>make thread bitching about porn after firstpage is porn for half a week
>pornposting goes down and catalog has non-porn related threads for a few days
>today
>apparently someone is posting [drawn] child porn feat. animal dicks in the porn thread, now on the front page
im calling cia hbu
>>695920noooooo!!! not you too chihuahuahuanon!!!!!11 don't beleive the moral rabble eousers!!
>>695921do you think that guy is lifting the actualy earth irl? no? then sybau
>>695922>sybauso mr rape fiend is a zoomer.. i knew it
mr fiend there’s still time to save chiwawa anon if we act NOW
pic unrelated btw don’t worry about it
>>695921this
also why does so much questionable shit make its way on to here? like how don’t we have access to automated image screening filters like meta? what the fuck man
>>695929that was the first time using the term. i already cringe, but cant deleet now.
>>695930i mean you really want posting porn to be expressly limited just so other types of posting can keep up? why dont you just post more? be the change you want to see.
also you could just use the "sfw" board next to the overboard button at the top of the screen fyi>>695932oh really? i haven't seen any actual csam in that thread, i must have logged off earlier
>>695933to be clear i think mergeing some of the porn threads might not be a bad idea, like atleast my hentai thread and the second porn general might as well be the same if it doesn't overflow.
>>695934i don't think that's what they were saying.
>>695855>animal dicks they fucking banned them 😭😭😭😭😭
i think its time to launch a formal complaint against this gross misuse of rule 10.
>>695933>oh really? i haven't seen any actual csam in that thread, i must have logged off earlieri didn’t mean to imply that this was posted in the porn thread because it was not. it might have been its own thread or posted under something unrelated, i just reported and noped the fuck out as quickly as possible. likely bad actors trying to brigade.
>>695935>i don't think that's what they were saying.correct
>>695930everyone hates lolifags because youre annoying. you spam ur retarded fetish everywhere and when people get annoyed you get way too defensive, which is kind of suspicious if you ask me
if you want to jerk off to drawn cp go ahead and do it but stop telling everyone about it like its show and tell
>>695951brace yourself anon.
that someone that i was replying to? it was also me.
chew on that for a little while and get back to me
>>695955huh, yet people that hates lolifags tend to be pearl clutching faggots that pursue them to get triggered, 99% of the lolifags are in their own little world and only interact with other lolifags but people like you likes you pretend they go around posting it, most of the time outside them is them defending it from retards saying they need to be put in gas chambers for ofending their retarded sensibilities and nothing else.
if you don't like it it's your problem, if you think somehow fictional beings are truly being molested its also on you, when you go bothering people and making seethe threads like this don't expect that they won't shoot back.
>>696125Trvke that destroyed siberia
Lolifags are the transpeople of the left
>>696360They're not spamming it anywhere. Lolifags tend to stay in their own threads like any people posting fetish porn. They don't go to other generals to spam loli shit
What happen is you don't like it so whenever you see it you hyperfocus on it. This gives the impression that they are everywhere. It's like how rightoids complained that trans people are "being pushed everywhere" simply by existing. Even though transpeople just want to keep to themselves, and what happened is that angry hetmoids just hyperfocus on transpeople whenever they see them, so that gives the impression that transpeople are indeed appearing everywhere
>>696379Its the same logic behinds chvds thinking that hollywood is pushing wokeness everywhere
If you're used to seeing an all white cast in movies, whenever you see black actors your brain would be hardwired to noootice that because it is an abnormality (because they are so rare). This is why rightoids think that hollywood producers are pushing for black people to be included in movies everywhere, even though any person who have never watched a movie before and thus has no expectation of what a "normal" movie should look like would be more likely to believe that there is a conspiracy to push for white actors instead, since there are much more whites than blacks in mobies
>>696115irc just drawings of beast/feral, not a fan myself but i post tentacles and monster girls so>>696360if you throw a fit at seeing a drawing of a child, that is actually your problem, patrón
>>696406cute!!!!!!!!
>>696429thank you dr. maupin
>>696430its a drawing of child, and im assuming you imply sexual context as well. either way it is still just that:
a drawing >>696440A. lolicon are drawings depicting child sex abuse
B. the intent of the images is clearly to incite sexual arousal at the sight of the depiction of child sex abuse
C. the target audience would be people who are aroused by this depiction
>>696442>A. lolicon are drawings depicting child sex abuseimpossible as there is no children involded on the image and many they are concenting like an adult wound, which is impossible for a child to do, but they are not real so they can act in ways that break reality
>B. the intent of the images is clearly to incite sexual arousal at the sight of the depiction of child sex abuseas there is no child sexual abuse can't be real and a depiction of it need to have real life tethers to the deed to be a despiction of it, otherwise is just smut.
>C. the target audience would be people who are aroused by this depictionjust like any smut, just like beating off to an anime femboy.
>>696449>youre acting like art is born out of thin airit can also be born out of irrelevant deviations to real life, but in either way they are fictional.
>art has meaning and says something about its authorsit only has the meaning the artists want to part in the art, anything else is from the consumer, you see a child, i see an anime character no diferent than a drawing of a pipe.
>>696451thats some liberal horseshit. you want to consume drawn cp go ahead, but dont deny the fact that art is made to communicate someones view of reality. a drawing of a pipe would be impossible if pipes didnt exist in the real world.
if its just a fictionalized drawing with no meaning whatsoever, why draw it? why take interest in it? its just lines on paper right?
>>696450>A. lolicon are drawings depicting child sex abuse<impossible as there is no children involded on the image[…]Ok, thanks for letting us know that you're completely unreasonable and we shouldn't waste our time with you. If you can't recognize the fact that you can
depict violent acts through drawings, then I don't think it's possible to reason with you. It's pure gaslighting at this point.
>>696453>thats some liberal horseshitjust like anything you don't like.
> you want to consume drawn cp go ahead,i don't, i just don't get triggered and think this openly dementia over some niche fetish does more harm to things than good, such are creating retards spooked on pedophilia being a omnipresent ghost.
>but dont deny the fact that art is made to communicate someones view of reality.and just like communication you can say nothing at all or just spew wind, if the artist communicate that red is blue red won't become blue to people that see it, or that the artist really believe such, same thing with any drawn smut, no one is gonna fuck rocks because someone made porn of crystal fucking gems.
>a drawing of a pipe would be impossible if pipes didnt exist in the real world.and a latter can be a pipe if the artists want to.
>if its just a fictionalized drawing with no meaning whatsoever, why draw it? same reason all things exist, people wanted it, so they made it.
>why take interest in it?it tickled their fancy, why you dislike something, same reason, most things have no deep philosophical meaning.
>its just lines on paper right?yes, it's good you agree, people can just like the simplest of things, mario is a famous video game after all.
>>696458>Ok, thanks for letting us know that you're completely unreasonable and we shouldn't waste our time with you.only effort for effort :^).
> If you can't recognize the fact that you can depict violent acts through drawings,you can despict anything through anything, but won't make things that don't dispict something become an actual crime, no child was abused in the making of the picture, thus can't be a depiction of CSAM, simple as.
>>696461yea but then is no longer the author its the consumer, if two consumers have different views form the author none of the three are right because its for the viewers interaction, an art can be meaningless or meaningful from a point of view of the author, but can be also meaningful or meaningless from the viewer.
this is why this is gonna go forever.
>>696447i feel stupid for not checking if the study was linked in the article itself, i spent the last half an hour looking for it, and im pretty sure i found it in pdf format, but of course its in fucking danish lmfao
>>696449do you think vladimir nabokov was a paedophile for writing lolita?
>>696460so drawings are just lines on a paper with no meaning or association, and people just like it for no reason? they just fancy it because that specific shape looks cool?
so why do you jerk off to a drawing of a child but dont jerk off to a drawing of an apple, isnt it the same thing?
>>696470>so why do you jerk off to a drawing of a child but dont jerk off to a drawing of an apple, isnt it the same thing?first of all who said i didn't, second of all they are both drawing yes, anything you pose on a sexual light, even a cave, can light the neurons of someone, even animals, just read about the Grape-Kun case for more details, does it mean the Penguin wanted to fuck humans, no, he wanted an anime character.
>>696467>>696468>picrel is LITERALLY ME because i watched the movie>>696473nobody is denying that, moron. just because the art
depicts a violent act, a sexual act or whatever, does not
necessarily mean that the author or viewer wants to
partake in what is depicted. nobody watched saw and then recreated the saw traps because they saw it in a movie.
>>696481ah yeah no shit, you really surprise me with the intellect of your observation.
>>696483someone placing their hand on the breast of a child.
>>696430This is textbook moralism. No person is being harmed in the real world, all people being harmed are being harmed in the world of ideas and imagination. Therefore it commits no offense other than being "evil" or "degenerate".
Let's write a short story: once upon a time there were 10 cute little puppies and each got stepped on by a big mean farmer or something and they all died very painfully and went to hell eternally because god made some sort of tragic mistake. The end.
Now how many puppies did I hurt? how many problems did I cause in the real world other than making you read shit fiction?
>>696499anyways im going to link this post i made:
>>690125unless you have substantial evidence to the contrary, i really don't care how you feel. like this anon said:
>>696125most lolicon dont care enough to engage in this discussion, because you are more interested in pedantic appeals to emotion "but what if the drawing was REAL tho?!?!?!11?!" than making any real argument.
>>696510>>696486finally you gave in and admitted its a drawn depiction of
child sexual abuse. now youre retreating to the ole "le moralism" cope.
>>696515>drawn depiction- Guro is a drawn depiction of murder
- The Godfather was a filmographic acted depiction of a mafia commiting various unmoral and unethical acts
- Homestuck was a drawn depiction of teenagers saying slurs
>>696515holy shit i
never denied that it was
child sexual abuse (atleast by any real world standard.)
of course of a child cant consent, then ant sex involving them would fall under abuse (ie violation of consent) but in fiction we violate others all the time, murder, rape, theft, whatever. it is not the same as reality, and there is no evidence it influences reality.
and finally,
I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT i don't care if you find it immoral or disgusting or "abusive" (in the realm of fiction) because, and i cannot stress this enough:
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU FEEL and i'll leave you with this nabokov quote from an interview about his novel lolita.
>>696521wow, you le won, now he is le pedo and le evil over nothing, how special.
anyway i just murdered someone online the fbi is coming after me.
>>696554I am writing fiction, please be patient.
This is only art.
>>696560This is fiction. Please calm down, sir.
I am only an artist.
Unique IPs: 31