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

[Null]

By that logic, should we lock up everyone who has enjoyed a violent action movie or played Doom because we can't guarantee they won't get their next thrill out of shooting up a Walmart? Or keep matches away from anyone who takes too much joy in a bonfire lest it develop into full on pyromania?

Sex and violence are completely separate centers of the brain. We perceive violence differently than eroticism. It is a false comparison that relies on reducing the argument to absurdity.

If you play GTA you might have a thought like "why doesn't this happen in real life" and then you realize a single gunshot is debilitating for life and there is no recovery. It's completely distinct from reality.

If you watch a cartoon little girl get fucked and it arouses you, there is no similar distinction. You could reenact that in real life. The only thing stopping you are those stupid antis.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Who said its to 'own' you?

Its discounting the point that violent urges are far less intense than sexual urges. A person may never kill another person in their life. But never feel arousal and act on it? LOL.

 

[cybertoaster]

The "petite women" being posted here look 15 at most...

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Its discounting the point that violent urges are far less intense than sexual urges. A person may never kill another person in their life. But never feel arousal and act on it? LOL.

I don't know why you think I'm arguing with you.

 

[cheesed to meet you]

I have known adults with this body type (but not the anime proportions, that'd be freaky) because Asians be Asian.

You've known women that are 4'3? That's how tall Tenma's model supposedly is.

But she wouldn't even give them that

She straight up said her age doesn't matter. That's even worse than just not mentioning an age. That's straight up a pedophile argument.

The idea that this chick went out to do market research to develop the most profitable vtuber persona and came back with pure pedobait tells you something, the entire vtuber scene is fucked.

She was famous in Hololive. She knows full well she could have chosen any kind of model and still make more than most people make in their lifetime. She chose a loli model for the love of the game.

 

[Jewthulhu]

This is the same sort of argument leftists make when they advocate for disarming Americans. The  potential for something going wrong doesn't mean that it will go wrong. When you say, and I'm paraphrasing, that "we should ban lolicon because it will inevitably lead to real children being harmed" it is no different from someone saying "we should ban guns because it will inevitably lead to someone getting shot".

Of course I now expect some of you retards to not tackle the actual argument and say something along the lines of "Jerking off to lolicon is different from owning a firearm!" because you either unironically lack the mental capacity for deeper thought, or are aware of trap you're setting up for yourselves.

A firearm is, by its very conception, a tool meant to kill. It can't be realistically used for anything else but to kill. That means that every firearm owner is a potential killer, but you do not arrest people on the assumption of the potential crimes they might commit in the future. The same way most countries don't arrest people for having lolicon content on the assumption of the potential crimes they might commit in the future.

This is, by far, the worst faith argument I've ever seen a lolifag make. You are either retarded, trolling, or being purposely deceitful.

A firearm has plenty of uses other than to kill. You can go sports shooting, hunting, or just fucking magdump into the side of a hill for fun. Even when used for the purpose of killing, there are legitimate reasons to do so (such as self defense).

Lolicon literally has no reason to exist other than to be jerked off to by people attracted to children (read: pedophiles).

 

[God's strongest milkman]

I hesitate to even mention the existence of this but there is a concept called "oppai loli" which is a loli that has giant tits. Purely a fictionsexual thing. No pedophile is into that shit, they're just broken by porn in general.

 

[Sperg Spectating]

You've known women that are 4'3? That's how tall Tenma's model supposedly is.

Looked it up, no adult woman talks like this.

Yeah, she's appealing to lolicons.

 

[WelperHelper99]

This is, by far, the worst faith argument I've ever seen a lolifag make. You are either retarded, trolling, or being purposely deceitful.

A firearm has plenty of uses other than to kill. You can go sports shooting, hunting, or just fucking magdump into the side of a hill for fun. Even when used for the purpose of killing, there are legitimate reasons to do so (such as self defense).

Lolicon literally has no reason to exist other than to be jerked off to by people attracted to children (read: pedophiles).

All my guns have done in their lives is shoot paper targets, soda cans, and fruit. Sure they might be used to defend myself one day. But that is pretty well last resort shit i hope doesn't fucking happen. What can lolicon "do" other than be spank bank material?

 

[Lidl Drip]

The fictionsexuals (incels, total introverts, the completely incapable of socialization or just lack any interest in real people and especially women.) are genuine with their arguments for lolicon, they genuinely don't see how it's harmful to real people and never will. The idea that their fiction has real world consequences is silly to them because nothing they do has real world consequences.

They live in fiction. they see lolicon and completely divorce them from real kids in every way because they do that with adult women too. The reaction from these people when you argue with them is incredulity because you've kicked into their goon cave and called them a pedophile, they've never touched the opposite sex and probably don't plan to, they have their hentai.

This is wrong. If you ever read incel forums a lot of them are pedophiles/lolicons who want to rape kids and many of them are talking about molesting their younger siblings or other little girls in their family. Read the incel thread on here and you will see several stories of men talking about peeping on their child cousin at the pool or touching their sleeping sister etc. Many also refer to real children as lolis. If they get the opportunity they will touch a real child.

Also since they are conditioned by loliporn they also think the child will enjoy it or is secretly seducing them. This is something many pedophiles believe and I think them watching porn where this actually happens just reinforces their beliefs.

 

[cheesed to meet you]

I hesitate to even mention the existence of this but there is a concept called "oppai loli" which is a loli that has giant tits. Purely a fictionsexual thing. No pedophile is into that shit, they're just broken by porn in general.

Thank you for reminding me of another reason dragon maid is horrible. This monstrosity.

 

[God's strongest milkman]

This is wrong. If you ever read incel forums a lot of them are pedophiles/lolicons who want to rape kids and many of them are talking about molesting their younger siblings or other little girls in their family. Read the incel thread on here and you will see several stories of men talking about peeping on their child cousin at the pool or touching their sleeping sister etc. Many also refer to real children as lolis. If they get the opportunity they will touch a real child.

I really, really don't want to. But maybe I should.

However while I was probably mistaken labeling incels as "fiction focused" I still think that those pople really do exist and are probably the majority of lolicons. the people you are talking about are using lolicon as as simulated pedophilia before moving to the real thing.

I think quite a few lolicons arent moving onto anything but weirder and grosser hentai and porn.

Thank you for reminding me of another reason dragon maid is horrible. This monstrosity.View attachment 7585688

However I still hold confidentiality I'm right about that. Being a purely goonbrained thing and not someone showing real life predatory behavior. There is no real life equivalency because it was thought up purely in the foggy debilitated mind of a gooner.

 

[Super Struggle Snuggler]

This has to be a troll job.

Won't deny a bit of devil's advocacy, but the questions stand. I have a perfectly good debate thread right here, I'm gonna have fun with it. Simple as.

Sexual urges are not violent urges and you fucking know it.

Urges are urges. How is one concern for breaking into reality while the other is not? Because one is celebrated and the other is icky? If societal pressure was enough of a factor, why is there even that concern? Support your statements...

Sex and violence are completely separate centers of the brain. We perceive violence differently than eroticism. It is a false comparison that relies on reducing the argument to absurdity.

If you play GTA you might have a thought like "why doesn't this happen in real life" and then you realize a single gunshot is debilitating for life and there is no recovery. It's completely distinct from reality.

If you watch a cartoon little girl get fucked and it arouses you, there is no similar distinction. You could reenact that in real life. The only thing stopping you are those stupid antis.

... Or have Null ninja me. Well timed, Mr. Moon.

They're different sections, but they're adjacent, and the mechanism of action is similar. As said above, urges are urges.

But there's something darker. What about those who do understand the life ruining qualities of both? The "I want to ruin a life." Do we count outliers who acknowledge the destructive potential of their urges or count them, because there are a lot of cases of violence, be it physical or sexual, for the sense of power.

Or, to take the acknowledgement of the damage in the other direction, what about those who are into loli/shota who have themselves been sexually abused? I can (for the sake of argument, I wouldn't do it here name about three artists who fall into that category.)

That is a fucking toddler.

So baggy clothes = can't see hips. Flat = child. If you don't see the titty, pre or post pubescence is an automatic non-factor. Duly noted.

Now let's factor in behavior. Tenma in the above example not only has the proportions of a rather petite Japanese OL, but she has the behavior of a particularly crude one. Drinking streams, her rage is legendary. Is it just the "UOOOOOOOOH CUNNY" that gets the "that's a toddler" or does behavior factor in as well.

How about if your example of Pekora DID lean into the "I'm barely developing."

Is it just design and proportions, within the usual anime big eyes stuff, or does the behavior of the person behind the character factor in?

You've known women that are 4'3? That's how tall Tenma's model supposedly is.

If we go with the non-biblical sense, 4'5-ish, but I was talking body shape, not necessarily height. No tits. Can't tell if they have hips if they wear a skirt and sweater like that. Ect.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Urges are urges. How is one concern for breaking into reality while the other is not? Because one is celebrated and the other is icky? If societal pressure was enough of a factor, why is there even that concern? Support your statements...

Because playing a video game doesn't make you a killer. Jerking off to children does make you a pedophile however.

So baggy clothes = can't see hips. Flat = child. If you don't see the titty, pre or post pubescence is an automatic non-factor. Duly noted.

Now let's factor in behavior. Tenma in the above example not only has the proportions of a rather petite Japanese OL, but she has the behavior of a particularly crude one. Drinking streams, her rage is legendary. Is it just the "UOOOOOOOOH CUNNY" that gets the "that's a toddler" or does behavior factor in as well.

How about if your example of Pekora DID lean into the "I'm barely developing."

Is it just design and proportions, within the usual anime big eyes stuff, or does the behavior of the person behind the character factor in?

I'm not going to dig into the mineuta with you nigger. As a certain Judge once said, I know it when i see it. A toddler is a toddler. Shut the fuck up.

 

[Major von der Westfront]

How about if your example of Pekora DID lean into the "I'm barely developing."

Pekora's closest point to this was "So thats my Mom's model. Think about it. Ill become her when im much older beyond my twenties!"

So your point dies immediately because Pekora says she is in her 20s

 

[cleanerfromvenus]

My only take is "SHOW YA FUCKIN FACE, WE WANNA SEE YA FACE" followed by shock and misery when we do, just like the black clansman sketch.

 

[Ass to Ass]

This is the same sort of argument leftists make when they advocate for disarming Americans.

Appealing to our political mindsets is a foolish avenue to try to take to justify your pedophilia.

The  potential for something going wrong doesn't mean that it will go wrong. When you say, and I'm paraphrasing, that "we should ban lolicon because it will inevitably lead to real children being harmed" it is no different from someone saying "we should ban guns because it will inevitably lead to someone getting shot".

Nobody cares. You jerk off to little kids. Indefensible degeneracy.

Of course I now expect some of you retards to not tackle the actual argument and say something along the lines of "Jerking off to lolicon is different from owning a firearm!" because you either unironically lack the mental capacity for deeper thought, or are aware of trap you're setting up for yourselves.

Ownership of firearms is a requirement to defend against government tyranny and criminal attack. Lolicon is what you jerk off to because you can't just be an actual person and jerk off to adults. They're leagues apart, you're not fooling anyone here with that argument.

A firearm is, by its very conception, a tool meant to kill. It can't be realistically used for anything else but to kill.

Yet the vast majority of gun use in the United States is defensive, not offensive or criminal.

Spoiler: Math sperging

In 2017, the United States had 120.5 guns per 100 people, according to the Small Arms Survey (archive link).
In 2017, the United States also had 11,020 homicides with firearms, according to Statista.
In July 2018 (the closest dataset I could find), the United States had a population of 327,167,434, according to the US Census Bureau.
Doing the math, this comes out to: 394,236,758 firearms; one gun homicide for every 29,689 people; and a gun homicide for every 35,775 firearms.

By contrast, a survey and subsequent paper by William English of Georgetown University questioned ~54,000 people, finding 16,708 gun owners.
It found that a third of the surveyed gun owners had at least one defensive gun usage (DGU), sometimes more.
The research paper estimates 1.67 million DGUs per year in the United States, based on the data.
Some specifics:
81.9% of DGUs do not result in shots fired.
25.2% of DGUs occurred within the defender's home.
59.3% of DGUs occurred outside the home but on the defender's private property.
9.1% of DGUs occurred in public.
3.2% of DGUs happened at the defender's place of work.
Doing the math, this comes out to: one DGU for every 196 people; one gun homicide for every 152 DGUs; and one DGU for every 236 firearms.

That means that every firearm owner is a potential killer, but you do not arrest people on the assumption of the potential crimes they might commit in the future.

Firearms have a political and defensive purpose to the people, and there is no acceptable alternative to take their place. Lolicon is coomer brainrot that serves no real purpose and has acceptable alternatives: pornography depicting adults.

The same way most countries don't arrest people for having lolicon content on the assumption of the potential crimes they might commit in the future.

You should have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea, pedophile.

 

[Kivotos strongest Sensei]

you didn't even say something like "it will lead to the wrong person getting shot"

How many times did people end up in prison despite being, in your framework, shooting the "wrong person" because there are retarded laws regarding the proportionality of retaliation? Rittenhouse wasn't ages ago, and he only managed to barely make it out because he became a cause celebre and nearly every single sane policymaker got behind him and raised enough capital for his legal defense? How many people didn't have as much support and ended up in prison?

anyone who had an experience like that should be banned from owning firearms and should be on a list.

"Why did you kill all these people?"
"Well when I was 7 I ran over people in GTA3 and had a hunger for blood ever since"

A firearm has plenty of uses other than to kill. You can go sports shooting, hunting, or just fucking magdump into the side of a hill for fun. Even when used for the purpose of killing, there are legitimate reasons to do so (such as self defense).

So you can either use it to improve your marksmanship for the purpose of killing your targets, or hunting, aka killing a wild animal. Notice how you're doing exactly what I said you would do in the 2nd paragraph, you're intentionally trying to reframe the conceptual purpose of a firearm because you're aware of the logical trap you're falling into. The entire history of the firearm is based on the idea of killing your target in the most efficient way possible while putting yourself under the least risk possible. That's why firearms developed to be shorter, lighter, higher capacity, higher firing rate, with long distance scopes, in sunlight or in the dark. You being unable to recognize this doesn't detract from the fact that its purpose is to launch a small projectile at high speeds for the explicit purpose of killing its target.

 

[Gregis]

How many times did people end up in prison despite being, in your framework, shooting the "wrong person" because there are retarded laws regarding the proportionality of retaliation? Rittenhouse wasn't ages ago, and he only managed to barely make it out because he became a cause celebre and nearly every single sane policymaker got behind him and raised enough capital for his legal defense? How many people didn't have as much support and ended up in prison?

Yup. We have an adversarial legal system. Shooting people is contentious. You know what's not contentious? Jerking off to kids.

 

[Leutnant]

A kinda related question: Does being a furry make you zoophile or more likely to rape animals?