/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

You can't defend your stance without trying to lie or branding the opposition as the "enemy".
Me calling you a child or a porn addict is completely fine though, because you have shown you are unable to be rational or talk about a higher concept but have to focus on defending and damage controlling any negative opinions towards your product of choice, thus any of your claims and statements are completely and objectively laughable and not to be taken seriously.

Even more so when you keep repeating the whole
>OMG U MUST HATE SEX JUST LET PEOPLE ENJOY THINGS
My point is that you're on the wrong board if you don't want to observe artistic expressions but are rather seeking validation about the product you consume.
There are countless other boards where you can circlejerk about your fetishes and feel heckin valid and claim that you are a woman even though you're some teenager who got groomed by transsexuals on discord.
And the critical point is, that unless you are unable to provide objective claims that stand on their own, what you actually are is relevant to your credibility.
And since you're obviously a kid or a porn addict, you should just shut the fuck up and go jerk off in front of a mirror or whatever you tranny freaks do.

>>6077209
Morality applies to fiction, even if it is indeed fiction. Especially in the sexual market because sexual products have a direct effect on the consumer and are a reflection of the consumer base.
Straight people don't jack off to gay porn.
If you jack off to gay porn, that means you're gay.
If you jack off to a sexualized drawing of a child, that means you're a pedophile.
No morality would mean:
>if i feel good consuming product, than product good no matter what

Now, if the artist consciously takes a child which has nothing sexual about it but sexualizes it for the sake of riding the fame of the brand/show the child comes from, what does the artist mean by that?
It's understandable to sexualize a fictional character that has some natural sexual appeal to it, but a child has no sexual appeal so it's weird to go and "age it up".

If you can't actually argue without trying to poison the discussion with your own bias, don't bother.
There is no need to go
>muh sperging ididn'tsaythat not my arugment lol lmao
If you don't want to discuss this shit, i can just start making fun of you instead.
>>6077216
The source is not the child anymore so it's ok.
You fags really haven't talked to actual sane people about this stuff, haven't you?
Or are you just retarded?
>>6077222
Same shit, just inverted.

>>4718193
Go deeper. You don't know anything yet.
>>4718197
>you must be anti-porn because you say bad things
I just like saying the pure, unadulterated and unbiased truth.
You can kill yourself while putting a cactus up your butt for all i care.