I will be honest, I will never defend furry shit and lolicon.
I have seen way too much of this. "UWU, I am just a furry", then surprise, surprise, turns out they rape puppies to death. Kero, Toggle, Doug Spink...
I don't care how much people say it should be fine on here and this will be unpopular, but furry is absolute degeneracy. As much as the community tries to pretend it's all friendly and shit, some ungodly horror surfaces every time.
Animals and kids are the ones I am not willing to risk so adults get away with their sick fantasies. "Oh, they don't offend", until they do and by then it's too late.
Douglas Spink only associated with the furry community as part of an effort to promote zoophilia as far as I know, and while I never heard of toggle and could not find info on the drama, Kero did a good job hiding his criminal sexual activities.
I do believe that pornographic art communities should do a better job at keeping criminal sexual deviants out.
I support laws against zoo porn, sex attack/trafficker materials like the garbage created by girlsdoporn, as well as other pornographic material involving sex crimes being committed as part of the production, though artwork does not affect anybody and banning it is just a waste of police resources.
It most certainly is not a waste of police resource to catch people who are interested in screwing kids. Even if what they have done so far 'does not affect anybody'. Here I am talking about cartoons that are obviously kids, not some weird anime crap with overly large breasts. I am no fan of 'loli', but it's my understanding that it's the latter.
Frankly, I think the introduction of the standard 'does not affect anybody' has been quite harmful. They use it to justify anything. Including their 'neopronouns'.
If you tolerate degeneracy, your country will degenerate. Standards have to be upheld.
Definitely, as your comparison is quite weak. First of all, disagreement with government mandates is a fundamental free speech right. Watching kids get raped is not. Secondly, the connection is non-existent in your example.
But it is very reasonable that people who want to see cartoon kids get raped, might then proceed to child pornography of real kids, or even of actual child rape.
I will be honest, I will never defend furry shit and lolicon.
I have seen way too much of this. "UWU, I am just a furry", then surprise, surprise, turns out they rape puppies to death. Kero, Toggle, Doug Spink...
I don't care how much people say it should be fine on here and this will be unpopular, but furry is absolute degeneracy. As much as the community tries to pretend it's all friendly and shit, some ungodly horror surfaces every time.
Animals and kids are the ones I am not willing to risk so adults get away with their sick fantasies. "Oh, they don't offend", until they do and by then it's too late.
Douglas Spink only associated with the furry community as part of an effort to promote zoophilia as far as I know, and while I never heard of toggle and could not find info on the drama, Kero did a good job hiding his criminal sexual activities.
I do believe that pornographic art communities should do a better job at keeping criminal sexual deviants out.
I support laws against zoo porn, sex attack/trafficker materials like the garbage created by girlsdoporn, as well as other pornographic material involving sex crimes being committed as part of the production, though artwork does not affect anybody and banning it is just a waste of police resources.
It most certainly is not a waste of police resource to catch people who are interested in screwing kids. Even if what they have done so far 'does not affect anybody'. Here I am talking about cartoons that are obviously kids, not some weird anime crap with overly large breasts. I am no fan of 'loli', but it's my understanding that it's the latter.
Frankly, I think the introduction of the standard 'does not affect anybody' has been quite harmful. They use it to justify anything. Including their 'neopronouns'.
If you tolerate degeneracy, your country will degenerate. Standards have to be upheld.
If people who are sexually attracted to kids can be arrested and safely locked up before they molest kids, that is infinitely preferable.
Definitely, as your comparison is quite weak. First of all, disagreement with government mandates is a fundamental free speech right. Watching kids get raped is not. Secondly, the connection is non-existent in your example.
But it is very reasonable that people who want to see cartoon kids get raped, might then proceed to child pornography of real kids, or even of actual child rape.
People who like pornographic artwork aren't attracted to the real thing.
How do you know? If someone likes to see a cartoon 5-year-old get raped, I'd want him to stay away from kids.
ever heard of abstraction?
Yes, I agree that it's weird and that he probably should have bought a mannequin instead.