Anonymous2: @Anonymous: BUT MY FANDOM WIKIA SAYS IT'S 12!!!! IMAGES OF CARTOON COOKIES IS AS DANGEROUS AS ACTUALLY TOUCHING KIDS!!! don't you dare bring logic into this or I will backpedal and move the goal posts into pointing out that it's "still weird" which is somehow an indictment. Cue 999 pages of circular arguments because I can't simply accept that I'm arguing about something utterly pointless that has no bearing on any real world problem, because I don't like it and I don't want other people to be able to enjoy it and thus I must post-rationalize excuses for why it is immoral, or illegal, but probably only one at a time so I can juggle and conflate the two to drag the needless argument out a few hundred more comments. I MUST HAVE ATTENTION!!! PLEASE LISTEN TO MEEEE!!!!!!
I've failed basic debate. Now, I must tell "p3d0z" to "KYS" because nothing says Moral High Ground like suicide baiting people over drawings. Who, after all, could argue with seething irrational hatred against the peds! I will intentionally ignore the fact that all of the truly valid reasons to hate kid diddlers doesn't apply to lolisho people and hopefully nobody will notice.
I don't know how U.S. law works, but I will point to clauses ruled constitutionally overbroad to PROVE that this fan drawing of a fucking anthro cookie is LITERALLY ILLEGAL. I will entirely ignore that following this logic fucking South Park would also be illegal.
Look out though. Drawings really are dangerous. Check it out:
1. Jack off to Gingerbrave
2. ???
3. COMMITTING IRL CRIME!
You see, the human brain is simply incapable of separating between a fantasy and reality. It's bound to need the real thing! Well, for this specific thing. For incest, or zoophilia, or violence, or almost any other crime, it's totally A-OK. Furry images are totally fine because... You see, Grand Theft Auto is different from this, because, uhhhhh.....
EITHER WAY, they're clearly going to want the real thing. How do I know? I mean, of course, it's obvious, I don't need evidence. Besides, even if only a couple people ever commit real crimes that you could arguably tie to fantasy drawings, it's totally worth curbing freedom of expression for this cause. People shouldn't be able to express immoral wrong think, because, forget personal responsibility, blame the drawings! The drawings touched your kids. We're not even going to get into the more reasonable theory that lolisho could be a safe outlet for dangerous impulses because it would completely ruin my argument, and besides, I don't want to save kids, I just want retribution and hatred. Oops, I said a little too much.
Wow, what a day. All of that arguing has made me tired. I am going to go back to Twitter now and talk about how much I "hate it here" knowing deep down that the biggest enemy to me enjoying things is myself, and I take that out on everyone else who refuses to play by the sanitized advertiser friendly rules of the Modern Web.
did I miss anything? No? OK good, then we can consider this thought thread closed.
Anonymous8: @Anonymous, @Anonymous: petty insults and shallow dismissal. That's all you got, huh, after all your dumb high school debate class arguments got preemptively shut down. You should cope with me doing your mom
Anonymous11(8): @Anonymous: It's an angry diatribe, sure; but it is not the least bit deluded. It's literally the truth, laid out in simple English. It's a waste of time to sit here and call it deluded if you have absolutely zero desire to actually write a retort.
Anonymous17: @Anonymous: The arguments are so unconvincing, in fact, that I won't even waste my time to try to retort any of it. It's clearly so weak as to be below me. I am definitely not deflecting; it's just that it's a waste of my time, is all. After all, why should I argue with a greasy neckbeard pedo apologist? Yeah, that's it. As long as everyone who disagrees with me is a pedo apologist, I never have to worry about the questionable basis I have for justifying my shitty behavior towards others. And besides, all my friends are doing it. When in the history of humanity has the general populous held an opinion that was later regrettable and cruel? Anyways, it's time to finish my high school report on how the federal government passed the Comstock act in 1873, an act which made contraceptives obscene and illicit. It's crazy to think those barbarians defined something so utterly harmless as obscene and illicit under the presumption that it would lead to deviant sexual behavior. Haha, crazy! At least today, we all have learned our lesson and there's nothing left to be questioned.
Anonymous24: @Anonymous: I'm not a cookie run fan but to me the important thing is that people jerk off to stuff like this and not stuff that involves hurting children. What involuntary thoughts you may or may not have is your business. What you see when you look at an image is your business.
There's a lot of debate about the topic of how people see it and what it means. I think it is fair to say, at least, that some people do not see lolis and shotas as direct analogues to real children. The moe or stylized cartoon facial structures often portray a sort of child-like innocence, but the differences help distinguish it from something you can enjoy guilt free to something that is repulsive to think about.
But it's not important to determine who is sicker in the head, at least not without more cause. What's important is making sure nobody gets hurt.
Anonymous27: People there's a difference between being into loli/shota and being a pedo, im not saying i defend or enjoy this kind of stuff it's really fucked up actually, but no need to crucify a the artist as long as they dont seem to be actually attracted to ACTUAL CHILDREN and only draw porn of FICTIONAL CHILDREN it's really weird though i'd rather not to be around these kind of people, yes they might be a bunch of creeps but they're not criminals (as long as it is proven)
d-feather: Which reminds me...I know this question's probably gonna have an obvious answer, but what in the everloving mother of God-fuck is with all the Cookie Run spergs here lately?
d-feather: @Anonymous: Because this site's been plagued with Cookie Run spergs since God knows when, and, not gonna lie, I'm tired of them flocking to crap like this all time time. And I need to know why they're doing this all the time nowadays.
Anonymous46: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: I'm not interested in fucking cookies but buddy it's just a picture, a lot of pixels, stand up for real kids and stop whining for a picture
I've failed basic debate. Now, I must tell "p3d0z" to "KYS" because nothing says Moral High Ground like suicide baiting people over drawings. Who, after all, could argue with seething irrational hatred against the peds! I will intentionally ignore the fact that all of the truly valid reasons to hate kid diddlers doesn't apply to lolisho people and hopefully nobody will notice.
I don't know how U.S. law works, but I will point to clauses ruled constitutionally overbroad to PROVE that this fan drawing of a fucking anthro cookie is LITERALLY ILLEGAL. I will entirely ignore that following this logic fucking South Park would also be illegal.
Look out though. Drawings really are dangerous. Check it out:
1. Jack off to Gingerbrave
2. ???
3. COMMITTING IRL CRIME!
You see, the human brain is simply incapable of separating between a fantasy and reality. It's bound to need the real thing! Well, for this specific thing. For incest, or zoophilia, or violence, or almost any other crime, it's totally A-OK. Furry images are totally fine because... You see, Grand Theft Auto is different from this, because, uhhhhh.....
EITHER WAY, they're clearly going to want the real thing. How do I know? I mean, of course, it's obvious, I don't need evidence. Besides, even if only a couple people ever commit real crimes that you could arguably tie to fantasy drawings, it's totally worth curbing freedom of expression for this cause. People shouldn't be able to express immoral wrong think, because, forget personal responsibility, blame the drawings! The drawings touched your kids. We're not even going to get into the more reasonable theory that lolisho could be a safe outlet for dangerous impulses because it would completely ruin my argument, and besides, I don't want to save kids, I just want retribution and hatred. Oops, I said a little too much.
Wow, what a day. All of that arguing has made me tired. I am going to go back to Twitter now and talk about how much I "hate it here" knowing deep down that the biggest enemy to me enjoying things is myself, and I take that out on everyone else who refuses to play by the sanitized advertiser friendly rules of the Modern Web.
did I miss anything? No? OK good, then we can consider this thought thread closed.
Oh Wait
There's a lot of debate about the topic of how people see it and what it means. I think it is fair to say, at least, that some people do not see lolis and shotas as direct analogues to real children. The moe or stylized cartoon facial structures often portray a sort of child-like innocence, but the differences help distinguish it from something you can enjoy guilt free to something that is repulsive to think about.
But it's not important to determine who is sicker in the head, at least not without more cause. What's important is making sure nobody gets hurt.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply