If you are all so intellectualisize...

If you are all so intellectualisize, contest me with your feelings of why it is acceptable to make cartoon pornographic of the young.
>pro tip: you can't

agrid. that shit is fucking deeskusteeng

Checken em

the only victim in the crime of the act is your fragile sensitivity purposefully born & bred into you to keep you subservient stock, goy

>The jews are the reason he feels this way
If your in America you've only everyone you have in contact with to worry about your addiction to child porn.

Well, I'm not a fan of child cartoon porn, but I guess the thing that's wrong about pedophilia is that it's putting children in danger, and child porn is explioting children. Making a cartoon about a fictional child doesn't doing anything against anyone. Except maybe putting the thought of doing more in someones head, idk.
Lolicons are disgusting though

Agreed. Some people are also more prone to seek out actual child pornography because the drawings aren't enough of a kick for them, they get bored of looking at it cause it's not the real thing. These people are mentally challenged and should seek help.

I worship my childwife every day, mind your own business you snooping big brother wannabe FAGGOT

kek

because fuck niggers

That doesn't address the point of why you think it is a good thing to fantasise about young bodies and revel in your fantasies toward your fellow sick minded, egging them on.

You claim it doesn't do anything against anyone, but if that were true it would be pointlessly produced.

I'm not convinced by that.

I like you

No, I meant it doesn't affect anyone negatively directly, like child porn or pedophiles doing their thing

I'm

Your question wasn't why it's good, it was why it's acceptable

A good thing*

>That doesn't address the point of why you think it is a good thing to fantasise about young bodies and revel in your fantasies toward your fellow sick minded, egging them on.

(You)
>The jews are the reason he feels this way
If your in America you've only everyone you have in contact with to worry about your addiction to child porn.

projection, you the pedophile nigguh

Directly is not the criteria except in a philosopher's fable. Directly ultimately is a connection that cannot be drawn. In moving society what exist will always change and poison

Again I don't see the difference, and at any rate is what I described acceptable to you? Still if sharing porn toward men who are known to rape?

Shit bait, only the fucking summer fags reply. Kill yourself.

Would it not make sense for you to say you like lolis but the sight of actual children isn't even remotely cute or enticing?

I didn't know fat weeabos where known to rape
The difference is that there are plenty of things that aren't good things that are acceptable, and should be, like smoking, it only affects you.
It's not the creator of the lolishits fault if someone else acts out because of it, just like that if I make a knife, it's not my fault someone else killed someone with it

Learn English, Pajeet.

Saged in all fields.

Would it? And what has that to do with the thought of the act, regardless either with the aggregate of the consumption and wide populations.

It isn't surprising if fat weeabos to rape. Mass body of pedophiles are antisocial and unattractive with obscure childish hobbies.
And your distinction begs belief; it makes total sense to reprimand those who sell poisonous gas, torture weapons to dictators. They must be punished and certainly are acting morally incorrect.
The distinction you draw is recent and invalid by corrupters who wanted free reign and blanker conscience.

It's not unacceptable.
There's nothing wrong with drawing naked kids. How could there be? It's just a drawing.

No, there's a big difference, because a murder weapon is created to murder people, while a picture is created for someone to look at, big difference.
If we're gonna compare it to murder, a picture of a loli is comparable to a picture of murder, is it wrong to draw someone being murdered because it might make someone go out murder people? It might, idk, but as the creator of that murder picture, it's not my responsibility.
You seriously compare a picture made to shoot some sperm to poisonus gas and torture weapons?

I think so? I think lolis are cute, I've looked at the drawings before. I wouldn't ever be even mildly interested in actual CP though, because they don't look very similar at all despite the implication and it's kinda gross and fucked up.

However, a drawing is a drawing. No one's childhood had to be ruined/innocence lost/emotional and psychological scarring due to the creation of the material, nor the enjoyment of it.

The point beyond that is that if there is an obvious difference between the two, and I can look at both drawings and real girls but loli is also acceptable it means that there is no actual connection to its 3D counterpart and therefore it's acceptable. It's a little difficult to visualize myself copulating with something that doesnt even actually exist or is 2D, and therefore there is no "thought of the act"

truthfully I actually am just attracted to short girls

Also could you please speak english you fucking cuck

Stop using trying so hard to use big words OP, just talk normal and relaxed, this isn't some fucking world changing debate, we're talking about cartoon childporn on some trashy weeabo site
Get a grip man

You were the one who compared pedophilic masturbation aids to murder weapons.
The point I drive to, as you were trying to undo, is that you are responsiblity for what you call indirect results. My point is that you are not blameless and there is only subjective difference between direct and indirect.

I don't care only for your experience with unusual short girl fetish, only for pedos and those made into pedos, normalisation and wider social changes and corruptions as I said.
As far as I care your thoughts are irrelevant.

>your thoughts are irrelevant as someone who likes loli because it makes sense
retard

So you do think if I make a picture of someone murdering another person and someone who looks at my pictures murder someone, I'm to blame?
Does that make pictures of murder unacceptable?
Is the director for the new Batman movies responsible for the theatre shooting in USA based on a character from it?
How are these questions different in the direct cause and indirect cause argument?
Please answer them and explain the differwnce

You are responsible fully for all of the effects.
If the result is corruption and child lust, then that is the burden.
For murder the same entirely.

So the making something like the Batman movie is unacceptable?

Making some flashy artsy picture of some swordfight is unacceptable?

I haven't watched. Often though those films are shallow/ violent and reduce humanity over time with ease.

'Artsy' gives pause, but if the mood is violent and blood filled it might provoke. If only depicting history or inspiring something else, potentially okay

Yes sure, you are responsible for some little effect, like, ohhh, that kill move or whatever looked cool idfk.
But does that make someone else's actions your responsibility?
I don't believe so
Noone can predict what effect something is gonna have in someone else and how much effect it will have
If you believe in a world where expressing yourself with art that isn't inside your very narrow borders are unacceptable, you're just a boring person.
I think lolicons are trash, but idk

I'm gonna go to sleep anyways, we're pretty much the only ones talking
Was fun talking to ya
Gn