/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>5200482
>And yet, your brain chooses to look at pictures of girls drawn in a way that makes them look underage.
MY BRAIN chooses to look at these characters as lolis. Not underage, that's literally just (you). I keep telling (You) that I don't. (You) are projecting your mental illness to me.
>Your brain chooses to look at that stuff, knowing that they look underage.
My brain knows it's not real, my brain also know that it's not the age. My brain also knows that lolis are cute, small, and petite. Not like Any children I know.
>Your brain wouldn't do that if it didn't find that sexually appealing.
I find lolis sexually appealing. Doesn't mean they're children, lol. Doesn't mean that I specifically look for age. I'm a lolibaba kind of guy. I like the mature imortal smugness that comes with the archetype for that body type.
>Everything else you say doesn't matter.
>This makes you a pedo
Everything I had said has been me saying they aren't "children" and everything you have been saying is that they are. No nigger, I'm no pedo. (You) are just projecting. Project more about how 2d is 3d though. Keep doing it. You only make yourself look like the retard.
>You may never hurt a child in your life, but the fact that you like lolis makes you a much, much bigger threat to them than a normal person is.
The only way I would be a "bigger threat" is to suggest that there is a correlation between lolis and child exploitation. So nigger, I'd like to ask. You got a single source to back that reasoning? The reasoning on how lolis are directly correlated to child exploitation.

>>5174858
>>5175007
>>5175033
>>5175075
>>5175257
You could argue that jacking off to traps isn't gay in the same way that jacking off to lolis doesn't make you a pedophile actually. It all just stems from the fact that 2d does not equal 3d. People who aren't brain damaged can understand this phenom on. Mainly because fiction is a representation of an idealization, not an individual.
>>5175270
>Do you not see how something that may be fine and tame may lead to other more dangerous and harmful things?
You got a source that lolis lead to child exploitation? because I have sources that say the exact opposite.
>Do you not see how something that may be fine and tame may lead to other more dangerous and harmful things?
>Do you not understand that many people do not have the luxury of self control to prevent them moving from 2d to 3d child porn?
If this was true why aren't there more gamers causing violence in real life? Even if this were true why should something get banned because of people who had underlying problems before their consumption. Why should the majority who don't do this kind of shit have to deal with that punishment?
You're literally throwing out "Video games cause violence" arguments. Do you have a single fact to back any of this shit up.