Evil is not evil is not evil. Looking at KOS-MOS, at one year old because it's an android but drawn as a fully developed woman who has all the knowledge of the most war-torn adult, and looking at Mieu, a one year old android but drawn as a fully developed woman but who is entirely innocent and clueless of the world and sexuality, and looking at Chachazero, a one year old android (lots of them exist, apparently) who is drawn as an underdeveloped woman but who is knowledgable about the roles of sexuality and maturity in society, and... Hmm... I'm drawing a blank for a one-year-old android that is both ignorant and underdeveloped to round out the quadrant, but you get the point I'm sure one exists.
Each one of the four quadrants starts with "one-year-old android". But KOS-MOS, with a form of an adult and the mind of an adult (if a PTSD-filled psychotic one), clearly isn't "loli" by most definitions except the broadest technical sense. The Terminator isn't a shota, but by strict definition, Arnold Schwartzenegger is, indeed, a shota actor, because that sentient humanoid isn't over 18 years, and he appears naked in some scenes. The scandal!
So your definition of "certain age" doesn't work.
The other three quadrants are trickier. The one I couldn't think of an example of, yeah, obviously shota/loli. Child-like in mentality and appearance (and age, as all four are 1-year-old robots). That's bad. But what of Mieu, physically adult-scale, but mind of a child? Obviously, that's bad, right? The whole point of the laws is to protect child innocence and minds. But if I showed you a picture of Mieu, you would not know she had that tabula-rasa mind. And does that mean innocent idiots are never legally adults? And in quadrant three, does someone with, say, puberty blockers so they don't grow like standard kids never qualify as an adult no matter their age or wisdom? Now, Chachazero, being a SMART one-year-old android, commissioned an adult body to be made for herself. At what point in the data transfer process does it go from Loli to not? If they copy-paste instead of cut-paste, is she simultaneously both despite being the same entity?
There's a reason the official definition for these things is "I'll know it when I see it", because simply defining something as you did, leaves much to be desired. Too many loopholes to close.
So TL;DR: Your definition is bad. The proper definition is "it is 100% subjective, but ideally subjective based upon a communal agreed-upon case-by-case assessment."
[EDIT: And before you say "but true-AI androids don't exist!", they do in anime and video games and books. And we're talking about books, not things that exist in real life. So you need a definition that includes age/time magic, ageless entities, aliens with accelerated lifecycles, and robots.]
Evil is not evil is not evil. Looking at KOS-MOS, at one year old because it's an android but drawn as a fully developed woman who has all the knowledge of the most war-torn adult, and looking at Mieu, a one year old android but drawn as a fully developed woman but who is entirely innocent and clueless of the world and sexuality, and looking at Chachazero, a one year old android (lots of them exist, apparently) who is drawn as an underdeveloped woman but who is knowledgable about the roles of sexuality and maturity in society, and... Hmm... I'm drawing a blank for a one-year-old android that is both ignorant and underdeveloped to round out the quadrant, but you get the point I'm sure one exists.
Each one of the four quadrants starts with "one-year-old android". But KOS-MOS, with a form of an adult and the mind of an adult (if a PTSD-filled psychotic one), clearly isn't "loli" by most definitions except the broadest technical sense. The Terminator isn't a shota, but by strict definition, Arnold Schwartzenegger is, indeed, a shota actor, because that sentient humanoid isn't over 18 years, and he appears naked in some scenes. The scandal!
So your definition of "certain age" doesn't work.
The other three quadrants are trickier. The one I couldn't think of an example of, yeah, obviously shota/loli. Child-like in mentality and appearance (and age, as all four are 1-year-old robots). That's bad. But what of Mieu, physically adult-scale, but mind of a child? Obviously, that's bad, right? The whole point of the laws is to protect child innocence and minds. But if I showed you a picture of Mieu, you would not know she had that tabula-rasa mind. And does that mean innocent idiots are never legally adults? And in quadrant three, does someone with, say, puberty blockers so they don't grow like standard kids never qualify as an adult no matter their age or wisdom? Now, Chachazero, being a SMART one-year-old android, commissioned an adult body to be made for herself. At what point in the data transfer process does it go from Loli to not? If they copy-paste instead of cut-paste, is she simultaneously both despite being the same entity?
There's a reason the official definition for these things is "I'll know it when I see it", because simply defining something as you did, leaves much to be desired. Too many loopholes to close.
So TL;DR: Your definition is bad. The proper definition is "it is 100% subjective, but ideally subjective based upon a communal agreed-upon case-by-case assessment."
[EDIT: And before you say "but true-AI androids don't exist!", they do in anime and video games and books. And we're talking about books, not things that exist in real life. So you need a definition that includes magic, ageless entities, aliens with accelerated lifecycles, and robots.]
Evil is not evil is not evil. Looking at KOS-MOS, at one year old because it's an android but drawn as a fully developed woman who has all the knowledge of the most war-torn adult, and looking at Mieu, a one year old android but drawn as a fully developed woman but who is entirely innocent and clueless of the world and sexuality, and looking at Chachazero, a one year old android (lots of them exist, apparently) who is drawn as an underdeveloped woman but who is knowledgable about the roles of sexuality and maturity in society, and... Hmm... I'm drawing a blank for a one-year-old android that is both ignorant and underdeveloped to round out the quadrant, but you get the point I'm sure one exists.
Each one of the four quadrants starts with "one-year-old android". But KOS-MOS, with a form of an adult and the mind of an adult (if a PTSD-filled psychotic one), clearly isn't "loli" by most definitions except the broadest technical sense. The Terminator isn't a shota, but by strict definition, Arnold Schwartzenegger is, indeed, a shota actor, because that sentient humanoid isn't over 18 years, and he appears naked in some scenes. The scandal!
So your definition of "certain age" doesn't work.
The other three quadrants are trickier. The one I couldn't think of an example of, yeah, obviously shota/loli. Child-like in mentality and appearance (and age, as all four are 1-year-old robots). That's bad. But what of Mieu, physically adult-scale, but mind of a child? Obviously, that's bad, right? The whole point of the laws is to protect child innocence and minds. But if I showed you a picture of Mieu, you would not know she had that tabula-rasa mind. And does that mean innocent idiots are never legally adults? And in quadrant three, does someone with, say, puberty blockers so they don't grow like standard kids never qualify as an adult no matter their age or wisdom? Now, Chachazero, being a SMART one-year-old android, commissioned an adult body to be made for herself. At what point in the data transfer process does it go from Loli to not? If they copy-paste instead of cut-paste, is she simultaneously both despite being the same entity?
There's a reason the official definition for these things is "I'll know it when I see it", because simply defining something as you did, leaves much to be desired. Too many loopholes to close.
So TL;DR: Your definition is bad. The proper definition is "it is 100% subjective, but ideally subjective based upon a communal agreed-upon case-by-case assessment."
Evil is not evil is not evil. Looking at KOS-MOS, at one year old because it's an android but drawn as a fully developed woman who has all the knowledge of the most war-torn adult, and looking at Mieu, a one year old android but drawn as a fully developed woman but who is entirely innocent and clueless of the world and sexuality, and looking at Chachazero, a one year old android (lots of them exist, apparently) who is drawn as an underdeveloped woman but who is knowledgable about the roles of sexuality and maturity in society, and... Hmm... I'm drawing a blank for a one-year-old android that is both ignorant and underdeveloped to round out the quadrant, but you get the point I'm sure one exists.
Each one of the four quadrants starts with "one-year-old android". But KOS-MOS, with a form of an adult and the mind of an adult (if a PTSD-filled psychotic one), clearly isn't "loli" by most definitions except the broadest technical sense. The Terminator isn't a shota, but by strict definition, Arnold Schwartzenegger is, indeed, a shota actor, because that sentient humanoid isn't over 18 years, and he appears naked in some scenes. The scandal!
So your definition of "certain age" doesn't work.
The other three quadrants are trickier. The one I couldn't think of an example of, yeah, obviously shota/loli. Child-like in mentality and appearance (and age, as all four are 1-year-old robots). That's bad. But what of Mieu, physically adult-scale, but mind of a child? Obviously, that's bad, right? The whole point of the laws is to protect child innocence and minds. But if I showed you a picture of Mieu, you would not know she had that tabula-rasa mind. And does that mean innocent idiots are never legally adults? And in quadrant three, does someone with neotony never qualify as an adult no matter their age or wisdom? Now, Chachazero, being a SMART one-year-old android, commissioned an adult body to be made for herself. At what point in the data transfer process does it go from Loli to not? If they copy-paste instead of cut-paste, is she simultaneously both despite being the same entity?
There's a reason the official definition for these things is "I'll know it when I see it", because simply defining something as you did, leaves much to be desired. Too many loopholes to close.
So TL;DR: Your definition is bad. The proper definition is "it is 100% subjective, but ideally subjective based upon a communal agreed-upon case-by-case assessment."