Sure, okay. We'll do this argument.
Here is a sexy furfag picture of a cat.
It's stylized and obviously fake, what with it being an illustration, but it's still technically a representation of a cat. We know this because the creator calls the character "a cat" outright in totally canon material. The artist who drew this would also undoubtedly call this character "a cat."
Now here is also a picture of a cat.
With these two pictures in mind: would it be safe to say that someone could possibly find the first picture more titillating than the second, despite both images undeniably featuring a cat? And if someone were to find the second image more arousing somehow, would it be fair to say that they too found that image enticing for reasons entirely divorced from the photo above it?
Would it be safe to say that despite both pictures featuring a cat, one fictitious and one real, they can be appreciated for reasons entirely divorced from one another?
One thing you have to understand with this "it doesn't matter if it's stylized, that drawing is a child" argument –
other than it being fucking stupid because any stick figure scribbled on a napkin can be called 10 years old or 900 years old, and no one besides the illustrator can declare otherwise – is that even the definition of lolicon is incredibly varied. Unlike the definition of a pedophile, which is pretty set in stone.
Let's use more pictures so obnoxious fat women can call my reply Dumb or Autistic for using too many.
Look, it's Misty from Pokemon, "a 10-year-old Pokémon trainer who journeys with [Ash] throughout the first five seasons." I sure hope you don't find her smooth thighs, prominent birthing hips, vagina-valley thing, enormous rotund breasts or "let me catch your Pokeballs" expression sexually-enticing. That would make you a pedophile because the character is undeniably, canonically a 10 year old.
That's your argument word for word. There's really no getting around it; by your logic, anyone who pops a boner at that picture of Misty (or any) is a pedophile because the character is ten years old.
And let's not pretend I'm cherrypicking here either. While you can certainly find drawings of "lolis" that are flat and more reminiscent of a kid (much like how you can find art stylized in any way) a vast majority look something like this.
Prominent hips, smooth thighs, general lack of imperfections and a delicate, thin design. Symptoms similar to that Misty picture, I'd argue, but far more similar to...
This 24 year-old celebrity.
So stop trying to feed me this fucking pig slop about drawings of little girls and actual little girls being even remotely similar. There's so many holes in that argument you may as well be trying to tell me the Earth is flat.
