Anonymous2: Let me predict the rest of this thread
Anon4:It's a drawing
5: It's still sexualizing the idea of a kid
6: It's a fictional character that can be whatever you want
7: It doesn't matter, still pedophilia, as if you're attracted to this drawing you;ll be attracted to real kids
8: There's a big difference between fapping to a cartoon and raping a kid
and so on...
Anonymous4(3): You're only a pedo if you act on it or fantasize about a real child. Since she's not real, you can say that she's 18 in your mind. Would it be wrong then? Seeing how it's not a real person, it can't have an age meaning this can't be pedophilia
Anonymous5: The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
NicePeter: @Anonymous: Nah, apples and oranges is how you want to see it. Anon 4 is right, there is difference. Besides, you don't know what's inside people's heads to assume everything you said.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: I'm not saying it's an argument for my side, but claiming what you claimed as if it applied to all, most, or generally all the persons, and saying it's apples vs oranges and claiming it's objective when it's not, is not a real argument. The trucker example is just an hypothetical example that doesn't prove anything
NicePeter: @Anonymous: They have something in common though, they are fiction. Besides, the point I made of being hypothetical is because you can't expect from that example to apply to everywhere you're expecting to
NicePeter: @Anonymous: People wank to gore. Does that make them murderers or potential ones? If I refuse to answer your question is because it's hypothetical, therefore, anything's possible, and the fact that you made that specific scenario was only for the sake of your generalizing argument. If I put the burden of proof so high, it's because you pretend to know how most people around here work, or what these people are, based on a school grade logic. It's not "convenient" for me. However, it is an argument against your generalization and hypotheticals that you made. For what purpose you're doing it, I don't know.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: Murderers require a dead human, exactly. And pedophiles require a real kid. Is not apples and oranges as you claim to be. So generalizing without knowing people is good enough for you, Anon17? Besides, what is exactly the point of your assumptions, exactly?
NicePeter: @Anonymous: Still apples and oranges? Why exactly? And I wouldn't assume either that people who like the drawn gay porn are gay themselves either. Why not? Because I personally don't know them. I don't think that makes me thick. The fact that you're doing mockery for the sake of your argument is sad.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: "We were over this already". You didn't answer my question of why it wasn't aples and oranges... Okay. Knowing what kind of pics people like and not knowing personally and their real life inclinations and assuming what they are is a bad assumption. "A lot of people know the pedos that eventually molest their kids personally". What does that has to do with pics like this?
NicePeter: @Anonymous: Running in circles again? Why, since you started it? To say an example, I know some guys in real life that like bestiality and futanari hentai, but dislike it in real life. Of course they don't represent a general pattern, or most of people since that'll be always impossible unless we got a larger sample, but it's an example of how what some people like on paper may not reflect what they like in real life. It's not a matter of "convincing" since your blind assumptions are just that. Blind assumptions.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: I don't know how big of a sample would be enough for it. In fact, that's why I mentioned the example I mentioned, even when it's actually true, as not enough evidence. However, doing that would be way better to get a real pattern than doing all the generalizing and assumption you were making on the first place and stating it as truth
NicePeter: @Anonymous: I mean I don't know what would be sufficient proof for you. Do you know the bestiality guy personally to know he's lying? "Just because you don't want to see it, does not mean there is no pattern". Is not that I don't want to see a pattern, is just that I can't look into people's heads, and therefore, I can't assume, unlike you, that there's a pattern of what people like in drawings are what they like in real life.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: While again, is a "what if" hypothetical question, I'll answer: in fact, I do know somebody like that. She babysits and to the day she hasn't abused anybody. Of course that will not be enough answer for you, since you want to simply assume people who like certain sex drawings like the same thing in real life, even if you can't look into their heads
NicePeter: @Anonymous: You asked, I answered. Just like I said, whatever answer I make, it will never be enough, since you're stuck in believing that pattern of yours is true when in reality we can't be sure
NicePeter: @Anonymous: Okay, I'll say then, I trust that person enough for she to take care of my kids (even when I don't have any). I doubt that would be enough for you though.
NicePeter: @Anonymous: If I know the person enough, doesn't matter if it likes loli or gay or whatever, I'd do. Look, even if I answer your question, you'll make another, and another, because it'll never be enough for you. Hypothetical and hypothetical. All for the sake of the pattern you want to see when you can't see inside people's head to state that pattern as true
Anonymous7: Your fighting won't do anything. Your arguments are nothing more than posted sentences that fill the comment section. Nothing will be solved regardless of who's in the right.
Anonymous8: @Anonymous: For someone who said that boredom during a movie was the cause of this conversation, you seem too persistent in being inquisitive and judging
shezari: @Anonymous: you can be a pedo and not act on your urges. Actually the word itself doesn't imply sexual attraction but that's just how everyone treats it. I think there are handsome guys out there, doesn't mean I wanna fuck 'em.
Anon4:It's a drawing
5: It's still sexualizing the idea of a kid
6: It's a fictional character that can be whatever you want
7: It doesn't matter, still pedophilia, as if you're attracted to this drawing you;ll be attracted to real kids
8: There's a big difference between fapping to a cartoon and raping a kid
and so on...
The protect act of 2003.
Dude, just admit you can't see inside people's minds to justify the pattern you want to see. Nobody does.
btw i fap to eri and i babysat for years and i haven't abused a child or anything like that,just saying...
@Anonymous: *their