@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Proved my point many times in Handley case, loli can be illegal.
English
Schizophrenic dude
399 posts
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe Circular reasoning (combined with begging the question) to make a "gatcha tactic" lol piss off
English
Let's clarify for the anti lolicon pedos
If you veiw clear distinguishable fictional media and immediately think of children in a sexually abusive way or people who jerk it to then you are a pedophile having sexual fantasies about children full stop
Dunesi@ImDunesi
Let's clarify something to all the loli enjoyers out there: You consume and find pleasure in that material due to the child-like features of the character. Pedophilia is the attraction to children. You as a result, are attracted to media representing children, therefore kids.
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe It gives off the impression not fool, which just proves my point?!
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe And pandering only occurs when someone purposely passes the art off as csam in a way people believe its actually csam
Thats it
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Pandering and the miller test are different, just because its art doesn't give it full immunity?! Pandering is still illegal
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe No ones ignoring it ive pointed out how 18 u.s.c. § 2252a uses the Miller test which lolisho fails all 3 parts due to it being art protected under the first amendment
And youve ignored it
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe No it really doesn't you're just yapping and yapping in circles
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Ignoring 18 U.S.C. § 2252A is cherry picking
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe The fake nature of drawing is irrelevant when you try to appeal to trivailty since you mentioned pandering it off already just proves my point that its illegal.
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe Appeal to triviality
1. It quite literally does matter if its indistinguishable or not
2. no intent literally doesn't matter what matters is if someone PANDERS IT OFF AS CSAM
3. The art you refer to is age play art which is not illegal lol
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Doesn't make it illegal in all context
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Pandering includes any promotion that conveys the impression.
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe Incorrect it must be indistinguishable or identifiable to be illegal
Pandering only applys if someone where to describe the content as if it was actually bonified csam
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Can you show me where it says that in the PROTECT act?
English
@Not_him_E @VeXxCoRe That's plain incorrect the protect act states it needs to be indistinguishable to an actual minor or contain an identifiable actual minor
There is no criminalization of "intent" because it doesn't intend to look like a child to begin with
English
@Bejinkii @jizzwanka @hola83057988505 They deadass been open nsfw since they were 13, and I feel like they are already in a porn addiction
English
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Protect act literally was made because of Ashcroft, pandering, and intent can be illegal if the intent for it to be a child appearance
English
@LolisAreCunny @VeXxCoRe Literally right, search up where Ashcroft came from(2002) and where Protect came from(2003) gen a annoyance bro
English
@LolisAreCunny Because I have been whooping your ass for the entire argument
English
@Not_him_E Im not guilty of pandering ☠️ ive never once tried saying lolisho is "csam" abd I never will im literally innocent and your making accusations you cant back 😂
Shut the fuck up you illiterate ignorant walking lobotomy youve genuinely been strawmanning my arguments for hours
English
@LolisAreCunny You committed more fallacies than me, son. I brought up good points while you are ignorant
English
@LolisAreCunny never talked about you, strawman fallacy too, I literally said, "Pandering, you will be guilty," which will apply to everyone.
English