Can someone please explain how she is literally a cat in some scenes, but in a wholly human form in others?

Can someone please explain how she is literally a cat in some scenes, but in a wholly human form in others?
This is doing me in, I just don't understand. It can't just be some quirky artist thing because it appears multiple times, but not too often as to confirm that she is a cat.

Other urls found in this thread:

kickstarter.com/projects/digitalmanga/kodomo-no-jikan-a-childs-time
youtube.com/watch?v=fBGWtVOKTkM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

costume

Clothing.

I only watched like 4 episodes, I thought it happened whenever she got emotional or mischievous?
But either way just enjoy the lolis.

Because my dick.

It's so she can hiss at penis.

This
h
i
s

Kuro always brings her cat costume with her.

>pic related

Thank you for the proof. I guess This solves the mystery.
I thought it might have been one of those hidden messages or something. There's also some manga I read with a cat named Kuro, that seemed like too much of a coincidence.

>that buttplug

>Thank you for the proof

Lurk more.
Read the manga or just watch more shows, so you can get the medium, faggot.
What you're asking is very obvious and asinine.

You can never know with anime. Perhaps they live in a universe with cat people. If that was their norm, of course no character in the show would draw attention to it. A person dressing as a cat is much more out of the ordinary.

Wait... oh my god, it is.
I don't know why I'm surprised with this being Kodomo no Jikan, but still.

Kuro and Kokonoe wear costumes all the time, because that's just how much of semen demons they truly are. But sometimes, Kuro is drawn as cat as a stylization of her mood. Usa is drawn as a rabbit, as well.

Read the manga.
kickstarter.com/projects/digitalmanga/kodomo-no-jikan-a-childs-time

This is your chance. Fund it.

...

>Funding a kickstarter to release a censored version
Not even newfags would fall for this you shill.

>tfw lolis only ever scream and run away at my penis

What am I doing wrong?

"Censoring these scenes will significantly affect the story line, so we have chosen to keep it how the author originally intended."

Literally.

But this is Digitalmanga, who have a long running history of censoring loli content and continue to do so, their promises mean nothing as long as this persists.

You need catnip on the tip.

Well how else is it going to stay in? I thought all costume cat tails were this way.

Have they ever promised to not censor these other loli mangas?
Sauce?

>getting caught in obvious FBI honeypot

...

>FBI
>mfw

youtube.com/watch?v=fBGWtVOKTkM

How can we trust a nation that hates loli?

What they promise doesn't matter user, as long as they have this censored content and have no plans to fix it or even stop censoring content it is safe to assume that KnJ will be censored, even unintentionally, regardless of their willingness to put on airs about artistic integrity when money is on the line.
If they are not moving fully away from censored material they cannot be trusted to maintain this promise without the genuine article already existing.

>They explicitly say they won't censor.
>It's safe to say they will censor

>If they are not moving fully away from censored material
Your argument is basically an Ad Hominem.
>Because they censored past works, they can't release an uncensored version, even though, they say they will

Echi anime needs more buttplug tails.

The very fact that they have censored works makes them untrustworthy user. It is clear from this pattern that they have a moral aversion to loli and incest content and even if they say they won't just for this work it is safe to assume they are either willfully lying because money is on the line or they will unwittingly change important aspects because of this underlying morality they believe in.
>Ad Hominem
No user, that would require me insult them based on nothing; this is simple logic, if they censor loli and incest works in the past due to their beliefs and have no plans to stop doing so in the future it is fair to assume that paying them up front because they promise not to this one time isn't a wise investment, especially given that this promise can be revoked at any time after they have taken the money without consequence. Until the product actually exists they have given you and everyone else absolutely no reason to trust that they'll keep their word.

>implying

I want summer to end already.

>No user, that would require me insult them based on nothing;

Not trying to be pretentious, here. But, you don't really know what an Ad Hominem fallacy is.

>if they censor loli and incest works in the past
If A behaved like B in the past, it can't behave like C, in the present.

>promise can be revoked at any time
That's how crowdfunding projects work.
>Until the product actually exists
Ever heard of investment?
>given you and everyone else absolutely no reason to trust
Prove that A can't behave like C and I will give that it's impossible to happen. But as you're talking about trust, the argument comes to faith and personal feelings. You can't expect everyone to share these thoughts with you and so, you can't measure them in a objective manner. Therefore, without a realiable probability measurement, your argument is moot and is nothing more than a personal belief that your expectations will happen.

If A behaved like B in the past and is still behaving like B it is unlikely it will not act like B in the future and the present. If Budweiser suddenly said "We're going to make a beer that doesn't taste like piss, but you have to fund it in advance" it would not be a sound investment given their past track record even if they promise it will be the least shit-tasting beer you've ever had. The only thing you can base trust on is past acts, and this company has had nothing but ill-repute in the past so there is no reason to trust them based on a revocable promise not to this time. I never said it will for certain be censored, that's impossible to say, sometimes out of the blue a toilet falls from the sky and kills someone, but it is not likely it will be uncensored given their history.
But the problem here is greater than that, they have not promised to stop behaving like B, it would be a lot easier to trust Budweiser in this if they also said "Oh and we're going to stop making shit beer, or at least make all the rest of our beer pretty good too", but in this case they haven't, they have only said that in this one instance they may change their act, a promise they really can't trust themselves to keep even if they wanted to given their underlying hatred of the content they could easily subvert it without even trying just by making small changes they think no one would notice.

>Ever heard of an investment?
Exactly, why would you invest in something when the person you are investing in is beholden to you only for the final product no matter whether it meets the original promise or not when the person you're investing in has so often in the past proven they don't want to give you the version of the product you're supposedly paying for?
It is simply not a good investment as long as they keep up their policy and sale of censored works to trust them with no recourse should they betray that trust.

>If A behaved like B in the past and is still behaving like B it is unlikely it will not act like B in the future and the present.
Wrong. You can't assert that without a probability model. You're basing your "statistics" on a different case, where they didn't made any specific claims about the product(prove otherwise).
Show me instances where they explicitly said they would release uncensored works and they didn't. If you have them, then, I can give your argument some relevance.

Going for your analogy, if Budweiser said they would make some premium line of beers, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, if they never did it before or had a good history of other premium lines. It makes no sense to compare premium products with mass comsuption products. When they label something as premium they are making a statement of quality. Just like saying "we will deliver uncensored delicious loli" is also a statement of quality.
Same goes for brands of shitty popular cars and their good quality premium brands. Just because they still make and sell shit, doesn't mean they can't make good stuff.

>Just because they still make and sell shit, doesn't mean they can't make good stuff.
That's well and good if they're investing the money they've made off of selling shit to make the good stuff, however it does not make it a good idea for others to invest with them with no binding guarantee that it will not be shit. The only frame of reference for their work that exists is shit, there is no product they have released to test the waters or show good faith that they won't fuck this up, and that makes it a terrible investment choice if you care about the artistic side of the work at all, which since your investment doesn't actually make you a fiscal beneficiary to the boon is all you should care about.
The only sign of good faith they have is a non-binding promise which is a step in the right direction, but you can't peg a horse to it without a general change in policy or a means of recourse.

>however it does not make it a good idea for others to invest with them with no binding guarantee that it will not be shit

They already have a good product that it's the original work. To make it shittier is an active-and-deliberately-taken extra action. It's really low risk, because again, they already have the product intact without the shit smeared on it.
That's why, your analogy is flawed on this point.

>general change in policy
Your whole argument doesn't deny that a brand can have a shit line and a premium line. So, I guess you don't deny that. Therefore, a "general change in policy" is unnecessary.

>To make it shittier is an active-and-deliberately-taken extra action
An action they have taken repeatedly in the past without ever recognizing a fault in it. It is as second nature to them and even unwittingly they can insert their beliefs ahead of the integrity of the original work without much effort at all.

>Therefore, a "general change in policy" is unnecessary.
It is necessary if they don't have any other concrete show of good faith to not fuck this up. If this isn't the beginning of a step towards non-shit products in the future that a policy change would solidify they then need some absolute and concrete way to be held accountable should they fuck this up. If what they are doing is true and they are setting aside their pretensions to faithfully adapt this that's good, but without a plan to do the same consistently going forward you cannot take it as red that they will and without more than simply taking their word for it to keep them in line just this once it would be better to wait until it exists or doesn't and we're none the worse for it.

Everything needs more buttplug tails

fuck, my DICK

At least they don't laugh at it.