/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4686203
He’s trying to imply he references real naked children to imply loli=pedo and thus harmful because it requires real cp. The implicit argument here is a dishonest attempt at correlating cartoon drawings of fictional characters with real child pornography in an attempt to gain the moral high ground in the argument here despite the fact that diluting the definition of pedophilia and making light of it in a campaign used to attack artists only creates more harm to actual child victims by taking attention away from the real issues.


tl;dr - he’s fucking scum and has a shit argument. He doesn’t actually give a shit about pedophilia or protecting kids or whatever, he just wants to destroy someone’s career because he’s a sorry piece of shit who can only destroy.

>>4426453