.

By your logic, it would be okay for someone to jerk off to a animated dog because it isn’t real

you just went way off-topic

You were saying how it doesn’t matter that they are underage because they were animated and arn’t real, that is exactly the type of logic you were using. Try using some common sense before you defend actual pedophiles next time.

go say that on twitter.
it actually f**king does, read us law or cry more.
take it or leave it.

Imagine thinking Twitter is the basin of logic and reasoning.

Stop using imagery of the pope in order to defend pedophilia.

your argument does have some flaws

Don't argue. Mock.

no, im just trying to outsmart the flawed logic they present

The correct response to such an opinion is mockery. If some pervert told you that zoonecrophilia was morally acceptable because it didn't hurt anyone, the correct response would be to mock them.

i suck at roasting and insults and only try to logically reason with my opponent, that only stirs the fire more and more

Don't even try, there are many pitfalls. Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with scorn and mockery.

you know what... you are right

So you're saying you can be attracted to an animal because it doesn't exist?

that is a completely different topic

No it's not, you're saying you can be attracted to a loli because they're fictional

yes, it f**king is

How is it different? You're saying that you can be attracted to anything as long as it's fictional

yeah, it's a fact.

It's a dumb fact
You're basically saying that being attracted to a dog isn't zoophilia if it's fictional

you just went far off the topic.

I'm staying on the topic
The topic is that you can't justify zoo/pedo/necrophilia by saying "it's fictional"

Bro what

you look at waaaay too many twitter propaganda

I dont use twitter
Also your trying to justify pedophilia

you really think it's that hard to know the most basic things ever?

no i am just processing the aspects of how your argument could be valid or not valid

it's valid, your "argument" clearly is not as far as i can tell.

you just present an aspect to this debate that baffles me a bit

That doesn’t matter 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

yes it does.
you don't know fiction and reality.
get a reality-check

say that on Twitter or Instagram, kid. i hate to tell but yes it is, kid.
accept it, fiction is literally different from reality no matter what, read US law if you don't live in Australia or something. give a reality check... i swear to god

its a mix of these variables
laws
points of view
creators lore
intention
and depiction

Not exactly lore.
We don't judge a fictional character to be crossing a line based on their creator's story,
when judging an animation to be immoral, we look only at what we can see.
Say, if the animation depicts sex with a group of pre-schoolers and the creator says they're actually 609 years old, it's still wrong because you can't see that they're 609 years old and in a normal human society, pre-schoolers are children.

okay

what?

all of the variables that can be compounded into this topic

+ 1 follower

fixed

I confirm this to be real.

you're basically saying that someone can just be sexually attracted to a fictional child and it's completely fine.

E

that doesn't matter tho

Just remembered this shit existed bruv💀