Post real life pictures of yourself.

[Vertzer]

I've talking about lolicon this whole time, not shotacon.

Yes, I know, I can read.

You rag on me for my correct usage of a word

It wasn't correct.

and you incorrectly use lolicon and shotacon interchangeably.

Oh I'm sorry, didn't realize that having a loli collection would be something you would take as offensive.

You are a loving idiot.

[Ad Bot]

[Otis Da HousKat]

Yes, I know, I can read.
It wasn't correct.
Oh I'm sorry, didn't realize that having a loli collection would be something you would take as offensive.

No, you can't

So loli can't be drawn? Even though you said it can be? OK P.S. Real loli research typically means simulated, that is legal age girls who look underage or are digitally modified to look so.

Where did I take offense to having loli research? I said you used shotacon and lolicon incorrectly.

I believe you forgot the second part of that image which accurately describes you at this point.

[Vertzer]

So loli can't be drawn? Even though you said it can be? OK

What? I said loli is both drawn and real, because the definition of loli is simply underage female research, the is no restriction to the medium.

Where did I take offense to having loli research? I said you used shotacon and lolicon incorrectly.

You must have misunderstood my post. Telling you to go back to your shota was supposed to get you raging. If I said go back to your loli, you wouldn't have taken much offense in that.

I believe you forgot the second part of that image which accurately describes you at this point.

I fail to see where I am wrong in this.

[Otis Da HousKat]

What? I said loli is both drawn and real, because the definition of loli is simply underage female research, the is no restriction to the medium.
You must have misunderstood my post. Telling you to go back to your shota was supposed to get you raging. If I said go back to your loli, you wouldn't have taken much offense in that.
I fail to see where I am wrong in this.

definition≠common usage

So you are just being a handicap and trying to get people angry? I'm providing reason to my actions and instead of replying appropriately you try to troll me? Real mature.

The part that describes most trolls as posting handicapped opinions then saying they were just trolling fits you perfectly right now.

[Loz]

I like Monty's avatar :D

[Vertzer]

So you are just being a handicap and trying to get people angry? I'm providing reason to my actions and instead of replying appropriately you try to troll me? Real mature.

Ok look, when saying loli, it is already understood that you are talking about female child research, putting real, drawn or anything else in there is simply redundant. I don't see how you're not understanding this.

[Otis Da HousKat]

Ok look, when saying loli, it is already understood that you are talking about female child research, putting real, drawn or anything else in there is simply redundant. I don't see how you're not understanding this.

No, the common usage of loli implies drawn child research.

[Vertzer]

No, the common usage of loli implies drawn child research.

Since when? People use loli when referring to female child research, no matter the medium. Not to mention that that is the correct definition.

[Otis Da HousKat]

Since when? People use loli when referring to female child research, no matter the medium. Not to mention that that is the correct definition.

Who cares what the "correct" definition is? You know what creates a definition for a word? The common usage of it. Of the hundreds(thousands?) of times I've seen the word loli used, it has always meant animated child research specifically. The definition of child pron as being animated is not wrong. I haven't even said it is exclusively animated; you seem to think I did.

If we look at your definition of what loli is your argument makes no sense. According to you, loli can be both real and animated child research. You've said my use of loli as being animated research is wrong. What?

Actually, your original argument was that my redundant use of child research terms(with your definitions) made them wrong. So by this reasoning(not logic), when I said loli research is animated and differentiated it from real and simulated child research I am wrong on all three counts. None of those are child research then


This a simple linguistic concept that you cannot seem to grasp. Words definitions are not a set entity, and the redundant use of terms does not invalidate their meaning. In this case it served to separate them. You clearly understood what I meant, as you would not be able to argue against it if you didn't.


This is what you're arguing and it's clearly wrong.

 

[Vertzer]

Of the hundreds(thousands?) of times I've seen the word loli used, it has always meant animated child research specifically.

I'm not even gonna ask.

According to you, loli can be both real and animated child research. You've said my use of loli as being animated research is wrong. What?

Stop pulling stuff out of your ass. I said it was odd for you to use real and loli in the same sentence.

Actually, your original argument was that my redundant use of child research terms(with your definitions) made them wrong. So by this reasoning(not logic), when I said loli research is animated and differentiated it from real and simulated child research I am wrong on all three counts. None of those are child research then.

What?

redundant use of terms does not invalidate their meaning. This is what you're arguing and it's clearly wrong.

I never said it does, only thing I'm arguing here is the fact that loli refers to any type of female child research, whether it be real or drawn.

Ediiiiittt

In this case it served to separate them.

Then you could have simply put "Is it real or drawn?" Again, having real and loli in that same sentence simply doesn't make sense.

[Otis Da HousKat]

Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.

Do you know what linguistics are? Don't post a wikipedia article or something similar as you are prone to do. That means you have no idea if you can't explain it yourself.

Ediiiiittt Then you could have simply put "Is it real or drawn?" Again, having real and loli in that same sentence simply doesn't make sense.

You're arguing what I said was wrong. Not making sense would mean there are conflicting terms, redundancy is not a conflict.

[Vertzer]

Quite frankly I couldn't give a stuff what linguistics are at this point. The way I see it is that you've utilized the world loli improperly and are too stubborn to accept it.

[Otis Da HousKat]

Quite frankly I couldn't give a stuff what linguistics are at this point.

Then you just invalidated your whole argument as that is what this is all about. You don't even understand the science behind what you are arguing.

[Vertzer]

What are you on about, you used loli improperly, there is nothing more to it.

[Otis Da HousKat]

What are you on about, you used loli improperly, there is nothing more to it.

I keep providing examples and explanations of why you're wrong, and your last posts can be summed up by, "Nope, you're wrong."

Using loli improperly would mean loli is not animated research. You've said it is. You're contradicting your own damn argument now. I used redundant words, not improper words.