a fictional anime character. what do you see, anon?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A depiction of a child, sure stylized, but clearly meant to be a child nonetheless.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
and you immediately think of a non-fictional human child when you see the picture?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, I am aware it's a drawing but.
It's a drawing of a child bro. Drawings have context. if I show you a drawing of a tree, do you see a tree? Same applies here. The artists behind that clearly intended for it to be a child and depicted it as such so it is. Doesn't matter if it's fiction.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
pure mental gymnastics. when you see a cartoon with a dragon do you go "wow that must represent a real dragon"? it's a fictional cartoon.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yeah but that's like getting mad at people cutting down a fictional tree, it's not real bro, no one is hurting the trees
Pedo mental gymnastics. NTA but wow.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yeah but that's like getting mad at people cutting down a fictional tree, it's not real bro, no one is hurting the trees
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So you're not rooting out that it's a tree? Then you should have no problem with admitting the character in OP is a child. Now what's it called to be attracted to children ...?
pure mental gymnastics. when you see a cartoon with a dragon do you go "wow that must represent a real dragon"? it's a fictional cartoon.
Dragons don't exist, however trees do.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
fictional 2D trees don't exist, moron anon.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes.. but fictional trees are based off of trees, which exist in real life. If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
did you already forget about dragons?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
sexy children don't exist in real life either, yet here we are arguing over sexy 2D images """"of children""""
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That drawing is not sexy. There is nothing mature about it.
>If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
did you already forget about dragons?
Well we don't live in a world where trees don't exist, do we?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Well we don't live in a world where trees don't exist, do we?
we do however live in a world where a picture of a tree is not a real tree.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But it's still a depiction of something, a concept that exists in real life. Which is why we are capable of identifying it as a tree. I win this debate, checkmate.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
completely irrelevant, not an argument, has no legal basis or standing, and is just you seething because you were molested. drawings are not the things they may or may not represent. they are drawings.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes but drawings have MEANING what they depict can have CONCEPTS BEHIND IT god you're so dumb >seething because you were molested
Really showed your colors there huh.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
no they don't lmao. maybe YOU give a drawing meaning, or YOU interpret it as having meaning. YOU are interpreting this stylized vaguely human 2D drawing as a real human child, which is factually and objectively wrong. it simply is not a real human child, no matter how much pedophiles like you wish it were.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
ok then everything posted here doesn't have meaning. they're just letters on a screen. they don't mean nothing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Now you're starting to understand.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i'm pretty sure she's like a 300 year old vampire in the manga
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Seems like e-girlcon-anon has been backed into a corner! Stay tuned for what happens next after this commercial break!
Plapable
that's literally a child
have a nice day
That's literally a fictional drawing
yes...
But a drawing of what?
a fictional anime character. what do you see, anon?
A depiction of a child, sure stylized, but clearly meant to be a child nonetheless.
and you immediately think of a non-fictional human child when you see the picture?
No, I am aware it's a drawing but.
It's a drawing of a child bro. Drawings have context. if I show you a drawing of a tree, do you see a tree? Same applies here. The artists behind that clearly intended for it to be a child and depicted it as such so it is. Doesn't matter if it's fiction.
pure mental gymnastics. when you see a cartoon with a dragon do you go "wow that must represent a real dragon"? it's a fictional cartoon.
Pedo mental gymnastics. NTA but wow.
yeah but that's like getting mad at people cutting down a fictional tree, it's not real bro, no one is hurting the trees
So you're not rooting out that it's a tree? Then you should have no problem with admitting the character in OP is a child. Now what's it called to be attracted to children ...?
Dragons don't exist, however trees do.
fictional 2D trees don't exist, moron anon.
Yes.. but fictional trees are based off of trees, which exist in real life. If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
>If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
did you already forget about dragons?
>If trees didn't exist then the depiction of trees probably wouldn't as well.
sexy children don't exist in real life either, yet here we are arguing over sexy 2D images """"of children""""
That drawing is not sexy. There is nothing mature about it.
Well we don't live in a world where trees don't exist, do we?
>Well we don't live in a world where trees don't exist, do we?
we do however live in a world where a picture of a tree is not a real tree.
But it's still a depiction of something, a concept that exists in real life. Which is why we are capable of identifying it as a tree. I win this debate, checkmate.
completely irrelevant, not an argument, has no legal basis or standing, and is just you seething because you were molested. drawings are not the things they may or may not represent. they are drawings.
Yes but drawings have MEANING what they depict can have CONCEPTS BEHIND IT god you're so dumb
>seething because you were molested
Really showed your colors there huh.
no they don't lmao. maybe YOU give a drawing meaning, or YOU interpret it as having meaning. YOU are interpreting this stylized vaguely human 2D drawing as a real human child, which is factually and objectively wrong. it simply is not a real human child, no matter how much pedophiles like you wish it were.
ok then everything posted here doesn't have meaning. they're just letters on a screen. they don't mean nothing.
Now you're starting to understand.
i'm pretty sure she's like a 300 year old vampire in the manga
>Seems like e-girlcon-anon has been backed into a corner! Stay tuned for what happens next after this commercial break!
>But a drawing of what?
of a target
In already know that, you don't have to sell it to me
I will rip apart the hymen of this brat raw
You realise that you just made the 2D hating roastiecel kill xerself, right?
BECKY ToT