/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6077041
Art itself doesnt. But when u put it out in public it will be subjected to the morality test.

>>6077041
This is so fucking garbage.
If you're going to draw the loli draw the fucking loli. Aging up characters is fucking disgusting and it looks nothing like her in the first place.
If it wasn't for the headband and her just saying its Anya you'd never know its fucking her.

>>6077041
any good art doesn't preach anything to the viewer, that's why Japanese media (Demon Slayer, Boku no Hero) have been smashing sales records over the last half decade. Westoids have forgotten that art shouldn't be used as propaganda, otherwise it is worth pig shit.
Also, DON'T AGE THE FUCKING LOLI

>>6077058
What exactly does this mean? How does it being in public or private change it's nature?

>this bait thread again
Imagine someone looking at a child and going:
>"Wow, if the child had big tits and was grown up it would be sexy and i would want to have sex with!"
And somehow this way of thinking, doesn't raise any red flags at all.

It wouldn't be an issue if the original character it's taken from wasn't a 5 year old child.
Either draw the loli or don't draw it all.
No need to "age it up" just for brand recognition.
>it's just a drawing
A drawing of what, exactly?
Of a child that has been "aged up".

>>6077085
>Of a child that has been "aged up".
Isn't that known as an adult in proper english?

>>6077041
Someone please makes sakimichan pregnant so she won't making shit like this again

>>6077089
A child doesn't become an adult from one day to another through growing up magic.

>>6077094
its an illustration of fiction. Fiction can have 1000s of years happen in 2s of runtime. This isn't a great argument.

Michelangelo learned anatomy desecrating corpses for years. C'mon dude, draw your "" aged up lolis lolol"" all you want

>>6077100
>but fiction
not an argument in the context of actually sexualizing children.

Let me explain it to you in simple terms:
If the picture, was drawn by itself without referencing or "aging up" a character which originally is a 5 year old child, it would be A-ok, but since the original character it originates from is a 5 year old child, it's not ok.

This isn't an argument about any series canon or off-model shit.

If
>anything fictional drawing is fair game
So must be ANY drawing; violence against certain groups, individuals of certain sexualities and mental illnesses, public individuals and you can't say anything about it, because it's fiction.
As an example:
Draw a violent act committed against homosexuals, pedophiles and transindividuals and see how far you'll get with your fiction.
If aging up the loli good because fiction so any fiction good because it's fiction, right?
Or is it rules for thee but not for me?

>>6077085
so if the author of the manga writes in a 20 year timeskip where anya is 30 years old and has D cups would that make the author a pedophile too? the people you should be going after are the ones straight up drawing naked loli anya, not the ones drawing a regular onee-san with pink hair

>>6077115
Not the actual point.

>>6077116
what is the "actual" point then

>>6077114
>So must be ANY drawing; violence against certain groups, individuals of certain sexualities and mental illnesses, public individuals and you can't say anything about it, because it's fiction.
Yes. Now you're getting it. Policing fiction is policing ideas. Policing of solely ideas and thoughts is generally considered by many to be a bad thing.

>>6077121
Ok, then why do people get cancelled and lose their livelihood for saying things that homosexuals, pedophiles and transindividuals don't like?
Same as fiction isn't "doing", so is saying not actually "doing" and in the same realm of fiction.
Why does general expression get policed only on one side?
Policing ideas is bad. You just said it yourself.

>>6077128
>Ok, then why do people get cancelled and lose their livelihood for saying things that homosexuals, pedophiles and transindividuals don't like?
I did not claim that was a good thing. Suppression of thought is bad.

>>6077077
Oscar Wilde is retarded, a flower is useful for a plant to reproduce, so the metaphor doesn't even work.

>>6077131
Not an argument, Anon.
Explain to me why it's ok to censor one side, >even if fictional
but the other side cannot be criticized >because it's fictional
When fiction and freedom of expression shouldn't be touched or policed.

>>6077156
>Explain to me why it's ok to censor one side, >even if fictional
>but the other side cannot be criticized >because it's fictional
>When fiction and freedom of expression shouldn't be touched or policed.
I said its not okay. Retard stop creating a strawman you fucking moron.

>>6077158
I'm not creating a strawman, i've expanded on my initial argument, which you are also clearly avoiding dealing with.
I accept your concession.

>>6077163
Consession of what? I think cancellation is bad. I have no idea what you are actually talking about. Thought policing is bad.
What has your "what do you think about the double standards of twitter" argument got to do with what I said kek.

draw what you want but im free to call you a pedohphile for it
>NOOOOOOOO aging up a character to legal adults is bad
all the more reason to believe that lolifags are unironic pedophiles.

>>6077164
>double standards of twatter
Not unique to it.
It's a general double standard.

This isn't about whether you agree or disagree, if i wanted someone to agree with me i'd talk to myself.

The undeniable objective truth is that;
You're free to draw what you want, but morality still applies.
So, if you age up a fictional child, you're a pedophile, because the character it originates from is a child.
Aging it up doesn't make the SOURCE of the character an adult.
It's the same as jerking off to childhood pictures of your wife but claiming it's ok because you already had sex with her as an adult.

The issue arises when the double standard gets applied for selfish reasons; which i already posted about.
>thing i like good because fiction
>but thing i dislike bad even if fiction
But sexualizing a child is ALWAYS BAD no matter the loopholes you go through to not call it a child, no matter if she's legally 5000 years old, no matter if you slap tits on her or "age her up"; the main original source is still a child.

>>6077085
>>6077171
you faggots are projecting so fucking hard, imagine moralfagging day and night over some fucking drawings. i know for a fact you cunts probably have hoards of actual cp on your computer, along side your guro, inflationist nightmare dreamland garbage you pump into your brain every night, only to feel shame the next day and take to self flatulating by moralfagging on 4chan of all places.

>>6077195
I have no idea who you're arguing with in that case. My arguement points are:
A drawing isn't reality, morality applies to reality alone
and
The policing of thoughts is bad.

You're sperging about some shit I didn't say for some reason. I don't need to address that because it is not my arguement. That is by definition a strawman. Learn to reason.

>>6077201
Nice cognitive dissonance.
Now do like a tranny and hang yourself.

>>6077210
Say anon how do you feel about a piece of media that introduces a child character at the start and then later, once they age up as the story progresses, are put in sexual situations?

>>6077195
>It's the same as jerking off to childhood pictures of your wife but claiming it's ok because you already had sex with her as an adult.
no, retard. its not the same.

>>6077201
innocent people don't protest this hard, letting me know that you are a pedophile. Please seek before you decide to make your fantasies a reality.

>>6077223
*seek help

>>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.

>>6077232
>The source is not the child anymore so it's ok.
Should Sakimichan come out with a fanfic story following Anya as she grows up into what she drew her as, would you then be ok with her fanart? is the lack of context in-between the child to adult the only thing bothering you in these "aged up" works? you're making zero sense here anon

kind of, any form of media will always have a message behind it.
"but but I didn't put a message in mine"
you didn't have to, people will still interpret it one way or another.
Even if it's a simple sfw piece of fanart for some game, you're still indirectly telling the viewers "I like this game."
not every message has to be some big statement.
for the example you gave though, yea the art does have some morality involved as it says "I won't draw children in a sexual manner" showing he/she does draw a moral line in what he includes in his art.

what >>6077077 says is just plain wrong, as both mha and demon slayer do have messages in them, they just aren't stated outright, and even if they were, most animetards wouldn't be able to comprehend it. (for mha the message is to never give up on your dreams and always strive to be your best. for demon slayer the message is to never give up on your family and always strive to be your best. Most anime will always try to push the idea of striving to be your best as it's a big part of japanese culture.)

as for the age up debate going on in the thread, I don't really care. sometimes I like a character design of an underage character but don't want to get off to a child, so I see no problem with aging them up. Take Marnie from pokemon swsh for example. I like the punk aesthetic she has, but I don't find her attractive as a child, so seeing her aged up keeps all of the pros while getting rid of the cons. That's how I view at least, but I know there are too many other degenerates on here that make my argument for aging up not matter.

>>6077240
Is the
>ORIGINAL SOURCE
where the aged up version
>ORIGINATES FROM AND REFERENCES
still a 5 year old child?

Her fanart specifically has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Who are you even trying to fool with this?

>>6077223
never ending string of projections, nigga we dont care, you are a fucking retard

picrel, your twitter account

>>6077041
Man this is so boring. I was never a huge fan but her old shit was more interesting

>>6077253
>he said while projecting the hardest itt

>>6077116
That's exactly the point you stupid faggot

>>6077251
>Her fanart specifically has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
The argument has expanded anon!
So everything would a-ok if the original author portrays the 5 year old as a sexualized adult but not anyone else.
I'm not trying to fool anyone, just trying to get to the bottom of your arbitrarily applied morality.

>>6077257
>if the creator of the character would canonically age her up would that mean that he's a pedo?
You're a fucking retard and a dumb nigger, too.

>>6077262
>Is it ok if the source of the porn isn't a 5 year old child?
Now you're starting to get it.

>>6077263
NTA but that is a perfectly valid analogy which you must answer.

>>6077268
It's not valid whatsoever because it's an assumption which completely deviates from the point of the discussion to make a personal statement to end the discussion that anon doesn't care about positively contributing, not an actual argument.

My answer really doesn't matter in that context because the Anon could also try reading the thread.

>>6077272
It's a perfectly valid point and you're avoiding it because you're a stupid, low IQ subhuman who can't answer it.

>>6077281
I already answered it; if you bothered reading the thread.
Don't go accusing others of things you're guilty of.

>>6077272
your premise is as follows:
If character X is a child then it is immoral for person Y to draw an aged up version.
You still haven't explained why this applies only to fanart and not the original creator.
It is probably one of the most important key points of your argument yet you fail to answer it because you know that the logic is unsound.

>>6077128
NTA: I reread this post about ten times to decipher your English (which I'm sure is the reason for the huge derailment your other reply chain went through).

Your stance is a pragmatic, arbitrary line in the sand for whatever value system you hold; it is unconsciously adaptive. The other anon's stance is rigid, principled, but can become self-devouring and destructive when thoroughly applied; it is much more objective and pure in a sense.

A crime boss speaking to henchmen with double entendres and innuendo is in itself a harmless action in isolation. Henchmen subsequently murdering someone is harmful. Who is the criminal here? The other anon will say the henchmen, and I would agree. You would likely say the both the henchmen and the crime boss. I see your argument, and I'll raise you - you must include me, the writer, as a criminal too. I just shared an abstraction of a method of crime and possibly inspired others to the potential idea that may have never otherwise crossed their minds.

Shall we go further and propose that they too are now also criminals for having been exposed to a source of criminal inspiration? No, because this is my point - the scope for your argument to be valid requires a solidified axiom of ethics to determine when something is or is not a crime within the context of society, and to state one at all is to doom yourself to being wrong in a shifting, changing world with time disappearing ahead of you. Your stance is not anymore "valid" than the other anon's, it's simply more pragmatic and useful for your society to survive under its own weight. The line you define today can be nudged any other, but the other anon drew his line in the sand and is sticking to it. I admire and agree with his line, and also not fret too much because I'm mortal with a fairly short wick.

Take care, I'm sick and need sleep

Aging up is cringe and evil.
Aging down is based and good.

>>6077308
We're still talking in the context of adult fiction/porn.
Even if the original creator would make an aged up version of a child for the sole purpose of porn; it would be morally bad.

If the creator ages up the character naturally for the story and people make porn of the adult version, there is no issue.
Why would you take a design that is assigned to a character which is only recognized as a child and make porn of it by "aging up"?
No one in their right mind would look at a child and go
>"if i put tits on the child and make it taller i could get off on that"
The fact is that it's absolutely still a child makes it morally wrong, because you're getting your rocks off to it, no matter if it's fictional or not.

This isn't a meme, midwit discussion about
>Is fiction reality or not?
The answer is obvious. Fiction is not reality.
But, why would you choose to take a representation of a child, sexualize it and be completely ok with it if you're not mentally ill?
>>6077311
You are completely off point.
>Morality =/= laws
Killing and some crimes can be morally justified. Laws exist to protect others from possible harm.

The consumption and creation of adult content with a heavy focus on the sole purpose of sexual arousal and consumption, is an absolute reflection of the person consuming or creating it.
And again; the main topic here is adult SEXUAL content in the context of morality and freedom of expression, not whether or not fiction should be taken and punished as it were real.

When you start morally justifying sexualizing children, it's game over.
I don't need to tell what the adult sexual market was 100 years ago and what it led to, do i?
Or how societies and empires have died due to lack of morality?
Every big society that cast aside morality to chase sex has died.
>Your stance
Have you ever talked to someone who wasn't a narcissist before? I'm not here to seek validation.

>>6077041
its just very tasteless

Hello just passing by to sasy I like lolis and don't like tranny or (real) women. Have a nice day.

>>6077041
>31 years old
She looks 21

>>6077377
>Or how societies and empires have died due to lack of morality?
Not him, but that's irrelevant and not a causal relationship besides. Our kinks won't lead to the collapse of muttland, other more real things than porn and videogames will, although we might have more free time to explore them up to that point.

>But, why would you choose to take a representation
Because it's not a representation of a child, it's a representation of a cartoon character. I'm okay with it because it doesn't exist. Making connections between things in the real world and alien looking Japanese drawings is the mental illness.

>morally wrong
To you and maybe to most people, this is a niche taboo in a niche taboo, something to be disgusted by. Not everyone's morals are the same. I guarantee if you show any kind of porn to a westerner judge, they will figure out for you some sort of penalty. In Japan, with just as little protection, you'll go scot free, because the attitudes are different. Right and wrong depends on who you talk to.

>I'm not here to seek validation.
You're proactively looking for validation for your morals by having this conversation on 4chan where your views are the minority. It might frighten you, but you can't stop people masturbating to Asuka with words. The second anon is right.
>t probable narcissist, but also a law degree

>>6077311
>I just shared an abstraction of a method of crime and possibly inspired others to the potential idea that may have never otherwise crossed their minds.
I've always found this a strong argument for censure of crimes in the media. There's very little public benefit to knowing that in some part of the country there was a serial killer who kept every second left molar of his victims and ground them them to build keys for his miniature piano. But exposure to videogames where this happens, for not mentally ill people at least, containerises the experience. This isn't real. Press START to begin collecting teeth and having fun.

>>6077115
Japs are pedos, more at 11

>>6077377
Anon you write a lot for someone who doesn't seem to be capable of abstract thoughts and basic logic. It's just sad. Why are you so mad about it anyway? No I don't care about your arguments at all, every single point you have spouted has no logical conclusion to your premise, so the only explanation here is that there's some complex in there clouding your judgment, or you're just retarded. It's simply entertaining to see you sperg out with so much confident something so obviously false

>>6077041
If Sakimichan is getting shat on for this then Bigdad needs to get the rope as well for aging up Pacifica Northwest

>>6077408
Still too old.
>>6077411
Based.

>>6077409
>Our kinks won't lead to the collapse of muttland
Are you serious right now?
>Because it's not a representation of a child
Read the thread
Reread the posts
>niche taboo
It goes against nature.
>by having this conversation on 4chan where your views are the minority. It might frighten you
>t. lawfag
No.
>>6077415
Nice cognitive dissonance.
Are you having a meltdown? You probably are.

>>6077077
Do you really think anime or Japanese media isn’t political?
It’s just as much as it is over here. A lot of it just goes over the heads of western fans because they’re unfamiliar with the culture.

>>6077041
>Does art really have morality?
Morality is just a human construct, it literally DOES NOT EXIST outside you belíving that it does.

>>6077041
Fucking disgusting.
Hope they cancel her for ruining best daughteru and turning her into that cow.hha22

>>6077041
The pedofags

>>6077453

>>6077453

Art has morality but people here are at best making art works that are not decidedly degenerate. Hedonists will claim it does not exist because it helps them live with themselves.

>>6077463
Yoko ono monkey shit coomer sakimishit

>>6077475
frothing

>>6077424
>Are you serious right now?
Sure. I think you're confusing private consumption of pornography with very public displays of sexuality from trannies, blacks and white supremacists. Anime fans masturbating in their living rooms aren't tearing the US apart.

>Read the Reread the
>no arguments

>It goes against nature.
That's as irrelevant as what you wrote before. Most else we do all day is against nature. We're using computers. None of this is natural.

I'm going to go draw the pope doing Rei. I think it's the right thing to do. In fact, I'll use an old statute book as an armrest while I do it. It's too bad about your society if some nerds with pencils is all it took to destroy it. If you want to punish me, you're welcome to try and enforce your """moral bad""".

>>6077486
Don't reply seriously to retards whose only retorts are /v/eddit tier reaction images and insults with no argment. You're wasting your time, they're too stupid to understand logic.

>>6077486
>"Sure let me make up a strawman"
>"lol lmao no arguments"
>"but everything is against nature"
>"I'm going to go draw the pope doing Rei. I think it's the right thing to do. In fact, I'll use an old statute book as an armrest while I do it. It's too bad about your society if some nerds with pencils is all it took to destroy it. If you want to punish me, you're welcome to try and enforce your """moral bad""".
Are you actually fucking retarded?

>>6077041
Why are you niggers so obsessed with this soulless slut?

>>6077522
Because she makes 60000 bucks on Patreon PER MONTH!

>>6077522
they keep conflating seeing errors with her work for being better and more deserving artists than her.

>>6077521
>still no arguments or points made at all, only /v/eddit reaction images
>>>/reddit/
go back please. The required IQ to use this board is 70 minimum.

>>6077550
lurk moar, nigger

>>6077114
Did you know that your girlfriend used to be a child you fucking sick pedophile
She originates from a 5 year old

why yall arguie about this stupid shit
tldr
just draw and enjoy life

>>6077041
Morality is not real and changes depending on local consensus.
Some people think eating dogs is moral, some people think eating anything at all is immoral.

>>6077156
>Explain to me why it's ok to censor one side
Because one side owns the media.
It's not ok but it's legal and will continue to happen with greater fervor until the censored side doesn't exist anymore.
That is the nature of power. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it.

>tfw went through mom's vagina when born
>tfw mom was once a child
>tfw that makes me pedophile
what do i do bros
i dont wanna be a pedophile
why did god do this to me

>>6077655
suicide is the only answer, bro
just do it

>>6077658
kek

>>6077655
>grandma gave birth to dad at sixteen

>>6077675
though luck anon
gotta kill yourself now

>>6077675
h-hot
get me a piece of that grunny anon

>>6077041
i dont care if it does i just care if it looks like shit which it does

>>6077319
cringe and retarded take. pedophilia is bad, lolicon is just an extension of pedophilia

>>6077041
It dosen't and neither does Sakimichan.

>>6077068
I think she just have no idea how to draw a loli.

>>6077041
anon why did you make 2 sakimi threads

>acts like sussy faggots over drawings of children
>gets big mad when treated like sussy faggots
If lolicon was such an innocent fetish why does shaming them breed so much tard rage?

>>6077847
anon im not a lolifaggot but how is pic related a kid for fucks sake

>>6077041
I usually don't care about people aging up characters in order to be able to make them sexy, but there's a limit to anything imo.
Aging up a character that is basically a little child in order to draw them as an erotic pinup is definitely creepy.

>>6077041
shit x family sakimeme and pedo bait all in one post? i kneel

>>6077195
>It's the same as jerking off to childhood pictures of your wife but claiming it's ok because you already had sex with her as an adult.
Are you unironically dumb? This is a completely nonsensical comparison.

>>6077852
?? this is the same logic as saying you can't fuck/marry someone because they were a kid once
are you mentally braindead and not self aware

>>6077082
I don't know, do you have sex in public and does it change from sex in private?
Thread hidden

>>6077853
I'm getting really good at making these

>>6077855
If you were actually intelligent, you'd get it.
But contrary to your own narcissism, you're low iq.
I'll explain it to you, but i doubt you'll get it before your cognitive dissonance kicks in
>if aging up a child to jerk off to is ok
>then jerking off to childhood pictures of people you had sex with is also ok
You can't defend one and condemn the other except if you pull the usual low iq mental gymnastics to not feel shame about yourself and protect your ego
And to further add to it
>aging down a character is also ok because you already jerked off to the adult version
It's all the same thing.
So, if one of the 3 is good, then all 3 good.
Which in truth all 3 are bad and you're completely insane if you actually support any of the 3.

>>6077253
kek based

All of this is pointless because it's a drawing. Unless you have proof that the artist is abusing real, living and breathing children to make this stuff then just ignore it and move on.

How come nobody has this energy for people actually hurting real kids?

>>6077041
>have morality?

Morality isn't real, wake up OP.

>>6077463
omg, is really? Ugly

>>6077152
Alright smartass, just change it for 'a cut flower'

>>6077091
>He still thinks she is the one doing all this work

>>6078264
>How come nobody has this energy for people actually hurting real kids?
pedophiles are shielded from vigilantes taking the law into their hands all the fucking time, but the ones who do deal with these niggers quite nicely. Never forget that not even murderers like pedophiles.

https://cavemancircus.com/2021/01/13/what-happens-to-pedophiles-in-prison/

https://www.opposingviews.com/health/texas-father-murders-pedophile-caught-molesting-his-daughter

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/richard-huckles-prison-murder-detailed-in-paul-fitzgerald-trial

https://neonnettle.com/news/16576-russian-father-who-killed-pedophile-released-by-police-he-did-what-was-necessary-

>>6078264
The law prevents people from doxxing and "murdering". I'd become a bounty hunter hunting pedophiles if the law wasn't so against it. We've become too soft and grossly treat death like it's the worst thing that can happen while simultaneously turning a blind eye to it when it suits us. It's like how whenever there's a school shooting in the USA the politicians immediately rally and call to ban guns, but when there's confirmed cases of the military bombing children by the dozens no politician speaks up about it, and I've seen some people defend the bombings b/c "they could've been terrorists." Hell we still politicize the death of a druggie from two years ago.

>>6078310
You sound like a lawless bloodthirsty mexican with this post. Of course its illegal to play play judge jury and executioner just because you feel like it. The increase in innocent killings and extra lives ruined would not be able to be justified. That's why the law exists in that way.

>>6078323
I admit I do sound about cringey, but idk how a lawless bloodthirsty mexican. I also don't know how you got the idea I'd be playing judge jury and executioner, when bounty hunting usually involves grabbing someone alive who's had a bounty placed on them.

>>6078336
Oh wild west style. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing was phased out for very good reason.

>>6078338
yea probably. I like revovlers, so westerners and bounty hunters appeal to me a lot.

>>6078323
>The increase in innocent killings and extra lives ruined would not be able to be justified. That's why the law exists in that way.
pedophile ruins the lives of their victims and rarely are they giving recourse beyond coping with the pain because the law is often soft as shit on pedos when glowies aren't LARPing as underage teens online. fuck pedophiles and fuck unironic pedophiles too.

>>6078346
You just want to do the same thing your government does to the "terrorists" and hunt probable innocents, you hate the government not because they are doing the wrong thing but because they are stealing all your fun, all you want is an excuse to kill and to feel good for doing so. You yankees and other anglo and anglospawn are all mentally ill.

>>6077195
> if you age up a fictional child, you're a pedophile, because the character it originates from is a child.
No, it doesn't, and if you had any skills as an artist you wouldn't even be bothering to spout this bullshit.

When you draw a character aged up, you're taking some of your mental library of adult women and applying traits and features to an adult. The base is not a child, the base is an adult character influenced by another character's style.

If a child inspires fashion, and adults follow suit, it'd be insane to think anyone is a pedo for checking out this adult woman. But that is the claim this line of reasoning makes. And I've seen adult cosplays of high school aged characters the the cancel treatment, or at least attempted, as it failed because pure stupidity.

A lot of loli is deformation of an adult body, it often gets a pass because it doesn't accurately reflect the actual physique. You can tell though when an artist gets a lot of their visualization from real children, and start portraying them highly unnerving accuracy, even to fans of such content become repulsed. Some have even been caught tracing literal children and that's just nasty.

Problem is you all don't know or care about the difference, you just want someone to attack to make yourself feel less shitty about however life has damaged you. Go protest some southern Baptist churches for fucks suck.

>>6077634
That's the thing man. No one on this board draws, that's why we're here.

>>6078354
Yes, i do want pedos dead. I met too many people including family members who have been abused by one and are still affected by as adults. My disdain towards you and your kind is just a normal reaction to one of the objectives evil that plagues society.

>>6078354
you're a genuine retard for baselessly jumping to the conclusion I would use hunting pedophiles as an excuse to get away with killing, as I would just join the army if I wanted an excuse to kill. You're also a retard for thinking I or the anon you replied to hate the government for "stealing our fun" and not for having little to no checks to prevent them from hurting innocent people, while simultaneously allowing known pedophiles and rapists get very small sentences.

>>6077856
Of course it's not the same. WTF lol. On one hand you have a person you only know as a little kid, and then suddenly you turn it into a sexual ikon, while on the other you have a person you knew as an adult before you fucked her.

>>6078011
>I will explain better
>repeats the exact same dumb analogy as before
Okay.

>he’s still seething
lol

>>6077041
What fucking mortality? It's a drawing. If our leaders have no morality then why the fuck drawing should?
I fucking hate hypocrite moralfags

>>6078395
Howboutists like you are just as retarded.

>>6077041
actually fucking hilarious that this is the most active thread on this board

go fucking draw good lord

Sakimichan is an artist. She produces ART.
>Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and *imagination*, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or *emotional power*.
ITT we have 50 different ip's sperging out their emotional response to said ART.
She is a better artist than 99.99~% of you crabs and people care this much about what she draws because she is successful. Imagine how good you would be at making your own art if you put in half as much effort as you did trying to defend imaginary characters. Literal pixels on a screen that are not representative of an actual person IRL.

Everyone is talking about the character but where does she get refs/3d models for the background

>>6078383
No real pedophile and rapist gets a small sentence in the USA unless they are very rich, you only want to kill people and be a superhero like every retard North American.
>>6078378
I'm not one of them and I bet none of your friends and family members are liars and easily influenced retards like the average drug addicted yankee who sees shit that didn't happened. Most rape accusations in the first world are fake, by the way.

i fap to haguhagu doujinshi and everyone in this thread is a faggot

>>6078435
im not a lolifaggot but yea i agree everyone here is a faggot with their cheesy arguments

>>6077195
Please tell me you retards are trolling

>>6078428
This is why people will continue to call lolifags blatant pedophiles as you all lack empathy for real victims, ignore and deny the influence consuming this content can have on people, and only give deference to predators. you're scum.

>>6077041
There is no ethics
There is no rules
Appeal is for products
Morality is for activists

>>6077082
A tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

>>6077085
Using your logic, a cosplayer's age is dictated on the age of the character they're dressed as.
>>6077195
>because the character it originates from is a child
either genius bait or extremely retarded
>>6077232
>Morality applies to fiction
Morality applies to everything, it's subjectivity expressed, you raging idiot. You don't need to state the obvious.

The argument isnt "it's morally wrong vs amoral" you moronic busybody. It's: "Is this image is pedophilic"
Your reasoning is, because "the original canon depiction is a child"
The fault in your argument is that it ignores entirely the very foundations of transformation and interpretation. Not only that, but also what it factually means to be a pedophile. Massive titties and mother-bearing hips is the ANTITHESIS of pedophilic desires. Even if the depicted age of the character is 12, if it looks like a post-pubescent, pedophiliacs will not like it because its it's not the number they care about, you mongrel, your moral argument does not apply.

>>6078428
>No real pedophile and rapist gets a small sentence in the USA unless they are very rich, you only want to kill people and be a superhero like every retard North American.
This retard really thinks pedophiles are people and should be defended

>I'm not one of them and I bet none of your friends and family members are liars and easily influenced retards like the average drug addicted yankee who sees shit that didn't happened. Most rape accusations in the first world are fake, by the way.
Retard also sets up a strawman then begins to pull shit out of his ass.

That's the problem with all of you uncivilized countries, you're brains are still thinking and functioning like animals, ignoring the actually bad consequences of pedophilia and rape b/c it doesn't directly affect them negatively.

>>6078455
What have you done? You really think pestering some anons online is going to make any difference?

>>6077094
actually they do. The second they turn 18, they are an adult according to the law (that you believe in).

>>6078564
That's a cultural thing, not a biological.

>>6077085
this poster trolled the entire thread successfully

>>6078338
To give the government exclusivity in the use of lawful violence.
How well has that served us?

>>6078604
The people who are upset at loli drawings care more about the law than biology. Biology says she's good to go when puberty hits.

>>6078543
>What have you done?
talked several people out of suicide.
>You really think pestering some anons online is going to make any difference?
Pedophiles arent on any comfort, keep seething because people outside of your weeb safespaces think you're scum.

>>6078634
*arent owed

>>6078628
psychologically speaking, sex before 18 can be really impactful, and usually in the worse ways. The earliest the brain can develop to healthily process sex is 16, and that's still debatable, as depending on the population, it could just be a few outliers developing that early or the earliest average age a brain could develop.

>>6077068
Anon wants to see naked children

>>6077077
>good art doesn't preach anything to the viewer
>Japanese media

>>6078634
I meant the topic at hand. And I wasn't directing the conversation that way. I'm talking about wasting your damn time when there's more vicious and real predators in the world.
But yes, they are human. I've thought about robbing a bank, doesn't mean I should be arrested. Having thoughts is not the same as acting upon them.

>>6078501
I agree with you, but i'm curious.
How do you address the fact that some adults will look younger than they are? 20 year olds who look like they're 16 are common in my University. If you find their features attractive, are you a nonce even if they're an adult? Or is that a nonce action on an otherwise non-nonced person?

>>6077582
Your next line is "you think fiction has human rights"

ITT

Can you guess which popular and known twitter artists are always lurking these threads and malding over loli drawings saying it's pedo shit? I'm sure a suspicious list can be made.

>>6078738
>that username
>rainbow flag as avatar
you and your ilk aren't even trying anymore
as usual, dilate and join the 41%, in that order

>>6078739
post your guesses

>you and your ilk aren't even trying anymore
>as usual, dilate and join the 41%, in that order

>>6078501
>muh cosplayer
If a whore cosplays as a dog, they're cosplaying as a dog and sexualizing it
if they cosplay as a 5 year old child, they're sexualizing a 5 year old child
>Morality is subjective
low iq take
>The argument isnt "it's morally wrong vs amoral" you moronic busybody. It's: "Is this image is pedophilic"
No, it isn't.
The argument is
>Where does the morality in this image fall in the content of adult sexual content
>but muh titties
the original character it's taken from is a 5 year old child
read the thread, pedo

Also you have no right to even talk about this stuff because
>ethics bad
>rules bad
>morality bad
>wow i love consuming products
>"WOW A TREE MADE A SOUND WHEN IT FEEL IN THE FOREST BUT YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT! CHECKMATE! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! AM I SMART YET?"
but the most retarded take of all the garbage you wrote
>Massive titties and mother-bearing hips is the ANTITHESIS of pedophilic desires
>Even if the depicted age of the character is 12
But is it based on the depiction and design of a child?
You should seek the indefinite termination of your existence
>>6078615
Calling me a troll won't magically make the shit pedo cope pseudo-arguments right.

Imagine taking a dog and dressing it up in people clothes.
It would still be a dog.
Imagine taking a plane and installing monster truck wheels on the sides.
It would still be a plane.
Imagine taking a 5 year old child and aging it up solely for porn consumption.
It would still be a child you're sexualizing to sell porn
And for the last time;
It wouldn't be an issue if the character that has been sexualized for porn consumption didn't actually come from a depiction of a 5 year old child.
Only way to argue this is to draw her aged up and post it on your socials, because no amount of dishonest low iq arguments will ever make you right.
The minority who will complain will give you a huge number boost, so it's a win-win.
If you say
>but muh esjaydabliumoralfags
Then you admit you're wrong.

>>6077085
i simply dont care about your feelings or takes on the matter.

This thread in a nutshell
> Mufhdjdj it's not real child
> it's still a depiction
No one is here to change their mind

>>6078501
>Massive titties and mother-bearing hips is the ANTITHESIS of pedophilic desires
true
actual cunnyfags hate it when their lolis get hagfied

>>6078898
they just want to shit up the board with 2 threads, with 150+ replys each, circlejerking calling each other pedos, instead of actually drawing, its fucking pathetic.

>>6078907
It's still a sexualized depiction of a fucking 5-year-old

>>6079017
I wish I could post loli outside of /b/ just to piss you off. This site is so fucking gay.

>>6077114
>If aging up the loli good because fiction so any fiction good because it's fiction, right?
As long as its not visually based on real people that exist or have existed then ye.

>>6078346
Retard if you cared you'd just try and find away to get rid of their sexual urges through drugs or something. Killing pedos for merely having an attraction to kids is like killing a bunch of people who are attracted to adults for having rape fantasies or people that like fictional gore porn. All you'd be doing is forcing them to get better at hiding the pedo stuff, now a child molestoer that's a different thing.

Kill all pedophiles. Can't change my mind.

test

Is it true Sakimichan stopped making her own art years ago and has been paying ghost artists to make it for her hence why her art looks so much different/worse nowadays?

>>6079085
>as long as it's not visually based on "real people"
But the aged up version would be a fiction, so if you say:
>aged up from real people even if fiction = bad
then must even aged up from the fictional representation of a real child = bad

If one is good but the other bad, even though they're the same thing; it's a double think.
And double think = bad.
>inb4 but muh fiction mindless non-argument nr4665465
it don't matter if the fictional is a representation of a child

>>6077411
who would have known some yellows can be so based

According to mad frothing anon, If you find this woman arousing you are a pedo

>>6079157
What is that putrid creature?

>>6079157
>still no arguments beside pp hard = good
>resorting to bait-strawmanning when the other countless strawmen didn't work
>"im pretending to be retarded lol lmao epic troll"
Also
>not sexualized
>shit cosplay
kneel

>>6079138
>then must even aged up from the fictional representation of a real child = bad
>real
As soon as it is based on the real people it is no longer fiction. Finish high school or learn what words mean before you enter debate on the Internet.

>>6079170
>fiction is not fiction anymore if it's based on real things
Nice ad hominem though
makes up for your lack of arguments

>>6079173
>ad hominem

>>6079175
>Finish high school or learn what words mean before you enter debate on the Internet.
>apparently not an ad hominem
>while telling others to educate themselves

>>6079176
It is not ad hominem because it relates to the root of your argument having an incorrect definition for fiction. It is an insult based on the content of your argument.
The point made is still valid.
Definition of fiction is right there if you want to debate it.
As soon as you make it about real people, it is no longer a fiction.

>>6077041

>posting thread to discuss morality .
>makes sakimichan more infamous and sustains her 6 fig income

Why don't you see you are part of the problem?

>>6079179
The definition is not absolute, when you're also applying it wrong.
You literally said:
>"Fiction is not real but if it's based on a real thing/people, it stops being fiction"
Fiction doesn't stop being fiction if based on a real people; it's still fiction.
You're only supporting my initial argument.

>>6079186

Fuck I hate anerican moralfagging

>>6079165
Everything is a fetish.

>>6078655
Yes.

>>6077068
The harry potter themed pics with aged up damian and anya are great. You're just mad it's off model or out of character, anon. Actually I wouldn't even call this off model, this is just a chick in cosplay eww.

>>6079192
A aged up version of a real person is also imaginary, so it becomes fiction.
Every fictional thing is based on real things.
The meme you're trying to use is meant for specifics; not generalized.
Even then, you said
>"if it's based on real things, it stops being a fiction"
And now you're contradicting yourself.

You're literally fucking retarded.
Stop posting.

>>6079198
if you base it on a real person does it magically become a fictional person? It does not.

>>6079199
You can't stop playing yourself, do you?
>"if you make shit up from reality, is it fiction?"
Yes, it literally is.

Stop posting.

Is non-sexualized naked underage okay?

>>6079206
You're arguing with definitions here, not me.

>>6079209
And you're being either ignorant and illiterate or dishonest.
Real people refers to individuals.
Children, adults, animals or machinery are not individuals.
Facts refers to real life events that happened.

You're not really that retarded, are you?

>>6079215
>Children, adults, animals or machinery are not individuals.
kekekekekek

>>6079218
>kekekekekek
No arguments then?

>>6079220
where is "individiual" in the definition.
I'm having fun playing with you because you are unable to read a dictionary before you type kek

>>6078383
>as I would just join the army if I wanted an excuse to kill
99% of the army sits around doing nothing. Only like 20% of soldiers even get deployed to a combat zone and most of them are non-combatants, only a fraction are combat troops and only a fraction of them actually participate in combat. More might "see" combat but they're not killing anyone. And even if you enter combat a lot of the time you just shoot at air from behind a hill or rocks or building corners. You're not going to be killing anyone, and it's clear you have some really dumb fantasies about military life. What are you, like 8 years old? You have an infantile view of life and it's pretty clear you're underage

>>6079221
>i have no arguments but i really want to win
>posts it again
You played yourself
Take the L and go back into your ocean

>>6079225
Address the dictionary definition of fiction, coward.

>>6079226
>what is context?
>tries to win the argument by autistic literal definition
How much more dishonest can you get?

>>6079229
>can't address that fiction is defined as not being based on reality.
>main argument involves a conflation between fiction and reality
Here is your argument in case your working memory is too low to remember what you actually typed:
>aged up from real people even if fiction = bad
>then must even aged up from the fictional representation of a real child = bad
If it is based on a "representation of a real child" it is no longer fiction, per definition.


I get that this key fact invalidates your entire argument but at least don't pretend to be so stupid that you can't even read the dictionary defintion.

>>6079231
>doesn't read
>doesn't understand context
>using the absolute literal definition of a word to justify his entire argument when he doesn't even know what he's actually arguing about
Any fictional representation of a child is based on real children, because children aren't imaginary beings.
And i'll tell you again; you're supporting my initial argument and no amount of
>lol lmao i was just pretending to be retarded
will ever save you from having played yourself from your obvious display of cognitive dissonance; because
>fiction based on a reality = bad
>fiction based on fiction based on reality = good
They should be both bad.

Is anyone being hurt?
No?
No problem.
Move on.

>>6077041
this is such an obvious excuse to just draw the same exact body type again lol

>>6079249
>Any fictional representation of a child is based on real children, because children aren't imaginary beings.
No. They are based on the concept, not the actual real thing.
This mistake in your argument that you keep making over and over is just the result of you not being very good at language again

>>6079255
>fiction based on fiction which is based on reality = good
>fiction based on reality = bad
Fiction is always based on reality.
Fiction based on fiction which is based on reality is just fiction based on reality with one extra step.
>This mistake in your argument that you keep making over and over is just the result of you not being very good at language again
You're the illiterate with cognitive dissonance here

>>6079260

>he posts it again
No arguments then.
I accept your concession.

>using his own retarded definition over the universally agreed to make his argument seem more legitimate
>continues to pretend he's not an underage b& or a literal retard
idc desu, i'm right and you're wrong
you can't even address the fact that a definition is inconsistent with your argument lmfao.

>"If i keep being dishonest i might WIN the argument lol lmao i don't really care i win lmfo"
tasty low iq salty tears

>using definitions agreed upon instead of making your own is dishonest
I don't think any reasonable person agrees with you.

>disregarding context to focus on the hyperliteral definition for the sake of winning the arguments he so desperately wants to win even when he's wrong, showed his dishonesty in arguing and displayed double think from the beginning
>"no one will agree with you so you're wrong! checkmate!"
This is amazing
keep going

>>6077085
>And somehow this way of thinking, doesn't raise any red flags at all.
have you cunts have ran out of red flags at this point or what?

>people getting triggered by fucking sakimichan
>not shadman
>not nanashi
>not [insert artist here]
>fucking sakimichan

>>6078011
If you dont know the difference between jerking off to an actual picture of an actual child or jerking it to a picture of a fictional child grown up you are beyond help. Your analogy is as retarded as "dude your gf was a child at some point too you fucking pedo".

>>6079197
sauce?

To everyone complaining:
Draw. Your. Own. Loli. or whatever.
If Sakimi or anyone else doesn't want to, you do it. You are an artist right?
Become better than her and steal her followers. That's it.

>>6079374
/lsg/ artist. Best general on this board.

>>6079315
>>6079295
>>6079324
>>6079382
>be incredibly dopamine starved zoomer
>zero reading comprehension
>see posts getting a lot of replies
>see word you don't like
>give braindead response
It should be illegal for retards like you to ever interact with another person.

>>6079315
Shadman is based actually. He's too popular for his own good tho.

Yes. You shouldn't draw lolis because pedos will take pleasure from it. The same with violence and psychopaths. Minimalist shapes are the best type of art for they represent the platonic forms praising God's true creations. Any variations are Satan's temptations and will lead you to hedonism, carnal pleasures, and sin. All will land you in hell

>>6079444
is this how mathematics was created?

>4chan back in the days
https://youtu.be/H2LQMElLoLs
>4chan now
>Yes. You shouldn't draw lolis because pedos will take pleasure from it. The same with violence and psychopaths. Minimalist shapes are the best type of art for they represent the platonic forms praising God's true creations. Any variations are Satan's temptations and will lead you to hedonism, carnal pleasures, and sin. All will land you in hell

>>6077041
Everything humans make is their responsibility, if your mind is pedophilic, you're a danger just like the Amerimutts that allow free guns to kill children with.

>>6077085
What if there's a time skip, kike?

>>6077094
>Le Magic
Time is literally relative, stupid flatearther.

>>6077114
>Muh slippery slope
Racism is not fucking compatible to sexual attraction, what the fuck's wrong with you? Go kill yourself now before you poison more people with your cancerous shittakes.

>>6077265
So by this logic, as long as the original artist supports the idea of aging up their character, it's ok? So, naturally, if they haven't so far gone on Twitter complaining "stop aging up my character" and as a result appears to be ok seeing people make fan art of their character, that should mean you have no leg to stand on for back seat monitoring other people's characters and should rightfully kill yourself now for shitting up the board with your policing.

Sorry trannies, (you) machine broke.

>>6077041
>31
>looks 20
Fucking coward. Call me when he draws her as a milf

>>6079530
>he

>>6079536
>doesnt know

>>6077041
based millionaire sakimichad making moralfags seethe

Fiction is not nonfiction unless the nonfiction is based wholly on something not fiction but if any part of the nonfiction stems from fiction or if the nonfiction has a fictional element then it is fiction.

But if the source ages the character up like ChiChi from dragon ball Z is it still pedo material?

What about if the loli is aged up in the show temporarily? Is it pedophiliac to be attracted to them? Does wanting to be crushed in this giant chicks tiddies make me pedo?

>>6079758
>>6079760
yes

>>6079761
What about a 10 year old who has a mature mental state? Is physical age the only thing that matters? Do we really need to judge things based on typical human standards?

>>6079758
>>6079760
>>6079766

>taking this topic seriously
This entire thread is bait.
>"Oh no i didnt put a fictional age on a fictional character on a piece of paper that doesn't adhere to any physical universal laws or legislative; im gonna get cancelled!"
At this point you fucks should just do it for the sole purpose of making them chimp out

>>6079760
name of the hentai/anime pls, if anime episode too

>>6079769
Someday I hope to draw a comic and watch all the porn flow. Making sure to state the characters are all 18-21 years old then later on make mention a year has only 300some days on their planet. Suddenly everyone realizes they've been drawing underage characters in porn and everyone's getting cancelled.

>>6079777
ikou de jungle. It's your standard shitty 90s anime. Watch it for the tiddies and nothing else.

>>6077041
The art itself does not, there's nothing stopping anyone from drawing demented perverted shit.
However, once it's published to the public, it falls under the scrutiny of society's moral compass.
Individuals' opinions will vary, but there will always be a majority opinion that determines the fate of the piece and its creator.

>>6079778
you could also just say an adult looking character is 100 years old then reveal that their an elf (making her underage by elf standards if you go by the elves live to 1000 years old idea)

>>6079197
Based pedobro

>>6077077
you have to be a teenager to think this

Am I the only one who don't have lustful desires towards lolis? If I see a good drawing I like it. That's it. Plus a lot of lolicons are highly skilled.
I agree that there are weirdos but I don't think most people following Fkey and the like are actual pedophiles, that would be ridiculous.

>>6080290
You're just able to separate fiction from reality. Congrats

>>6080290
>Plus a lot of lolicons are highly skilled.
This is honestly the reason why I follow most of the loli artists on my list. For some reason most loli artists are chink autism level skilled, even the western ones.

>>6079197
you can attention whore with your half assed trash in the /lsg/ thread with all the other schizo narcissist's there

>>6080554
pyw

>>6080290
i'm like this too, for attraction i just like the typical high school look
but loli art can be very fancy and beautiful, i think it's the autistic passion and commitment like the other anon said

>>6080554
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THIS FAG SEETHING OVER BEING ABSOLUTELY SKILLMOGGED
post your /beg/ tier work right now, i'm looking for a laugh today.
I bet it's worse than even the lowest skilled /lsg/ artist kek.

>>6080562
fuck off PMWfag

>>6080562
>lowest skilled

Every single one is complete garbage. The ones that have to resort to tracing and/or copying are also extremely noticeable.

The only thing of value that thread provides is how sensitive you manchildren are dealing with crabs.

>>6080580
>no work posted, just more seething
let me guess, you don't even draw.

>>6077041
just a drawing

>>6079778
Make sure you do some kind of subtle foreshadowing to make it seem more legit.

>>6077041
Bro why you mad? It's just a drawing.

>>6080660

idgi

>>6080660
Simply seeing the niggers ruins the whole mood. Nothing about fiction or reality here.

>>6080580
you're lucky he posted my stuff instead of this dude's work otherwise you'd be in tears of impotent rage right now

>>6080973

>>6080973
2k is such a godly artist, I kneel everytime.
best artist on this board

>>6081044
hi https://mobile.twitter.com/odi_gem

>>6081049
hi
i think doxxing is against rules

>>6080973
holy based. im not even a lolifag

>>6081044
does he have a blog?

>>6081077
he doesn't, archives are gone so a lot of work is gone but there's some on boorus. I don't know which ones though, someone will probably link

>>6081051
That's not a dox, dumbass.

>>6081120
Oh, my bad then. Idk really what dox means
Shame that I made that guy seethe this hard though.

>>6080662
>>6080660
is ugly
das why

>>6078889
that pic is gold, source?

>>6080973
while you were busy moralfagging, the lolifags were powering up....

>>6080973
There's no way this is an /ic/ artist, its too good.
This is better than most art I've seen even on twitter.

>>6081210
It's low /int at best. Is this the best the pedos have got?

>>6081217
he isnt low int lol

cope

>>6081217
if that's low /int/ then 99.9% of /ic/ is ultrapre/beg/

>>6081217
pathetic

>>6081219
>hand of the adult looks deformed like some birth defect
>perspective is fucked, as a result everything feels flat
>lines all have this unform weight, which makes the chicken scratching look eveb worse. No weight or sense of light and shadow
>no confidence with any of the forms
>legs look broken, shoes look like an afterthought
>hair is comprised entirely of spaghetti lines and do not follow along the shape of the skulls. The girl's in particular has no real weight.
>baby's first symbol drawing of the ears

I could go on. After giving it a closer look, maybe high /beg/ at best.

I borrowed this sketch from one of the anons in the recent drawthreads, a good example of mid /int/ for comparison.

If this crap is sincerely the best you've got, cope harder. Your bullshit is tearing down what little good will you have left.

>>6081240
this crab attempt is an epic fail.
did he fuck your wife or something? makes no sense why you'd seethe so hard and pretend that shitty mech sketch is better than 2k

>>6081240
>he “borrowed a sketch” instead of posting his own work

pywfag/odi_gem stop sucking 2kike's dick for one nanosecond challenge (impossible)

>>6081243
Given the thread's maturity level, I doubt any of you have fucked anything other than your right hands' in a while. Especially not you or the artist you keep exalting to cover a neverending string of embarrassments and failures.

If you keep melting down over a critique, on a board where that is part of why people come here, then be prepared to he laughed at even more.

>>6081261

Spend just a little more time outside of your containment thread, just to see how far this is from the work anons reguarly post here outside of /beg/.

Seeing the same handful of anons struggle so hard to prop themselves up is extremely telling.

>>6081284
He can't.

>>6081240
you expose how terrible you are at drawing by writing this high effort, terrible critique. thank you for flawlessly illustrating how little you understand about the fundamentals of a quality drawing

this is why people need to be wary of the critiques of a beg

btw im not a lolifag, i just recognize good work when i see it

>>6081217
that's to be expected from westernshart artist's kek

>>6081284
literally who

It's undeniable /lsg/ has the best artists on /ic/, no questions asked. No other general can compare.

>>6081309
How much does he pay you hourly to shill his sketches in threads

>>6081314
$2k per hour

>>6081309
>general with mentally ill schizophrenics and manchildren fighting each other 24/7 and thread that goes on page 1 from constant fighting bumps between those said manchildren while driving away artists and 5+ at max chicken scratch pile of donkey feces
>best
el em a oh

>>6081309
based true post.

Logical Proof:
premise 1: /ic/ hitsorically crabs the best artists
premise 2: /lsg/ contains the most crabbing out of any thread on /ic/
conclusion 1: /lsg/ must contain the best artists

I just proved it using facts and logic, I will not be taking emotional responses at this time.
also 2k is godly and is the best artist on this board

>>6081314
either that, or he's a falseflagger that has some beef with them and wants to put a black mark on them by pretending to be their whiteknight

>>6077085
>a drawing of an aged up, able to consent character is now considered problematic

>>6077041
who cares, post the uncensored version I wanna see anyas big tiddies NOW

>>6081330

The only people I have ever had beef, eggs, and ham with was Nosebro and Dochinachira.

>>6081343
I mean *telephone book that lists terrorist businesses transnationally

>>6081330
that doesn't make any fucking sense you schizo

>>6078755
It's not wrong though

>>6081465
the 41% stats?
yeah its closer to 60% actually but 41% is a cooler meme number

>>6077232
You're kidding, right? Straight people jack off to gay porn all the time.

>>6081309
>/lsg/ has the best artists on /ic/
Nah, it’s actually /fag/

>>6077041
yeesh that pose is goofy. but to answer your question, no. it doesn't have morality. it can be indicative of the person who makes it, but art itself doesn't have morality. if you draw lots of loli you're probably a paedophile, if you draw fat girls with pronoun and pride badges you're probably fat and a teenage girl. it's just likelihoods.

>>6082017
/fag/ has the highest amount of contributors but quantity does not mean quality.

>>6077041
ugly hag

>>6082060
ehh. Not that I keep count, but just taking a quick look at their general and they have a lot of high begs / ints compared to prebegs

>>6077114
>but fiction
>not an argument in the context of actually sexualizing children.
The word child represents a child but it isn't a child. I can and will continue to draw anything with fictional characters I want. I can draw you fucking your mother, does that make you participant of incest? Lucky for you the only fictional about you is your intelligence and I don't do abstract art.

>>6081343
obsessed

Wait but I actually don't understand the argument. Pedophile = attracted to child. Aged up Anya is clearly an adult. Therefore aged up Anya is literally not pedophilia???? With all the 400 year old dragon lolis with bodies of 4 year olds out there how is a "31 year old" with the body of a 21 year old the thing that triggers the moralizing police this hard?????

>>6083623
like all weebs I grew up on Naruto and that show literally starts with them as children. Naruto is objectively a child who grows up and has sex in the show. He has children with another character who was underage when the show started!!! Where is the moral outrage??? Plus how many shows have adult characters that have flashbacks to a childhood event or something? I am genuinely autistic I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS FAN ART IS WRONG. Reading this thread is not convincing me that it is.