Anonymous12: Porra velho se vcs querem briga briga em outro canto k7 bate a porra da punheta e vai embora porra n fica falando merda pq vc tá aq pq pesquisou n foi seu dedo q escorregou
Anonymous14: Finding child-like traits arousing is not strictly limited to kid touchers. DDLG is a time-honored tradition. Anyway fap to your Kanna or no dessert for you, spoiled kids.
Anonymous18: @HighSchoolBoy2577: I was just pointing out that you happened to realize there's a distinction between real people and imaginary things. But you just said a lot of interesting stuff, so let's talk about it.
"Sick in the head." — or, as many would say, mentally ill. Yes? And we're also talking about people jacking off to imaginary crap, so we're not talking about people who have committed any real crimes. So why is it justifiable to hate someone based on a mental illness?
"You defending this photo makes you no better." — moral panic garbage. This guilt by association shit basically is why nobody is able to have a real conversation about this stuff. No, "defending" someone is not equivalent to doing the things they do. Thank God that broke ass logic isn't used for public defenders.
Sexual attraction is much more complex than you are giving it credit, too. Not every furry is a zoophile. Not every person who is sexually attracted to women enjoys hentai with women. Not every zoophile is a furry. It is quite widely acknowledged that IoIita complex is distinct from attraction to kids, they can coincide, but nobody has ever even established a strong link.
Obviously you're free to view a drawing as disgusting, but it's clear that people often come to these images with an irrational hatred that is rare with other taboo fetishes. It's effortless and socially acceptable to say something like "all ped0s must die." It requires a lot more effort to realize that a moral panic is a moral panic and the irrational hatred applied to this drawing is not correlated to any real danger.
Anonymous24: Stop overthinking things. Plenty of things in life are complicated. Drawings of things that don’t exist are not. It’s not a moral quandry.
"Y-Yes,"
"And that the fact she looks like and has the mentality of child should be overlooked?"
"Yes,"
"H M M M M"
Anyway
> It isn't real fucktard, fake things are genderless. Stop being a pathetic pussy just because something you don't like hurts your useless feelings.
Fake things don't have gender. But they have age?
"Sick in the head." — or, as many would say, mentally ill. Yes? And we're also talking about people jacking off to imaginary crap, so we're not talking about people who have committed any real crimes. So why is it justifiable to hate someone based on a mental illness?
"You defending this photo makes you no better." — moral panic garbage. This guilt by association shit basically is why nobody is able to have a real conversation about this stuff. No, "defending" someone is not equivalent to doing the things they do. Thank God that broke ass logic isn't used for public defenders.
Sexual attraction is much more complex than you are giving it credit, too. Not every furry is a zoophile. Not every person who is sexually attracted to women enjoys hentai with women. Not every zoophile is a furry. It is quite widely acknowledged that IoIita complex is distinct from attraction to kids, they can coincide, but nobody has ever even established a strong link.
Obviously you're free to view a drawing as disgusting, but it's clear that people often come to these images with an irrational hatred that is rare with other taboo fetishes. It's effortless and socially acceptable to say something like "all ped0s must die." It requires a lot more effort to realize that a moral panic is a moral panic and the irrational hatred applied to this drawing is not correlated to any real danger.
For instance, if a bridge is chosen, use one over land. Humans can survive a fall into water, but not concrete.