Sophie Labelle Verville / Guillaume Labelle / Serious Trans Vibes Comics / Assigned Male / Candycore Comics / Pastel Sexy Times / WafflesArt - Obnoxious webcomics and horrific porn by a crazy fat pedo troon

Rubberchickenchu said:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
View attachment 1946611
Click to expand...
You should update the pic. She admitted to “using a random reference on Google” to draw the dog pic
8E6E9710-AA89-4AC2-AF66-891E3ADEBEB1.png
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Piss Bear, Wych Elm, Caecia and 28 others
JY's Tampon said:
The comments are like mining for cows.
View attachment 1946948View attachment 1946949
Click to expand...
"I can't believe people are being so gross and making such a big deal out of this."
Pedo art is not a big deal?

And what the hell is an "anti ideology?" It seems they are really having a hard time justifying this. Just say random shit and hope it sounds good enough as a defense.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Piss Bear, Carmageddon, Zaryiu2 and 17 others
mindlessobserver said:
Jesus. He's literally claiming ownership of the questionably legal pictures. I wonder if someone could trigger him so hard he admits to taking actual photos himself too.
Click to expand...
>questionably legal pictures
Nope, they're unquestionably illegal in Canada. It's time to look at R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, which is 100% on point: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1837/index.do
In light of Parliament’s purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, the word “person” in the definition of child pornography should be construed as including visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people.
Click to expand...
The term “depicted” refers to material that a reasonable observer would perceive as representing a person under the age of 18 years and engaged in explicit sexual activity. The expression “explicit sexual activity” refers to acts at the extreme end of the spectrum of sexual activity – acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion. Thus, representations of casual intimacy, such as depictions of kissing or hugging, are not covered by the offence. An objective approach must be applied to the terms “dominant characteristic” and “for a sexual purpose”. The question is whether a reasonable viewer, looking at the depiction objectively and in context, would see its “dominant characteristic” as the depiction of the child’s sexual organ or anal region in a manner that is reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.
Click to expand...
Accordingly, s. 163.1(4) should be upheld on the basis that the definition of “child pornography” in s. 163.1 should be read as though it contained an exception for: (1) any written material or visual representation created by the accused alone, and held by the accused alone, exclusively for his or her own personal use; and (2) any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict unlawful sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use. These two exceptions apply as well to the offence of “making” child pornography under s. 163.1(2) (but not to printing, publishing or possessing child pornography for the purpose of publication). The exceptions will not be available where a person harbours any intention other than mere private possession.
Click to expand...
The prohibition of the possession of child pornography also captures visual and written works of the imagination which do not involve the participation of any actual children or youth in their production; in enacting s. 163.1(4), Parliament sought to prevent not only the harm that flows from the use of children in pornography, but also the harm that flows from the very existence of images and words which degrade and dehumanize children and to send the message that children are not appropriate sexual partners. The focus of the inquiry must be on the harm of the message of the representations and not on their manner of creation, or on the intent or identity of their creator. Given the low value of the speech at issue in this case and the fact that it undermines the Charter rights of children, Parliament was justified in concluding that visual works of the imagination would harm children.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to look at this diaperfag shit, but it sounds like it qualifies under the statute.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: GooglePuppet, Zaryiu2, Instant_Pot_User and 27 others
Neko GF said:
>Get exposed for making fetish art traced from a picture of a child
>Claims that he's getting death threats and acts as if that makes what he did any less disgusting

Perverted naraccisist.
Click to expand...
>does stuff that deserves actual death
>whines about people merely threatening it
JY's Tampon said:
The comments are like mining for cows.
View attachment 1946948View attachment 1946949
Click to expand...
"I just want to fuck kids, why are people calling me a pedo about it?"
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Wych Elm, GooglePuppet, Zaryiu2 and 29 others
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Dr. Silvestrechu, Sexy Senior Citizen, Hanamura and 4 others
lolwatagain said:
The term “depicted” refers to material that a reasonable observer would perceive as representing a person under the age of 18 years and engaged in explicit sexual activity. The expression “explicit sexual activity” refers to acts at the extreme end of the spectrum of sexual activity – acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion. Thus, representations of casual intimacy, such as depictions of kissing or hugging, are not covered by the offence. An objective approach must be applied to the terms “dominant characteristic” and “for a sexual purpose”. The question is whether a reasonable viewer, looking at the depiction objectively and in context, would see its “dominant characteristic” as the depiction of the child’s sexual organ or anal region in a manner that is reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.
Click to expand...
Having seen this diaper shit, I think this one is questionable. It's obviously drawn for sexual purposes or gratification, but I haven't seen any that contain "explicit sexual activity." Someone who is completely unfamiliar with diaper furshit might look at one of these images and not immediately realize it was sexual.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Piss Bear, Plague Flea, Caecia and 28 others
mindlessobserver said:
Eh, its important to keep in mind this place is susceptible to a sampling error bias. The only trannies we tend to run into are sperg activist types and freak shows, rather then the ones trying to live their best life and not bother anyone. Not sure how the actual percentages truly break down, but perspective is key.
Click to expand...
I didn't reach my conclusion overnight. It's happened gradually. But I think I'm going to stand by it now.

Trannies are (by definition) mentally ill and don't even respect their own bodies. In fact they loathe their bodies to the point that they're willing to self-administer poison and subject themselves to genital mutilation. By their very nature, they're all too happy to ignore and even deliberately violate boundaries (physical, mental and social). Being trans automatically means their brain is already wired to firmly believe things are not as they appear, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence or common sense. That's the same kind of thinking that leads to dangerous rationalizations, e.g. a pedophile arguing that his victim "came onto him" or "gave consent."

Building from the premise that ultimately we (as human beings) care about ourselves first and foremost, and then others, it stands to reason that if the average tranny disrespects their own body enough to mutilate and violate it intimately, they won't have any qualms "devaluing" others' bodies as well and violating their boundaries. And who better to target than the weak and vulnerable, like children and teenagers?

Whether they ever act on those thoughts and impulses, I think they always have them in one form or another. They clearly view sexuality in a very different fashion than normal people do, and they're all too happy to ignore social norms and taboos.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: AssistantWeasel, Grumpy Pickle Rick, FramerGirl420 and 78 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back