Then to protect myself (the only person who matters), I should definitely kill them first… Also because I’m paranoid and well-aware of Chinese history, I’d best do this, too: Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia Wait, same person?
1 Like
Well that’s the thing, right, they’re operating on the presumption that these images are signs of intent to act, are consumed and engaged with as an expression of desired act, rather than desire itself. It stems from a failure to differentiate between reality and fiction on a fundamental level.
It also stems from a failure to understand the difference between a person whose interested in fantastical artwork, someone with a sexual interest in real children, and a child predator. All 3 are distinct categories, though, not precluded from overlapping.
It goes in-line with the rationale behind banning child-like sex dolls. In the Utah legislature, they flat-out used child pornography offenses as a predicate for legislative justification, based on nothing but a handful of highly-publicized news releases wherein people being investigated for CSAM also happened to own a child-like sex doll.
Such a rationale does not withstand even the most basic of scrutiny, since it’s associative prohibition, which presumptively violates due process, especially when the two matters are not intrinsically related.
5 Likes
And when I responded with this Danish article: Looking for Research He responded with… nothing. He stopped that line of questioning. Took another of my words out of context and ask about that. At this point, all I need to do is keep spamming that Danish article.
3 Likes
A couple of things.
When it comes to anything lolicon-related, 99%+ of people do not have an informed opinion because they do not see it necessary or lack the maturity or patience to form a ration-based view.
It’s safe to assume that most arguments are unfiltered arguments that they picked up from someone else, most likely a top-scoring redditor or an e-celeb influencer.
This is pretty common, anyway.
Another issue is that advocating for Prostasia’s goals, context-relevant “arguing in favor of lolicon”, is technically against Reddit’s ToS against advocating sexualization of minors.
See this warning message I got.
I was not sharing any pictures of drawn children, nor was I requesting them; I use this account solely to debate about “high-risk” topics, and the post in question was defending the consumption of lolicon.
It is natural that users of a plattform that explicitly tells you to not argue in favor of something, will shift its culture to antagonize said thing.
Both points also intersect with eachother in that content creators are fed new policies by their plattforms to operate under (such as Patreon cracking down on taboo sexual content), which leads content creators to get alienated by said content and perhaps even hostilic.
The opinions of a content creator gets drip-fed down to consumers, who then espouse their opinions as fact.
2 Likes
Then they’ll argue from rabble and talk about this mythical animal called a “normal person”: Reddit - Dive into anything What is that? Is it edible?
1 Like