Community Debate Ethics in VTubing, Model Design and Voice Acting, Loli and Loli-adjacency - Containment zone for third rail enjoyers

Oh it's very simple: Most porn addicts have jacked off to shit they later find disgusting, it's part of porn addiction. Many people are simply aroused by the presence of porn itself, regardless of type. It's still suspect, which I see you conveniently cut out of the quote, but it's not actually directly indicative unless it's a pattern.
So let me get this straight, someone who jerks off to loli/shota-con shouldn't be called a pedophile unless you can establish a pattern of behavior, but the autistic, nerotic guy who spergs out over minor discrepancies & then further when people argue with him about it has to be a pedophile because he argues one things worse than another when it's ultimately irrelevant which is worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Koral Hunter
You know what's the most ironic thing is? The people behind cancelling him are the same sort of people who openly post about raping little boys and cutting men's genitals. And those are not random basement gremlins, they are actual teachers, graphics designers, artists, progressives in political parties... you name it.

Don't let these sort of people define what morals are. They do not have any.
SK is beyond saving and I do not care for its societal issues. Dorontabi is still an actual pedophile and I could care less if he gets thrown in prison.
 
Because he's the nigger that made the tweets lolicons love to spew on repeat forever like broken records.
Oh the ones of the Japanese guy crying over child tummy? Grim.
You know what's the most ironic thing is? The people behind cancelling him are the same sort of people who openly post about raping little boys and cutting men's genitals. And those are not random basement gremlins, they are actual teachers, graphics designers, artists, progressives in political parties... you name it.
What the fuck are you talking about?
 
So let me get this straight, someone who jerks off to loli/shota-con shouldn't be called a pedophile unless you can establish a pattern of behavior, but the autistic, nerotic guy who spergs out over minor discrepancies & then further when people argue with him about it has to be a pedophile because he argues one things worse than another when it's ultimately irrelevant which is worse?
Someone who jerks it to weird porn should not immediately be considered into that porn unless it's a pattern, yes, because the way porn works necessarily causes people to seek extreme stimulation and porn addiction often bends the mind in such a way that it doesn't even matter what the porn is, just that it is porn. If someone can get hard to anything put in front of them, they're not attracted to the things in the porn, they're attracted to pornography itself. This is a well-documented phenomenon. I'm not saying jacking off to loli is okay, I'm saying that not everyone who jacks off to loli is a pedophile by definition. Some are sick in other ways.

Someone who spends 3 pages sperging out about a bunch of very specific things they are totally not aroused by and also tries to split hairs over what is and isn't acceptable in an already unacceptable area of subject matter (child sexualization) obviously has a vested interest in the overall perception of that subject matter. More specifically, someone who spends 3 pages obviously trying to say that XYZ doesn't count as child attraction even if XYZ are obviously child features is a pedophile, because only a pedophile would even attempt to make such an argument. It's plainly and transparently guilt/shame-motivated, and fits a well-documented pattern of behavior that can be observed not only in other pedophiles, but anyone who is guilty of a crime or moral indecency. They know they fall into a set of traits, so they try to divide that set of traits up into such small pieces that it's difficult for a casual observer to maintain full perspective, then label any traits they do have as "not a problem" while condemning the rest to appear moral.

Seriously, this isn't rocket science. You can look it up.
 
I AM NOT ANGRY vs I am not angry
Happy early 4th of July
Someone who spends 3 pages sperging out about a bunch of very specific things they are totally not aroused by and also tries to split hairs over what is and isn't acceptable in an already unacceptable area of subject matter (child sexualization) obviously has a vested interest in the overall perception of that subject matter. More specifically, someone who spends 3 pages obviously trying to say that XYZ doesn't count as child attraction even if XYZ are obviously child features is a pedophile, because only a pedophile would even attempt to make such an argument. It's plainly and transparently guilt/shame-motivated, and fits a well-documented pattern of behavior that can be observed not only in other pedophiles, but anyone who is guilty of a crime or moral indecency. They know they fall into a set of traits, so they try to divide that set of traits up into such small pieces that it's difficult for a casual observer to maintain full perspective, then label any traits they do have as "not a problem" while condemning the rest to appear moral.
That does encompass a lot of what was striking me as so weird about the defensive denial/dismissive responses

It's food for thought and I honestly just don't have a lot of experience looking into the topic and just default assume it to be some sort of mental illness first.
 
Last edited:
Someone who spends 3 pages sperging out about a bunch of very specific things they are totally not aroused by
You haven't provided any evidence they are aroused by this vs someone jacking off to loli/shota-con being a pretty good metric. There is plenty of evidence that Lawgiver gets in arguments over autistic details, I saw it myself when he got in an argument with Null over how to pronounce the "😭" meme properly, is that supposed to be some evidence that he's a pedo? Or is it more likely they have an autistic fixation on having airtight arguments to the point they miss the forest for the trees?
More specifically, someone who spends 3 pages obviously trying to say that XYZ doesn't count as child attraction even if XYZ are obviously child features is a pedophile, because only a pedophile would even attempt to make such an argument.
Or someone talking about going to the beach as a kid & seeing kids like that regularly. It's funny you bitched about me cutting context out from your post while ignoring that they said they still think it's wrong given the context of the person involved. Their point was that calling her fans the "kani krew" was worse than just the outfit & proportions, which is autistic & irrelevant but that makes them less of a pedophile than someone that jerks off to lolicon.

You are projecting really hard right now to the point where you are saying you'd give credence to someone who jerked off to lolicon just because you think they might get better, all to get some own on someone sperging out.
 
I'm not going to ask you if you think you're fooling anyone, because I know you do. Like most pedophiles, you are somewhere south of 100 IQ points but think you're the smartest person in the room because your social hypotheticals default to adult-child interactions. No, what I'm going to TELL you is that you are a fucking idiot if you think it's not obvious that you are very carefully trying to draw a nice squiggly line around all the loli you don't personally jack off to, label it pedophilic, and conveniently leave your own fetishes outside of that area so that it's "acceptable" to regular people. Nobody is fooled. The fact that you got so asshurt that you tried to report people (likely me) for calling you a pedophile who should kill themselves is further proof that you're exactly what I'm labeling you as, because you have no counter to it.

I do not care what flavor of child you are attracted to, you are a pedophile. I'm not saying that anyone who watches "cute loli" anime or whatever is a pedophile. I'm not even saying that someone who jerked off to loli one or two times is a pedophile, though it is suspect as fuck. I am saying that YOU SPECIFICALLY are a pedophile because nobody except a pedophile would spend this much effort trying to reframe pedophilic attraction and subdivide it to try to find the vanishingly small pieces of regular sexual attraction contained within and attempt to separate them from the highly deviant pieces they are inextricably bound to. This type of behavior is a very common way criminals and degenerates try to bamboozle normal people into accepting their obviously unacceptable behavior and such an obvious indicator of guilt that even police interrogators do it in reverse to get confessions.

I will repeat, you should kill yourself before you rape a child, because of everyone in this thread I think you are the most likely to actually do it. Anyone who has met or spoken to a pedophile can sniff you out from a mile away. Report me if you want, it's not going to change my opinion or the truth.
You are lying bitch and a fake and gay motherfucker. While I reply to actual people talking about shit even if it seemed incoherent each of your posts is literally framing me as saying shit or secretly saying shit I never fucking said. Fuck off.

I AM NOT ANGRY vs I am not angry


Which of these two seem angrier
*yawn* I don't know man, pairing those up side by side feels like some morpheus shit. All I know is I woke up to the retard spinning shit again. I am now angry.
 
This, I have good reason to believe that they're all insufferable leftists waiting for the mask to fall off
I haven't seen enough of them to have some intimate knowledge on them but I get the impression they are champagne socialists at most, or just typical niche issue voters that care more about virtue signaled issues than overall national or global politics. If they were really that far left they wouldn't have a problem being more open about it like Froot has been but if they have I've never seen anyone talk about it.
There's also the fact many of these people (outside of Vshojo at least) don't typically want politics to be brought up in general even if they agree because they don't want to deal with whatever backlash comes from it on either side even if they agree with whatever the topic is. They'd rather just stay as apolitical as possible & considering the type of drama people like Froot, Pippa, & Kirsche get dragged into based on politics it's easy to understand why most people in general look at the whole thing & say "fuck that".
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Lawgiver
Back