It's entirely subjective. Some artists draw 13 year olds with more womanly features than others draw adults. So just like you acknowledged, "lolis" aren't necessarily kids, they're just an archetype for character models.
there is no more truth in anything you say than someone who explains existence itself as subjective because it all has to go through our eyes and brains, which are purportedly so imperfect as to be untruthful all the time, and thus anything can be truth. using your logic, we could excuse shameless digitally created child pornography by merely claiming that the author has created a world in which characters who look like, act like, and say that they are 10 years old are in fact 3000 year old dragons - a quirk of language or somesuch. and, if the author shuts up and neither denies nor confirms? whoops, can't call anyone a pedophile, that'd be jumping to conclusions!
it's mental olympics. we have to actually lay down objective facts at some point to get anywhere, so let me do just that:
people who jack it to kids are pedophiles and ought face death (hopefully we agree on this?). looking like a kid is a very significant characteristic of being one and it is indeed a very significant characteristic that pedophiles look out for. i can say with confidence pedophiles would not be happy with "young and innocent"-acting geriatrics; it is not a personality thing. however, even then, it is to my understanding that a lot of depicted lolis do act young and innocent. i cannot confirm because i'm not a pedophile and don't watch anime, so forgive any mild inaccuracies here, but i doubt i'm wrong.
so, lolis are made to look like kids, and very often have the mannerisms of, act like, and trigger the same emotional responses within our brains as kids, especially regarding responses to their physical appearance. lolis are therefore made to depict kids. they look, walk, and quack like ducks, and therefore must be ducks, created by a human on the other side of the pen who knows what ducks look like and what pen-strokes he should perform to create one on the paper.
thusly
lolis = kids
jacking it to lolis = jacking it to kids
nothing here i said can be disproven except by a moral relativism and subjectivism so idiotic that i could kill you and claim that death in my culture is actually life, and you'd have to accept it or risk infringing on my free speech. any resistance on your part would be agreeing that there exist objective facts, making you a disgusting death-deserving hypocrite when you go on about muh author's intent regarding child porn.
yeah, it's a 3000 year old dragon, buddy.
Exactly. Thank you for supporting my point.
It's entirely subjective. Some artists draw 13 year olds with more womanly features than others draw adults. So just like you acknowledged, "lolis" aren't necessarily kids, they're just an archetype for character models.
there is no more truth in anything you say than someone who explains existence itself as subjective because it all has to go through our eyes and brains, which are purportedly so imperfect as to be untruthful all the time, and thus anything can be truth. using your logic, we could excuse shameless digitally created child pornography by merely claiming that the author has created a world in which characters who look like, act like, and say that they are 10 years old are in fact 3000 year old dragons - a quirk of language or somesuch. and, if the author shuts up and neither denies nor confirms? whoops, can't call anyone a pedophile, that'd be jumping to conclusions!
it's mental olympics. we have to actually lay down objective facts at some point to get anywhere, so let me do just that:
people who jack it to kids are pedophiles and ought face death (hopefully we agree on this?). looking like a kid is a very significant characteristic of being one and it is indeed a very significant characteristic that pedophiles look out for. i can say with confidence pedophiles would not be happy with "young and innocent"-acting geriatrics; it is not a personality thing. however, even then, it is to my understanding that a lot of depicted lolis do act young and innocent. i cannot confirm because i'm not a pedophile and don't watch anime, so forgive any mild inaccuracies here, but i doubt i'm wrong.
so, lolis are made to look like kids, and very often have the mannerisms of, act like, and trigger the same emotional responses within our brains as kids, especially regarding responses to their physical appearance. lolis are therefore made to depict kids. they look, walk, and quack like ducks, and therefore must be ducks, created by a human on the other side of the pen who knows what ducks look like and what pen-strokes he should perform to create one on the paper.
thusly
lolis = kids
jacking it to lolis = jacking it to kids
nothing here i said can be disproven except by a moral relativism and subjectivism so idiotic that i could kill you and claim that death in my culture is actually life, and you'd have to accept it or risk infringing on my free speech. any resistance on your part would be agreeing that there exist objective facts, making you a disgusting death-deserving hypocrite when you go on about muh author's intent regarding child porn.
There is a bunch of pedos on here who will do any mental gymnastics necessary to deny it