I defend all art (even stuff i don't like), as long as its not harming a real person.

See I think a lot of the loli argument is not even about legality, just pedos getting mad over people calling them pedos

Kind of like people who may happen to get upset about people calling them nazis?

If they're talking about how much they want to yeet the Jews and have government control over everything in an "ideal world" sure

Pedo != child molester, it means you have a maladaptive, fucked up attraction to minors

Thanks for explaining nothing.

the loli stuff walks such a fine line that I honestly just have to side against it for the sake of playing it "safe"

How have I explained nothing? You're comparing an ideology actions and behaviours (and its misuse) to sexual preferences (that I'm applying consistently)

@C1PHER That's where i have to disagree, have you see Anti-Sleepers video about playing in "safe" when it comes to art.

I have not

I don't think art should be made illegal (note, I'm talking about drawings and shit. Not anything you could possibly construe as art)
But I get to call you names if I don't like it, especially accurate ones

Good for you.

here's just some random thoughts I have on loli-type scenarios that tend to come up:
the 1000-year old vampire loli: the idea here seems to be that their age makes it validly consensual, but then somebody's stuck admitting that the physical form of a child is attractive which isn't generally a point in their favor
the humanoid race that matures very quickly, or the "oppai loli": just the inverse of the above, where someone is attracted to their young or innocent mind which seems predatory and also won't win anybody over

It may be that none of that matters to the argument at hand, but that's just how I classify things

so if the argument is going to be made, it should probably hinge on the "it's not real" part

The arbitrary age of a character has no relevance to an argument of principles about what people can freely create (i know you weren't making that argument).

I mean, its so annoying when people bring it up as some kind of defense also. Like, for games or art that says "these characters are over 18 we swear guys!"
(this doesn't include having ages for the real purpose of needing it for a story)

You better tell me the number of that drawing/computer model or you will be in trouble.
Why?
Because if its to low you could go to jail!
So my fictional art needs real life I.D.?
And i can avoid getting in trouble if i make this fictional number high enough....

How did we become this stupid....

the arbitrary age of fictional characters is more useful as a thought experiment on the topic than an actual argument

like, when you're trying to nail down exactly which parts of a scenario are objectionable

People are free to find whatever they want objectionable, i want all traps to die. But i don't get to take other peoples freedoms to create whatever they want away lol.

But ya, its fine to talk about.

Yeah I don't care about the numerical age of a cartoon, only the visual characteristics

Beto just isn’t left enough

Man comes up with less stupid plan, is called cowardly for not being as stupid as the orthodoxy

pretty much.

Y'all have a fun election next year

> *next year*
it's gonna be a long one

Next year is the part that counts

I saw one that said "early access" that made me laugh.

have you seen the "minor attracted persons" shit?

Depends on whether you are referring to something in specific.

pedos are trying to re-brand themselves as MAPs like they're just some stripe of the LGBT rainbow

That's been going on for years

shoe0nhead has a few videos about it now

someone was asking a number of self-proclaimed MAPs to a debate. A lot of them claim to be fairly young, but every single one had some excuse to not using voice chat 🤔

Funny how that goes.

I don't use voice chat.......