How do I argue against this?

Art and fiction
#1

There is no conflation to be made. It is as easy as this: If the childform was no part of your fetish, why even include it and request it? Why commission art about it? why have people write about it? There would be no need. So it is part of your fetish, and thusly, part of your sexual arousal that ties to this kind of thing.

The answer to this is: If there is no need for the childform to be an element of your desires, it would not be there. It does give you sexual arousal, and since, as I stated before, you seek it out and sought it out for over a decade, it is certainly sexual attraction present. That you are denying the obvious is just retarded.

Sexual attraction indicates you find someone, or in some cases, something, sexually appealing to you. In your case, you find TG stuff, sexually appealing. This, for you, also seem to involve child-characters.

Sexual arousal indicates you have some sort of physical response to something. Meaning this shit, gives you a boner and gets your libido going. So in short, this does not really make your argument any better at all, if anything it tells us you pop a boner when you look at little winnie transforming and want to give your wee-micro a helping hand. So to speak.

He is referring to this art: Ghoul School TF YCH - closed- by DustyError -- Fur Affinity [dot] net

First off I think he gets the definitions of arousal and attraction wrong. Are there any better definitions and if so where can I find them?

These guys think having arousal is the same as attraction. Which isn’t right in my opinion.

#2

Because the human mind can and does compartmentalize certain forms or ideallic depictions based on how they’re presented.

You can find loli hentai attractive and not have those exact same tastes carry over to actual children.

1 Like
#3

You know, I ALMOST understand the “argument” about “liking the body of a loli” being “dangerous” because it is pretty much the same thing as the real thing. But, I can tell you that :

  1. No, is not is the same thing ^^", being a cartoon makes a lot of difference, and I’m talking about appearance too.

  2. It doesn’t matter that much if the body is “OK” . Even if 1 wasn’t true, I wouldn’t be able to have sex with someone if I don’t like its face. Are those guys really saying that their case is not the same? :thinking:

52581609f2d9317a2ba2030043641a4a

1 Like
#4

Interesting, is there research on this?

#5

There is, but I don’t know the source of this particular cited example.

image
image905×570 91.9 KB

1 Like
#6

Ponies (MLP) vs. actual horses come to mind, too.

2 Likes
#7

Here more of their faulty logic:https://kiwifarms.net/threads/jacob-s-blaustein-ryu238-ryu289.99675/post-10144752

I don’t think he insists on exclusivity necessarily, but his argument is just as stupid anyway: he argues that some people can molest kids without being sexually attracted to them at all.

He says some child molesters are just opportunistic and would molest anyone, adults, men, women or children. He claims it’s motivated by sadistic, non sexual urges, not a genuine sexual attraction.

Maybe this is correct in some spergy, academic psych context, but (and this is Jacob’s poor grasp of language) that’s not what the word means in English in general.

It’s like the dumb gotcha reddit nerds try to pull with tomatoes being a fruit. Yes, tomatos are botanically/anatomically the fruit of the plant but that’s not what the word means by default. That’s only what the word means in a narrow, non-standard context.

Now take fruit vs veggie and apply it to his gross, horrifying sexual interest

Language is descriptive not prescriptive. He is trying to have the words define the truth instead of explaining it. By doing so they are trying to control the argument and make a strawman that doesn’t follow a more precise definition like I am using.

This guy is worse:

Homosexuality isn’t a crime. Pedophilia is a crime. @ryu289, you yourself have engaged in one of the fallacies you’re so obsessed with (and one you called out Coffey on like a complete retard)- a strawman fallacy. You’re misrepresenting their argument by making it easier to attack. This would have stood if we were still in the ages where homosexuals were stoned to death in the streets, or if we all lived in some middle eastern shithole. Yet, we don’t. You are comparing apples and oranges. A much better argument would have been:

“Replace ‘pedophile’ with ‘rapist’ we can see how absurd your logic is.”

Pedophiles act upon those who cannot consent, making them the exact same as (if not worse than) rapists. Notice how your argument therein holds zero water still, considering the fact that both of them are disgusting criminals. This is because you are a dumb retard who fucks little girls and hides behind gay people.

Also, since pedophilia is a crime, if you are a “MAP ally,” then you are a criminal accomplice and can go to prison.

(Also, yes. Pedophilia applies to non-offenders as well. You can be a pedophile without sexually assaulting children. The idea that you can’t is just fucking stupid, especially when pedophilia is literally a mental disorder that can be diagnosed and can get people referred to therapy.)

And here

I use the most up-to-date legal definitions available because they determine whether or not people like you rot in prison. Cope and seethe all you’d like, the law is above every single definition from every single Wordpress website you scour through. Then again, I don’t expect pedophiles like you to enjoy legality very much.

And here

You keep mentioning this, yet I keep giving you legal definition after legal definition that child sex abuse means pedophilia regardless of attraction.

This feels like a lazy induction. Like because the law defines something, that makes it true. It’s like the arguemnts against gay marriage.

1 Like
#8

I don’t know who said the below but that is true, (pretty much all other things are not)

Also, I’m not sure why you want to argue with people from kiwifarm. Do you know what Kiwifarm is, right? Is just a bunch of virgin trolls who think they are dangerous. I already play with them some time ago in a thread that was bothering me, and mess with their heads until they stop talking. Want me to do it again in this one? I kinda miss those guys, they are fun :3

1 Like
#9

Nothing wrong with being a virgin.

1 Like
#10

True, but they don’t like being called that, that’s why I do. Annoying them is fun :3