won't see eye to eye on, so best not to dwell there.

We should strive for a good society, which means eliminating the bad where possible, striving for the highest net good to yield the most healthy, prosperous, and happy society we can.

If someone wants to live in an Aztec society or Sodom & Gomorrah then they're free to go rebuild a nation with those sorts of ideals. Enjoy their human sacrifice or whatever I guess, it's fine, just let us maintain or restore our nation to being one for a moral and religious people.

You see Ness, at the end of the day, this is still not a logical argument. Its a subjective and emotional one. If you ask most people whether or not they want to live in a "good society", they would tell you yes. If you ask them to define that, they will give you a million different answers. Because morals aren't necessarily tied to logic, and they don't base themselves out of logic, in most cases. Many Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin and inherently immoral. Why? They won't claim "logic" as their reason; they will say that its a sin unto God and cite Bible verses to support that claim. Other Christians (like Catholics) disagree with this, and will cite their own theological interpretations. Which one is right will depend on how you see the Biblical evidence, but that's neither here nor there. The point I want you to latch on to is this: two logical moral people can reach two very different conclusions regarding moral questions and morality. Your arguments are logical to you. Mine are logical to me. They make logical sense within whatever moral framework we choose to work within. But "logic" is only really persuasive when backed by objective fact, not feelings or platitudes. At the end of the day, just like the science issue, this is a rabbit hole and a distraction from the subject. Its best to simply drop the discussion here.

And why is it so hard for YOU to get thst no matter what they call them, they're NOT drawing a human? Words have definitions, art doesn't change reality. Human has a definition, and that includes a sex binary.

Yes, words have definitions. What YOU don't get is that an artist has the power to mold, redefine, and ignore those definitions as he sees fit. That's his prerogative as an artist. Word definitions matter in everyday conversation for understanding. In art, all that matters is if the world an artist has created is internally consistent, not whether or not its consistent with reality. Yes, humanity has a meaning. The artist acknowledges this by calling his three gendered race "human" in the first place. But for whatever reason, he chooses to tell a story where humans have three genders. Do you get what I'm telling you? He's trading on the familiar to introduce a story built on the unfamiliar, because the audience still needs a point of reference to understand what they are reading.

You're genuinely autistic if you truly think someone telling people that the undeniable depiction of a child they're masturbating to is "just a cartoon bro, it doesn't suggest ANY level of attraction to the subjects upon which it's based" and they'll just go "oh ok I believe this, please babysit my child, she's not a cartoon so I trust her with you".

People can feel however they want to feel. The reality is that its just a cartoon. Period. End of discussion. It is what is. Maybe you don't like what the cartoon shows you, and, for the umpteenth time, that's okay. Nobody is trying to tell you anyone how to feel about the subject. Nobody is trying to tell people that their discomfort with the subject is wrong. You can feel that way. When you ask the government to ban something, the discussion changes. When you want to treat the anime characters like they're real children, and act like people drawing, reading, interacting with, or even fapping to the cartoon character is somehow on the same level as people who actually fap to, watch, or create real child porn, that's a whole different discussion. It doesn't matter how you feel about the fiction. Its irrelevant. You can feel like this stuff is a terrible affront to decency and still acknowledge that its art, and deserves the same protection as other art, regardless.

But in a sense you're actually correct, most people would still rightly oppose loli in either art style, but that actually hurts your position

It doesn't hurt my position at all, it only reinforces it. At the end of the day, its all art, regardless of art style. People will oppose it, attack it, defend it, support it, REGARDLESS of what it looks like. Because the issues, and the discussion remain the same regardless of what it looks like.

Although if it was traced it'd be worse just because real subjects were involved, it's STILL bad if you're generating something you yourself conceded is INDISTINGUISHABLE from it.

If it was traced it would ACTUALLY BE IMMORAL. Because now you are harming someone in real life. Now, you have partaken in child porn, and you traced some poor child's abuse, and used it for your artwork. The immorality comes from the victimization of the child.

Keep in mind the artwork is only indistinguishable because you don't know it was traced. But this isn't something fundamental or unique to lolicon. If someone traced an image of a grown woman actually being raped, it wouldn't be illegal, but it still be seen as immoral or gauche, even though you couldn't tell at first glance it was a trace. Same for if you trace an image of a real person's dead body. You can trace anything. The immorality comes from peddling on the suffering of others.

What you're doing is comparing apples and oranges, sex and violence are two separate subjects.

The fact that one situation is violent and the other sexual is irrelevant to the original point Ness. Jesus, you keep chasing down pointless rabbit holes. WHY? Are these replies not long enough?

You can depict anything you want, but if it's obscene then it's ripe for the banning.

So what is obscene Ness? What is obscenity? How do you define it? Is it based on what someone happens to find obscene at the time? Because that's not a real workable standard.

And laws ostensibly exist to serve the good of society.

Laws exist to serve the state Ness. And even if they claim to be for the good of society (Fugitive slave laws, Nuremburg Laws, etc.) doesn't mean they are actually serving any public good.

Free speech isn't absolute, never was and never will be.

And this is a strawman argument fallacy. Nobody argued that free speech was absolute. It doesn't have to be to protect artistic expression.

I'm arguing there's objective morality, that society's right to norms & standards should be respected

Except we haven't even determined what those norms and standards are, nor on what basis they should be respected, nor have we even established what objective morality standard we are even applying.

I'm also arguing that this content should constitute legal obscenity, and I'm arguing the First Amendment should not protect pornography.

Except neither of us have presented any first amendment argument regarding pornography. And we SHOULDN'T might I add, because that would be off-topic. You want to argue for banning pornography under the first amendment, create a separate thread for it.

Your only argument is that it's currently legal and that there's no science saying it's bad or whatever. Very flimsy.

Those are not my only arguments, and in fact a highly simplified explanation of my arguments, but that wouldn't be the first thing you misrepresented today.

The point isn't that there's no science saying its bad. Its that there is no evidence period. "Arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You've offered nothing to support your points. You've made a lot of assertions, but offered zero evidence of any kind to back it up. All you've made are moral and subjective arguments. So from now on, when you make a subjective argument with no evidence, all I'm going to say is "Prove it". That will save everybody, especially me, a lot of time.

It features depictions of fictional children and is pornography, that doesn't make it pornography featuring real children (it is distinct from that and not its moral equivalent), but that doesn't make the description of "drawn pornography featuring fictional children" any less accurate whether you like it or not. That's what it is.

The problem with this explanation Ness is that, as I've explained ad nauseum at this point, Lolis DON'T HAVE TO BE CHILDREN. Its an art style and an aesthetic, not an age description.

But what does make sense is that a person attracted to imagery depicting a realistic cat would be similarly aroused by imagery depicting a real cat. Why WOULDN'T they be attracted to it, visually? They're nigh indistinguishable.

Because they are actually distinguishable. If they were indistinguishable, then the illustrated picture would be photorealistic, which we aren't talking about, remember? You can easily tell that the image you provided is a drawn image, more than likely created with A.I. Its not a real cat, obviously, so it isn't 1:1 comparable to simply masturbating to a photo of a cat.

Zero interest in having sex with real cats, yes, but not zero interest in them generally. They are quite obviously attracted to what is virtually indistinguishable from actual cats, so it is unreasonable to assume there's zero overlapping attraction.

That's an assumption on your part Ness. No evidence. When I say "Kero the wolf is a dog fucker", its not because he was furry who wore a dog suit. Its because he actually fucked dogs. An anime cat is not "virtually indistinguishable" from a real one, and only an insane person would think that. You said earlier, multiple times, that you acknowledge that artwork and real life aren't equivalent, but at every turn, you act like their equivalent.

and you're missing the point. Bulma is visually identical to legal adults in Dragon Ball at all ages, my entire point was the opposite of yours, that canon irrelevant.

Except that's not true. Bulma looked like a teenager in the earliest parts of Dragon Ball and was explicitly identified as such. Most actual adult characters look far older than Bulma (like her own parents for example). Her daughter looks like miniature version of her. But that doesn't stop her from being, like 12, in Dragonball GT, and a few years younger in Super.

Bulma looks like an adult and behaves like one, she is not a child and nobody would confuse her design or character for one.

Bulma was never a "child" at any point in Dragon Ball. She was a teenager, and acted like an immature teenager during the early portions of the story.

Her canon age entirely irrelevant, Toriyama could retcon her into a 10 year old if he wants, but she's not 10, nobody will confuse her for 10, and you and Toriyama can be alone in caring that he says she is 10, because she is obviously not a depiction of someone 10 regardless of his statement.

So basically, what you're saying is I can write a story of a bunch of little girls who drink a magic elixir that gives them adult bodies, and it would be okay to show somebody fucking them? Nice to get the clarification from you Ness. Their real ages don't actually matter, as long as I put tits on them, its a-okay! Context? What's that?! Unsurprisingly their are stories that already do this, including a rather infamous hentai. I guess they're fine in your book!

You don't think there's something fucking wrong with a person who can fap to this character?

You know what Ness? I would find something wrong with that guy because I think Pan is an adorable cutie who needs to be protected. That has no effect on my feelings on this subject though. And I still acknowledge that, feelings about wanting to protect her aside, Pan is still not real.

Cool. Now convince me they won't.

I don't have to convince you of anything because I'm not the one making a claim. You made a claim and I pointed out the absence of evidence for that claim. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide evidence. The ball is in your court.

 

[cigint]

It shouldn't be illegal.

The people in power are all actual pedophiles with real victims. The reason they're okay with banning drawings is because it will do absolutely nothing to hinder their own access to victims -- meanwhile, any laws and prosecutions that provide case law against any form of artistic expression simultaneously gives them additional tools that they can use to hamstring other, more meaningful artistic and political expression that they have a reason to oppose.

Being yucky is yucky, but it isn't criminal, and ultimately what we're actually discussing here is a thoughtcrime. People feel morally absolved when they go after some masturbating basement NEET with their torches and pitchforks, and at the same time they're paying taxes to another pedophile who has actual victims on an island somewhere.

If I'm wrong, just point it out to me with your reasoning.

 

[demicolon]

If you jerk off to drawings of children, you're a fucking pedophile regardless of whether or not you're sexually attracted to kids irl.

If you jerk off to two women making out with each other, does that make you homosexual? To a woman with a dick (or a strapon) railing a woman? To Lola Bunny? To schoolgirl outfit cosplayers? To nuns (lol you're going to Hell)?
I'm not disagreeing with you here, just curious how that logic applies to my examples.

I'd ping Null to nuke this thing from the orbit but I'd rather keep my bookmarks. You guys are still going...