Author Topic: "lmao your all deluded" - Hotremox, when told "child research is bad" (Read 20862 times)

SteveJenkins · September 24, 2017, 12:19:07 AM

humans don't exist

Ad Bot · Advertisement

Red Spy · September 24, 2017, 12:20:57 AM

"jacking off to drawn children doesn't make you a child enthusiast"

Planr · September 24, 2017, 12:24:32 AM

Quote from: Insert Name Here� on September 24, 2017, 12:17:35 AM

Reminder that hentai/loli is made to represent actual people, furry stuff isn't.

Liking loli and shota and that stuff is literally being a child enthusiast, stop denying reality because "IT AINT REEEAL"

Okay, so can you explain to me then using that same logic why furries are not animal abusers and want to have love with dogs? Is wanting to have love with animals okay now?

Reread my post since you clearly just read the first paragraph and ignored the rest.

Quote from: Red Spy on September 24, 2017, 12:20:57 AM

"jacking off to drawn children doesn't make you a child enthusiast"

"having a bottle of homemade medicine on your shelf doesn't make you a witch" - salem massachusetts 1692

beachbum111111 · September 24, 2017, 12:25:19 AM

This is a betrayal of the cross Planr.

Insert Name Here� · September 24, 2017, 12:25:53 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:24:32 AM

Okay, so can you explain to me then using that same logic why furries are not animal abusers and want to have love with dogs? Is wanting to have love with animals okay now?

I never said Loli = wanting to forget real children. I said liking loli = child enthusiasm, aka the special interest towards children. Please don't put words into my mouth and read yourself.

Red Spy · September 24, 2017, 12:26:19 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:24:32 AM

"having a bottle of homemade medicine on your shelf doesn't make you a witch" - salem massachusetts 1692

Planr · September 24, 2017, 12:27:14 AM

Quote from: beachbum111111 on September 24, 2017, 12:25:19 AM

This is a betrayal of the cross Planr.

This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency.

beachbum111111 · September 24, 2017, 12:28:08 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:27:14 AM

This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency.

You're going to hell

Red Spy · September 24, 2017, 12:28:27 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:27:14 AM

This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency.

rationalist�

Insert Name Here� · September 24, 2017, 12:29:52 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:27:14 AM

This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency.

Yeah, to you.

Insert Name Here� · September 24, 2017, 12:31:23 AM

Note that common sense dictates that liking children and art that resembles children in a loveual way, is literally child enthusiasm. According to Planr though, liking loveual depictions of children is fine and dandy because "it isn't real so it's okay!"

"This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency" my left ass cheek.

DrenDran · September 24, 2017, 12:31:29 AM

Quote from: Planr on September 24, 2017, 12:24:32 AM

Okay, so can you explain to me then using that same logic why furries are not animal abusers and want to have love with dogs? Is wanting to have love with animals okay now?

But furries *are* degenerates.

Quote from: Ayxrion on September 23, 2017, 11:34:04 PM

the problem with loli/shota is what depicts it as children
you can easily argue that "the loli here is 500 years old but trapped in a petite body due to a curse!!! it's in the lore!!!!!!!!!"
for example, annie(i think?it might be lulu. i havent played LoL in ages) in LoL is something hundred years old (in the lore), but still a child. does that still make her a child? just because of the petite body?
should yordles count as loli too? (they're actually considered shortstack but lulu??? shes young??????????????????)
or that girl (Babette) in the dark brotherhood in skyrim. In the skyrim wiki:if research were to be drawn of babette, would it count as loli--or child research in this case? shes 300 years old but "has an innocent appearance"
it's hard to judge because everyone has different opinions on it and it's controversial.

I do sort of agree with the idea that it's pointless to regulate fiction though.

IkeTheGeneric · September 24, 2017, 12:34:14 AM

I gotta be honest, the whole "Lolicon = child enthusiasm" debacle is already known as a complicated grey area subject that's been discussed heavily for awhile, I doubt this argument is gonna get anywhere here since everyone keeps shooting blanks on the whole "Providing a meaningful and convincing argument" business.

Right now the only thing that's really going on is somebody daring to disagree and everyone acting with shock and awe in complete moral outrage. 's kinda ridiculous.

otto-san · September 24, 2017, 12:35:16 AM

obviously the problem is that art allows people to depict childlike characters in a way that's conventionally appealing. the real solution is to ban All Art.

Planr · September 24, 2017, 12:38:33 AM

Quote from: Insert Name Here� on September 24, 2017, 12:31:23 AM

Note that common sense dictates that liking children and art that resembles children in a loveual way, is literally child enthusiasm. According to Planr though, liking loveual depictions of children is fine and dandy because "it isn't real so it's okay!"

"This thread is a betrayal of common sense and logical consistency" my left ass cheek.

I like how you're completely dodging everything i'm saying and arguing the same failed argument over and over again. Just answer me this simple question: Does liking furry art mean the person in question automatically wants to have love with real animals?

Quote from: otto-san on September 24, 2017, 12:35:16 AM

obviously the problem is that art allows people to depict childlike characters in a way that's conventionally appealing. the real solution is to ban All Art.

Like what Badspot told that one lady in mailbag. Regulate the words her kids can arrange in their alphabet soup.