What the fuck

[Anonymous No.4647206]

You told me i needed to grind anatomy to make it, but in reality i just needed to pander to a certain demographic

[Anonymous No.4647212]

>>4647206
Welcome to hell world. Everyone is fin except you and me, we both die starving and cold regardless of our skill. Just make the most of the time you have left

[Anonymous No.4647214]

>>4647212
>fun
*GMI

[Anonymous No.4647217]

>>4647206
yeah
turns out you just have to draw things that appeal to the right people
imagine that, huh?
oh, also LOOMISIREPIURTHGPIEHRG
and FUNDAMENTALSIERPI%$U(TU#($U

[Anonymous No.4647229]

>>4647206
>Ethnically ambiguous character with pubes growing out as hair
Is this the new fad, to draw an effeminate male that is also a minority?

[Anonymous No.4647239]

>>4647206
This looks like a game for degenerates...which is half of the politically active nation right now

[Anonymous No.4647240]

>>4647206
Anon you just need to feel good drawing to not kill yourself while you’re getting gud; and grind how well you can communicate through pictures because thats what people will hire you for.
Only then you’re going to make it.

[Anonymous No.4647241]

>>4647229
Its “woke”. Honestly i wouldnt hate it at all if it wasnt so blatantly done for good boy points, its pathetic and crosses into parody, not to mention if everyone does it it completely loses meaning, allienating a playerbase in favour of another.

[Anonymous No.4647245]

>>4647229
Draw what you see. If you live in muttistan you‘re gonna end up drawing mutts even if you don’t wanna

[Anonymous No.4647248]

>>4647206
>i just needed to pander to a certain demographic
Congratulations on figuring out what "business" is

[Anonymous No.4647250]

>>4647206
>look for it
>this isnt just a niche furry game
>its actually being shilled by playstation which is its platform
Lul

[Anonymous No.4647261]

>>4647250
It was so fucking wierd, they were showcasing how good the graphics were, and all of a sudden this bullshit popped up, completely unrelated

[Anonymous No.4647521]

>>4647206
this is still miles above your level probably

while the subject matter isnt to your liking, this is still shows knowledge of anatomy and them fundies

[Anonymous No.4647543]

>>4647206
I'm not a furry but I liked this just because it was more original and unique than 99% of the other games they showed.

[Anonymous No.4647560]

>>4647543
Literally nothing about it was unique

[Anonymous No.4647606]

>>4647206
From a /v/ thread, it's amazing how simplification can make something look better.

[Anonymous No.4647626]

>>4647606
That's not simplification, that's just outright changing the design. Knowing /v/, it's probably because they bitched that it didn't make their dick hard enough.

[Anonymous No.4647634]

>>4647606
Adding to this, I don't understand why some western female designs don't look "female" the new she ra is another example of this. It's like they take away what makes women special. You never see this shit in Japan or the East.

>>4647626
You're gonna hate this one then, lol.

[Anonymous No.4647662]

>>4647626
I agree, although going by the idea of the change I do think a small reduction would have helped with the "cute" factor without completely changing it. The edit completely removed it and at that point she's just a weird green girl with some large tumor on the back of her head.

I think the design is just caught in a weird place between trying to be anime girl and trying to be dinosaur. If the shape of her head went more to the reptile side it'd also work. As it stands the roundness of it clashes with the rest.

[Anonymous No.4647676]

>>4647634
Based. /v/ always had good taste.

[Anonymous No.4647706]

>>4647634
Didn’t notice at first

[Anonymous No.4647711]

>>4647606
does not look better at all. /v/ is retarded lol

[Anonymous No.4647717]

>>4647711
So you prefer rectangle torsos?

[Anonymous No.4647756]

>>4647711
What are you smoking? It's a massive improvement than the original slackjawed image.

[Anonymous No.4647840]

>>4647606
>Let's take the Pteranodon, and get rid of the beak
This is only a 'better' design if you're a coomer looking to jack off to a design. Which is transparent since the next step seemed to be boobs and more defined crotch area.

[Anonymous No.4647865]

>>4647840
Hey now anon, you forgot about the wider hips/smaller waist. Can't coom without that.

That said, the lack of wider hips is the only complaint about the original design. She does come off as too boxy, but everything else seems fine. Granted I'm not obsessed with jacking off to every single female character

[Anonymous No.4647887]

Another drawing from /v/

[Anonymous No.4647891]

>>4647634
go on...

[Anonymous No.4647911]

>>4647206
You still need to grind anatomy, retard.

[Anonymous No.4647956]

>>4647887
Fucking LOL

[Anonymous No.4647968]

>>4647606
This looks like ass.

[Anonymous No.4647983]

>>4647634
the kind of women who draw these abominations are doughy androgynes whose endocrine systems are so crippled by obesity and drug abuse that their bodies can no longer maintain an identifiably "female" appearance

the lingering body dysmorphia ferments into a flavor of trannyism almost like sour grapes, telling the universe that even though you're in constant pain from PCOS and look like an obese eunuch, you "never wanted to be a pretty girl anyway something something patriachy white people etc"

tl;dr - these freaks need to lay off the processed food and hit the gym

[Anonymous No.4647993]

>>4647206
If your definition of "making it" is " making money" and not "making quality art" then sure

[Anonymous No.4647997]

>>4647887
Holy based

[Anonymous No.4648321]

>>4647634
wow now she certainly looks like a cool magazine model blue cat with wings

[Anonymous No.4648369]

>>4647887
[/my]sides[my]

[Anonymous No.4648478]

>>4647206
hasn't this been said pretty much constantly on any platform

draw tumblr style shit and you'll generate a following in no time, the chinese have been moving towards cali style for years now because that's what zoomers want and where money is

meanwhile you idiots are drawing anime girls where a maximum of 150k people are into that shit, with 100k being japanese who only follow and support japanese artists and animators.

[Anonymous No.4648480]

>>4647756
not that anon but it's the same shit

[Anonymous No.4648503]

>>4647206
I don't really understand why people hate this style, aside it's association with tumblr, it looks pretty cute, that being said, I think >>4647606
Looks better, but >>4647634 looks worse

[Anonymous No.4648555]

>>4648503
>aside it's association with tumblr, it looks pretty cute
It doesn't look cute, your tastes are warped. The thing you think looks worse looks the best to me.

[Anonymous No.4648572]

>>4648503
>>4648555
It looks like absolute cancer both in the original and in the edits. Anon who added tits is proof that people today have absolutely no concern about artistry, they just want something that makes their dick hard. That's what everything is about today.

[Anonymous No.4648595]

>>4647248
Capitalism baby!

[Anonymous No.4648599]

Every attempt to "fix" the original image looks like trash. You all suck.

Having said that, the trailer for this game activated the hatred center of my brain. I used to be more open-minded about artsy fartsy stuff, but I just assume anything artsy made in the last 6 years is going to be navel-gazing trash.

[Anonymous No.4648608]

>>4648599
Where's your attempt, anon? You don't like how other people did it then fine, fix it yourself.

If you don't do it you're obviously even shittier than the people that tried.

[Anonymous No.4648614]

>>4648599
It's stuff made by people who are stuck in early adolescence and except for the fact it's "diverse" instead of completely uniform it's exactly the same as anime. It's all completely catered to a bunch of sad lonely people with no life experience whatsoever jacking it to fantasy high school fanfiction to make up for their shitty lives.
All in all it's just a worse reincarnation of what the committees did in the 90s with their totally radical kids cartoons, except that SOME adulthood would inevitably find its way in because the people employed were still normal, well-adjusted human beings. Now it's just Peter Pan syndrome cranked to the max. I think these guys aren't even pedos, they all live in a Michael Jackson delusion where they never grew past 13.

[Anonymous No.4648634]

>>4648608

I don't WANT to fix it because I don't hate the original design. It's weird but at least it's not a generic blobhead.

> It's all completely catered to a bunch of sad lonely people with no life experience whatsoever jacking it to fantasy high school fanfiction to make up for their shitty lives.

I think that's accurate. These are all representations of what people WISHED their High-School experience was like. Same reason generic high-school Animes are so popular among NEETs.

You know I remember seeing stuff like this in comic form back in the 90s, but it seemed less obnoxious. Maybe it's because people were less obnoxious in general back then.

[Anonymous No.4648638]

>>4648634
That design is straight up lifted from the croc chick in Night in the Woods.
Also I never watch the trailer for shit that gets advertised on 4chan but I assume it's some kind of dating sim or whatever

[Anonymous No.4648642]

>>4648638

The trailer showed literally no game play. For all it showed you'd think it was a movie or cartoon.

I get the impression it's more of a "relationship drama simulator" than a "dating sim".

[Anonymous No.4648666]

>>4648599
>the trailer for this game activated the hatred center of my brain.
Anon, you do know this isn't normal right? Well, outside this board.

[Anonymous No.4648675]

>>4648595
Not really.
Because capitalism isn't just about pandering to a demographic.
It's about pandering to the most profitable demogrpahic.
That wouldn't be anyone on the left, right now. So, it's not capitalism that motivates the pandering. It's altruism. It's communism. Why else would companies of any kind HURT their profits by pissing off the majority of their users or fans?

[Anonymous No.4648677]

>>4648634
>It's weird but at least it's not a generic blobhead.
the eternal contrarian, would rather have something weird and repulsive than something generic but pleasing.

[Anonymous No.4648688]

>>4648675
This

[Anonymous No.4648689]

>>4648675
>communism is altruism
hahahaha
why would you pander to a demographic in the first place if not to choose a profitable target demographic? Other than making something good, there should be no other objective.
And companies obviously aren't hurting their profits if this stuff gets pushed all the time. Someone is giving them money for it, if not the "target audience" then someone else is. There is always profit in every move these companies make. You cannot trust anything in this world but you can trust the intent of advertisements because they're designed to obtain maximum profit at all time. Do you know that when you see a dog in an ad, there's a specific reason for it?

[Anonymous No.4648694]

>>4648689
to be fair OP is an indie project, no trple A company worked on it, besides putting it for whatever reason in the ps5 showcase.

[Anonymous No.4648695]

>>4647239
which nation

[Anonymous No.4648696]

>>4647206
why do you want to work for an industry that produces shit content for shit people with shit taste?
Just bregrudginly grind furry porn to pay the bills and work on mastering the craft like the rest of us.
Your best work is never the work you make for some company.

[Anonymous No.4648702]

>>4648689
>>communism is altruism
>hahahaha
Well, you're clearly retarded.
What do you think "self-sacrifice" is, retard? That's altruism. Communism requires people to be willing to give up what they have for the "greater good."
I can tell you haven't read a book in your life.

Source for pic-related: https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/objectivism-q-a/objectivism-q-a-blog/4286-egoism-and-capitalism-vs-altruism-and-communism

[Anonymous No.4648705]

>>4648689
Also, I said, "most profitable."
Profits ALONE don't keep a company moving. You need to MAXIMIZE profits. THAT'S capitalism. $1 from the "woke" crowd isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact as $100 from the dedicated majority/fanbase. That's what you retards aren't grasping. This isn't capitalism. It's nowhere near efficient enough to be capitalistic when you're trying to appease a minority at the expense of pissing off the people who ACTUALLY use your products.

[Anonymous No.4648708]

>>4648702
"Requires people to be wiling to" is a very contrived way of saying "it forces people to" and "the greater good" is always "centralized power"
There is no altruism motivating any political system

[Anonymous No.4648709]

>>4648705
>$1 from the "woke" crowd isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact as $100 from the dedicated majority/fanbase. That's what you retards aren't grasping.
These companies are clearly maximizing profits by getting what you think is $1 from the woke crowd. If not directly from customers, they do in some other way. You act as if these companies were acting out of principle. They're money making machines. You just don't have the same data and knowledge the marketing people and CEOs have so all you can try is opinionated wild guesses.

[Anonymous No.4648710]

>>4648708
>"Requires people to be wiling to" is a very contrived way of saying "it forces people to" and "the greater good" is always "centralized power"
Interpret this however you please. The point is that pandering to an audience at one's own expense is not the same thing as pandering to an audience at own's one benefit or profit. Former is communism; the latter is capitalism. That's why you get garbage like OP's pic. "Females" that don't look like females.and are essentially just cardboard boxes, and men that look like women.
>There is no altruism motivating any political system
Believe what you want. I can't help you if you're dead-set on believing what you want to believe in the face of evidence and research and HISTORY.

[Anonymous No.4648720]

>>4648710
Dude. If these companies didn't put Tumblr The Game in the PlayStation trailer, what do you think would happen? A campaign like #boycottPS5 on Twitter? Do you think this would impact sales somehow if people didn't buy it anyway? It's extremely contrived to think that Sony, a global megacorp, is getting infiltrated by SJWs and that's why they're pushing Tumblr High in the trailer for the new console. They don't give a fuck. It sells, they put that in. The trailer for Japan probably has lolis in it. It's all about what sells to the "target demographic", there is no other thing that makes the world go around.

[Anonymous No.4648722]

>>4648709
>These companies are clearly maximizing profits by getting what you think is $1 from the woke crowd.
Yeah, that's why EA's Battlefield V did so well, huh?
> If not directly from customers, they do in some other way.
This is a bullshit argument and you know it.
>You act as if these companies were acting out of principle.
I never said altruism was principled. I said it's what they're doing. I didn't read motive into anything; I just described the action and the result.
>They're money making machines.
To people that don't understand how economics work, of course you'll see "money" as the only thing that matters. You don't realize that money is just a placeholder; it's a way to represent the value of LABOR. The LABOR has the value. That's why communism fails. It doesn't appreciate the LABOR.
>You just don't have the same data and knowledge the marketing people and CEOs have so all you can try is opinionated wild guesses.
I don't need data to understand basic supply and demand economics, lmao.
This isn't an "opinion," lefty. You can't maximize profit if you have 95 people who like what you're doing and 5 people who hate it. You have to figure out how to get the 5 people to like it, WHILE keeping the 95 you have.

These people instead THROW AWAY the 95 people and pander to the 5. How does this look like capitalism??

[Anonymous No.4648725]

>>4648694
>to be fair OP is an indie project
oh cmon, do you still believe "indie projects" are a few people in a basement? they've got funding that you or me would never get. stop believing in lies

[Anonymous No.4648729]

>>4648725
those are the devs, you sperg. You can count them on your fingers. You are clearly clueless if you think there is no difference between trple A projects and indie ones.

[Anonymous No.4648730]

>>4648729

[Anonymous No.4648731]

>>4648720
>Dude. If these companies didn't put Tumblr The Game in the PlayStation trailer, what do you think would happen?
Whatever was happening before Tumblr existed and before they created the product. They obviously had an audience before doing this.
>A campaign like #boycottPS5 on Twitter?
From a crowd of people who don't even play the game. No loss. These companies don't have spines, anymore. They aren't trying to figure out how to keep everyone involved. They're picking sides. If they cared about not alienating a particular audience, they'd look for a middle ground.
>It's extremely contrived to think that Sony, a global megacorp, is getting infiltrated by SJWs and that's why they're pushing Tumblr High in the trailer for the new console.
I didn't say this. lmao
>It sells, they put that in.
But, it doesn't sell to the MOST PEOPLE.
This isn't hard to grasp.
>The trailer for Japan probably has lolis in it. It's all about what sells to the "target demographic", there is no other thing that makes the world go around.
If you're a big company and your objective is to sell to a particular demographic, then go right on ahead and pander to it. That's not the argument nor my problem. The problem is that they can't please EVERYONE. So, you have to fit as many reasonable amounts of things into an appealing product as possible, without adversely affecting one target audience. So, if you're going to, say, advertise a men's product: you can't insult men, make the product more female-friendly by taking away masculine necessities, and then expect men to still buy it. So, you'll be losing money, because women didn't buy it in the first place and still won't because there are still better products that pander to them and now men aren't buying it because you nulled the whole point of it being a men's product.

[Anonymous No.4648816]

>>4648731
Can someone actually link me this trailer

[Anonymous No.4648822]

>>4648816
youtube.com

[Anonymous No.4648827]

>>4648822
I'm not going to sift through a slew of gamer basedboy youtubers's clickbait commentary on the new playstation 5 trailer in order to see what's so offensive in the 5 seconds of footage from this game in the reel

[Anonymous No.4648875]

>>4647206
Your anatomy needs to be good enough. For a character designer which is what most of /ic/ seems to be aiming for, good enough means fucking excellent.
For an animator or environment artist, good enough means barely any.

That's the price for not specializing, you have to learn everything perfectly.

[Anonymous No.4648890]

>>4648675
>It's about pandering to the most profitable demogrpahic.

Not really, targeting niches are a thing. By that logic every movie that isn't a blockbuster is "communism".

[Anonymous No.4648921]

>>4647206
>we gave the uhh triceratops curly hair so that you know that he's black and know that our fantasy universe about dinosaurs has Race in it
nice.

[Anonymous No.4648933]

>>4648675
Dumb comment.

[Anonymous No.4648954]

>>4647206
Just pander to some mentally ill poeple babbyyyy

[Anonymous No.4648972]

>>4648827
There's nothing specifically offensive about it it's just Big Crunge to think about grown ass adults consuming media about dinosaurs in highschool that isn't some form of satire. It's also a shitty splice between Furry and Proto-Anime that sucks at being both things simultaneously. At least the other talking animal game it's clearly aping depicted, y'know, adults.

[Anonymous No.4648976]

>>4648875
>For an animator good enough means barely any.
You don't know shit about animation. Fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.4648993]

>>4648972
Yeah but anon was going about it like they were holding signs with #killallcismen written on it. It looks like typical Tumblr trash but there's nothing about it that would "alienate" the normie player base that is going to buy themselves a PS5.
I mean it's not a fucking museum, it's a reel for videogames. It's not like adults who still play vidya in their 30s are the most mature people around. And many of the people playing this shit will be children.

[Anonymous No.4649018]

>>4648993
If I had to guess they're probably talking about alienating the audience that goes out of their way to downvote things on youtube/reddit, which the game is doing very poorly with and might seem like the majority of the game playing demographic to someone who doesn't go outside and only has "Downboat line bigger than upboat line" to go off of.

[Anonymous No.4649574]

>>4648677
>pleasing.

There's nothing particularly pleasing about those apple heads /v/ came up with.

[Anonymous No.4649589]

>>4647206
Anyone else notice a lot of furry shit during the PS5 show?

[Anonymous No.4649636]

>>4648722
>that's why EA's Battlefield V did so well, huh?
Are you trying to imply that leftism is always some kind of profit hit? BFV came out at a horrible time and had lots of competition while also shitting the bed with the marketing.
>How does this look like capitalism??
A multimillion or multibillion dollar corp isn't going to throw away their customers. Intentionally losing profit is actually illegal for publicly traded corps and these kinds of decisions go through layer after layer of bureaucracy and market research. Companies pander because it works. Otherwise why the fuck would a corp give a shit about social issues?

[Anonymous No.4649651]

>>4647206
This looks like a good indie game with interesting artstyle. I'll buy it if it comes to PC.
>>4647606
>>4647634
Soulless garbage. Why do you retards think every female needs tits and cunny. Fucking coombrains need to die

[Anonymous No.4649658]

>>4647634
>Every woman has to have at least C-cup tits
>The only thing that makes a female design female is the massive titties
I hate weebs so much.

[Anonymous No.4649705]

>>4649658
Its not about the fat tits, its the incredibly androgynous design that these games always have that's annoying. Its the opposite from shovelware games that's only appeal is anime tits, Its a game that's devoid of any creativity and panders to a very tiny demographic. The difference is that this shit is considered amazing and moving when its only for autistic, ugly gay white women to go "that's literally me"

[Anonymous No.4649719]

>>4649705
Its not androgynous at all. Small shoulders, thin arms, long hair, makeup, and there actually is a small hint of flat chest under the shirt. Its no more androgynous than asuka, bulma, Himiko Toga, or the hundred other flat-chested women in weebshit.
Aside from giving her massive tits, what other "feminine features" do you want to tack on?

[Anonymous No.4649745]

>>4649719
So, you're saying it's actually common to be female and also to not have developed tits, not have curves, and not have any feminine sex appeal?

Fuck off, tranny SJW. Please.

[Anonymous No.4649749]

>>4649745
Fuck off you coomer piece of shit

[Anonymous No.4649750]

>>4649745
Go outside and introduce yourself to the bell curve of human attractiveness. Fucktard.

[Anonymous No.4649757]

>>4649745
Nowhere at all in my post did I say it was common. You're an illiterate strawmanning /pol/tard dipshit.
I said that having C-cup or above tits is not a requirement for looking feminine, and then provided 3 examples of anime women who don't have fat fucking gazonkas that are undeniably feminine. Having an hourglass figure or being curvy isn't a requirement for looking feminine, having a flat-chest doesn't mean your breasts aren't "developed", and "feminine sex appeal" is a vague term at best and isn't a requirement for looking feminine.

[Anonymous No.4649779]

>>4649745
Leave your fucking house once in a while

[Anonymous No.4649819]

>>4649745
Oh look another delusional coom brain faggot.

[Anonymous No.4649854]

>>4649745
Are you one of those people who cried about Last of Us 2 going for a realistic route with the female character because you couldn't jack off to it like your Japanese animay games?

[Anonymous No.4649887]

>>4649854
>Last of Us 2, realistic route with the female character.
Wait what ... ? You mean how they have access to steroids in a post apocalypse world ?

[Anonymous No.4649896]

>>4649887
I'm referring to the design of the character, which does make sense given the setting. I'm not talking about the game itself because it's irrelevant.
This isn't /v/

[Anonymous No.4649915]

>>4649749
>>4649750
>>4649779
>>4649819
>>4649854

Gooooddamnnnnn. lmao
I got ALL these freaks seething. wtf

[Anonymous No.4649919]

>>4647261
this.
I shouldn't be surprised since nowadays that's the shit that sells more but still didn't expect that .
Really tumblr furry tier game .

[Anonymous No.4649922]

>>4649757
You're the one that put quotations around the word "feminine." Not me.
You're the one implying there's no standard for femininity. lmao
So, I asked you a question as to whether or not it's common for females to NOT have those traits. It obvious IS common. That's why you're mad. It's painful to accept that people like to see feminine parts on females. Imagine that!

[Anonymous No.4649934]

>>4649922
>It obvious IS common.
"It obviously ISN'T common."
idk wtf happened here

[Anonymous No.4649947]

>>4649705
Anyone normal really wouldn't give a shit about the dinogirl's design. It's just you people (/v/, kotakuinaction, whatever the fuck you come from) seethe so much about it
You're literally complaining that it isn't sexy enuff, nigga just don't buy it.

[Anonymous No.4649955]

>>4649745
>male character
>you can make them tough, fat, scrawny, unattractive, balding, tall, short, old, young, androgynous, masculine, any combo nobody will care
>female character
>nooo you can't just make an underage female character that I don't want to fuck! where are the heckin wholesome chonker booberinos? noooo!!!

[Anonymous No.4650080]

>>4649922
I put quotations around the word because "feminine features" is a very vague term and there is no official list of what is and isn't always considered feminine.
>I asked you a question as to whether or not it's common for females to NOT have those traits
You only asked me that after you sperged out about me pointing out that having fat tits isn't the only way to appear feminine. It was a massive pivot and is irrelevant to the first point I made, which is that you don't have to have giant boobs to look feminine. Whether or not the average woman has C-cup tits or even Z-cup tits is irrelevant to the fact that there are women who have a flat chest and undeniably look like women.
>That's why you're mad. It's painful to accept that people like to see feminine parts on females
I'm not mad that people like titties or something, I'm frustrated that retards like you are hypocrites and try to pretend that when muh uwu sugoi kawaii animu girl wears punk/goth clothes and has a flat chest that its actually the peak of feminine character design but when a western character has a flat chest and wears punk/goth shit then the character might as well look like adam sandler. Its a retarded double standard

[Anonymous No.4650181]

>>4649915
>Get called out by a shit ton of people for being retarded
>Lmaooo wow everyone but me is stupid and clearly not the opposite

[Anonymous No.4650587]

>>4648705
Those people aren't the majority of anything except shitty boards and reddit lol

Get the fuck over yourself.

[Anonymous No.4650599]

>>4647206
Cringe the game

[Anonymous No.4650645]

>>4647887
Based bishopbb

[Anonymous No.4650709]

>>4647206
Who the fuck draws feathers on a fucking pterosaur?!

No, pycnofibers weren't feathers. They were fur. These people had a legit excuse to put fur on a furry and they still missed it.

[Anonymous No.4650712]

>>4650709
They weren't really fur either. THey were best described as protofeathers, and resembled anything from thick filaments to branching feathers. Lots of birds still have a mix of feathers and hair-like filaments, but it's pretty hard to tell.

[Anonymous No.4650731]

>>4650712
You're right, but rough filaments look like fur in practice, so the general ptero habitus was probably more furry than feathery. Sort of like kiwis.

[Anonymous No.4650735]

>>4649574
Compared to the original design anything else would be a huge improvement.

[Anonymous No.4650741]

>>4650731
Tru tru, if I was being pedantic I might say that fluffy is a better descriptor that furry but I appreciate your cutting edge dino knowledge, I bet we'd be friends

[Anonymous No.4650743]

>>4647634
its an age thing, now the ptero looks like a mature woman and the triceratops still looks like an adolescent

[Anonymous No.4650752]

>>4647206
Nothing is wrong with these characters. Anatomy is like any set of rules, the better you understand them the more you can break them.

The best simplified or stylized characters come from the deepest understanding of anatomy and structure, because the artists need less to portray more.

Say what you will about the style of these characters, style is subjective, it just needs to be visually coherent so that an untrained eye doesn't look at it and see it as "off".

You might think this doesn't take skill, and sure this specific drawing may not have taken the most thorough understanding of anatomy, but once things start moving and getting dynamic that's where the knowledge comes into play.

Again, style will always be subjective. What looks beautiful to you may look completely unremarkable to someone else. But poor structure, proportions, perspective, etc ... lacking fundamentals will look bad to everyone.

[Anonymous No.4650842]

>>4647206
>Checked developer's past
>Turns out she's a pedo
>Checked her twitter
>found out this
>hownottodraw

Uhm.... BROS?!

[Anonymous No.4650846]

>>4650842
she even posted CP on kotaku lmao
https://web.archive.org/web/20190924183828/https://kotaku.com/animated-video-game-porn-could-be-a-lot-sexier-and-less-1838335168

[Anonymous No.4650848]

>>4650842
I'M OFFENDED CANCEL THIS SHIT NOW

[Anonymous No.4650852]

>>4650842
What the fuck

Well that explains why they all look like adolescents...

[Anonymous No.4650861]

>>4650852
https://kotaku.com/a-sexy-cyberpunk-dating-sim-about-and-by-trans-folk-1830309223

https://kinja.com/hownottodraw

So this British lady only writes about progressive games with sex about having sex with dragons, trans droids and Senpai Club-style husbandos?

That must have been a strange job interview. "So listen, ms Gray, I'd like for you to cover weird indie games that involve sex and trans representation. There's a huge demand for more disgusting indie games featuring actual, graphical footjobs having sex with transsexual robots. And your name popped up! I'm sure it's gonna be different from your time at Nintendo, but I'm sure you'll manage. Intredasted?"

[Anonymous No.4650912]

>>4650842
How do you know she’s a pedo?

[Anonymous No.4650940]

>>4650912
See
>>4650846

[Anonymous No.4650971]

>>4650940
I read it. She’s not a pedo, just an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4650979]

>THIS MAKES MY DICK HARD!
>BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE *MY* DICK HARD!
>STOP OPPRESSING ME!!
>ADD TITS OR ELSE!!!
>NO!
>YES!
>NO!!!
>YES!!!
#art2020

[Anonymous No.4650982]

>>4650912
She didn't even have a second thought about posting pictures of minors in games getting fucked, and describing it play by play, to a website minors themselves like to visit for game news.

She wasn't even the person that took it down.

Does that not strike you as weird behavior for an adult? Also the point of the article was to talk about having better sex scenes in video games, however.. she could have picked from a TON of options involving 18+ characters. She mentions a character over 18 (snake from MGS) one time and as a joke. Yet she chose to stick strictly to underage for her text and photos.

[Anonymous No.4650994]

>>4650982
The characters look and act exactly like adults. Stop being such a sensitive little snowflake about the ages of obviously fictional characters. If reading smut fanfictictions about them is fine, seeing them fuck in cg is also fine.

[Anonymous No.4651000]

>>4650982
Pedophile MO for conditioning is showing kiddy porn or underage cartoon character porn to kids. Not surprised after what I've seen from her desu. She probably does this to kids all the time and didn't think anything of it.

[Anonymous No.4651023]

>>4650842
>>4650846
I don't understand you people. This board is full of lolifags who will jump at the slightest provocation to defend their weird porn and insist it's not CP and they're not pedos. But if another person who broke your moral laws about liking fursuit or whatever then the gloves are off and loli actually is CP and all lolifags are pedos.

[Anonymous No.4651044]

>>4649955
Those characters are already in their late adolescence. They should all have developed all secondary sexual traits by now.

[Anonymous No.4651045]

>>4651023
I’m a lolicon and she pisses me off, so I want her to get cancelled.

[Anonymous No.4651053]

>>4651023
I hate all pedos equally. Fuck that bitch for being a pedo.

>>4651045
Fuck you too lolifag.

[Anonymous No.4651061]

>>4651045
But that's hypocritical and counterproductive. If you're making the concession now that loli can equal pedo if you do things I don't like (or that we can act as such) then you later have no leg to stand on if other people shit on you or try to ruin your life for liking loli because you have already set the standard that doing so is okay. It also makes arguing for loli harder because every single time you cancel someone or cause a fit about them liking loli, and every time your outward reason for cancelling that person is because you say that they're a pedo, then you reinforce the idea that people should be cancelled for liking loli and that people who like loli are pedos.
>>4651053
I can't hate on moral consistency, even if your conclusion is fundamentally wrong.

[Anonymous No.4651065]

>>4651023
It's almost like you think all of /ic/ is one person, or a hivemind. Do we all have the same opinions because we post on the same board? Of course not, we argue constantly.

Any time someone posts lolishit here it gets deleted and they get pissed off or it starts a damn shitposting war unless the lolifags somehow slip under the radar, in which case they circlejerk until someone notices. Do you even pay attention to what goes on here? If not why are you acting like you know everything?

[Anonymous No.4651071]

>>4651065
I don't think /ic/ is a hivemind. I'm specifically talking to the lolifags who I know are reading this shit and will say nothing or will defend it.

[Anonymous No.4651080]

>>4647756
it was clear in the original design the character was some kind of pterodactyl or something. now what the fuck is it meant to be. you stupid fuckers on /v/ have no clue about character design, go back there

[Anonymous No.4651082]

>>4651061
>every single time you cancel someone or cause a fit about them liking loli, and every time your outward reason for cancelling that person is because you say that they're a pedo, then you reinforce the idea that people should be cancelled for liking loli and that people who like loli are pedos.

Lolifag crabs are especially retarded and should be cleansed.

[Anonymous No.4651092]

>>4651071
>I'm specifically talking to the lolifags who I know are reading this shit and will say nothing or will defend it.
i just don't care and know i can't do anything about it when normalfaggots won't even address the gamer's dilemma. we've had an literally so total and final argument which distinguishes between CP and fictional characters for over 10 years and normalfags just ignore it because normies gonna norm. it's all so tiresome. also you can't stop faggot normals cancelling other faggot normals, and lolifags want to stay as far away from normals as possible

[Anonymous No.4651098]

>>4651061
Lolifags are obnoxious wretches and should never be tolerated since they downplay every thread they participate in

[Anonymous No.4651109]

>>4651092
No social issue is ever solved with an argument, no matter how definitive the case. A social issue isn't fixed by making the case for it, but in convincing as many people as possible that you made the case for it.

[Anonymous No.4651124]

>>4651109
>A social issue isn't fixed by making the case for it, but in convincing as many people as possible that you made the case for it.
Wrong.
It's a mixture of a lot of things that leads to reform. Discussions and understanding is exactly what leads to it. It's the literal premise of how blacks got their rights in America. They had to get loud and make their case known to many people -- you're correct, here -- and yet it still came down to getting the people to actually agree with them. It can't be that simple when the entire country hates your race and doesn't even care to listen to you. So, it's more than even just discussions. You have to make people reasonably question their own beliefs as you discuss things with them.

But, of course, SJWs and left-wingers think discussions are outdated. It's why none of them have arguments and just yell at people while going full authoritarian on anyone disagreeing.

[Anonymous No.4651128]

>>4650979
>haha look at my edgy synopsis of what I think is going on despite not reading the arguments

[Anonymous No.4651133]

>>4651092
>the gamer's dilemma
What the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.4651135]

>>4651133
essentially that all explanations as to why virtual (i.e. fictional) murder is allowed to be portrayed while virtual (fictional) pedophilia is not are arguments from normalfaggotry which have no basis in objective reality. google it and get back to me when you have a definitive argument that doesn't make logical leaps. oh you won't because it's been discussed for over 10 years and not a single person did so.

[Anonymous No.4651136]

>>4650080
>I put quotations around the word because "feminine features" is a very vague term and there is no official list of what is and isn't always considered feminine.
Hahahahaha. "Boobs and hips aren't always feminine." Hahahahahahaha.
>You only asked me that after you sperged
Stopped reading. I don't have time for buzzwords in place of arguments.
Have fun being confused over your "gender" and whatever.

[Anonymous No.4651137]

>>4650181
STILL seething
>>4650587
... It's like you didn't even comprehend what I was saying nor follow the chain of the conversation.
Yes, this is exactly what I said, retard. lmao
"$1 from the "woke" crowd isn't going to have nearly as much of an impact as $100 from the dedicated majority/fanbase."

[Anonymous No.4651140]

>>4651109
no social issue is ever solved until normal fags find a way to virtual signal about it, which, regarding pedophilia, they never will. LGBT is already so despised, imagine how much people would despise open pedophilia

[Anonymous No.4651145]

>>4651092
>lolifags want to stay as far away from normals as possible
That’s a big fucking lie. There was a twitter thread from someone I followed and the guy was shitting on people for liking loli porn. A bunch of those lolishitters appeared and defend their degenerate fetish, they aren’t even following the guy. Something like this happens quite often, especially if the tweet blows up. They only keep quiet until someone shits on their fetish.

[Anonymous No.4651149]

>>4651145
yeah and when a dog barks a bunch of other dogs show up and start barking too. that doesn't mean intelligent people need to stoop to the level of twitter users

[Anonymous No.4651151]

>>4651135
You don't have to be such a salty bitch about it I was just asking what the fuck you were talking about. Fuck you for being a shit about that, go stand in the corner.

[Anonymous No.4651155]

>>4651151
or you could just use google and get a much better explanation elsewhere

[Anonymous No.4651162]

>>4651149
>They only keep quiet until someone shits on their fetish.
is what he said
not
>They only keep quiet until someone says something

why do you people do this disingenuous shit every time?

[Anonymous No.4651170]

>>4651162
i don't give a fuck nigger how stupid are you to think i'll sit here and make generalizations about massive groups of people for absolutely no benefit except providing you with some facile form of entertainment. fuck how tiresome

[Anonymous No.4651180]

>>4651170
The pedo is triggered.

Don't you have a childhood to go ruin or something?

[Anonymous No.4651182]

>>4651180
i'll have to try hard to make someone's childhood worse than yours

[Anonymous No.4651187]

>>4651182
Hahahaha was that supposed to be an insult? Oh my god that was fucking hilarious

Do it again do it again. Try to insult me. For real this time.

[Anonymous No.4651192]

>>4651187
i would feel embarrassed typing something like this into a message box

[Anonymous No.4651197]

>>4651170
SEETHE, nigga, SEETHE

[Anonymous No.4651200]

>>4651197
*nigger

[Anonymous No.4651201]

>>4651170
>>4651182
>>4651192
You just proved my point, dipshit. Look at you shitting over yourself because someone was trashing on your precious loli porn.

[Anonymous No.4651204]

>>4651192
Yeah still didn't feel anything from that. Got anything better?

[Anonymous No.4651206]

>>4651201
it's just porn bro

[Anonymous No.4651210]

>>4651204
the only way your soulless husk is gonna feel anything is if you shoot up heroin bud

[Anonymous No.4651211]

>>4651206
>goes the disingenuous route once again
That's not the argument, bro.

[Anonymous No.4651216]

>>4651211
what argument? the argument that lolicon is bad? that's not even an argument: that's something accepted by gospel by 99.999% of humanity. congratulations on fitting in

[Anonymous No.4651217]

>>4651216
>next, start pretending they never made an argument, despite literally reacting to the argument for this long

[Anonymous No.4651219]

>>4651201
Got 'em

[Anonymous No.4651221]

I realized a long time ago that pro-pedo arguments sound exactly like LGBT arguments.
That's why I personally am anti-LGBT. It's all just a slippery slope with no consistency.

[Anonymous No.4651225]

>>4651217
i don't know what your argument is besides me being some kind of imbecile. seeing as i keep responding to you, it is probably right. if your argument is that lolifags on twitter are pissed about normies, you can continue to make it, more power to you. i don't even read twitter. im banned for saying the n word

[Anonymous No.4651228]

>>4651225
I'm not this guy:
>>4651201
I'm this guy:
>>4651162
>>4651211
>>4651217

[Anonymous No.4651231]

>>4651225
>if your argument is that lolifags on twitter are pissed about normies
Also, yes. That's his entire point.
You people can't handle the fact that people don't approve of your fetishes. It's LGBT-activism all over again, with the same rationality.
Except instead of attacking the spooky "religious" people, the boogeyman is now just all "normies."

[Anonymous No.4651232]

>>4650842
>we now take a break from complaining about the underage character not being hot enough to call the character's own creator a pedo
Never change, /ic/

[Anonymous No.4651233]

>>4651221
consistency would be allowing consenting adults to do whatever they want, provided it does not make a victim of someone else.

but this is what we have in reality: circumcising (kid mutilation) is allowed while lolicon is not

[Anonymous No.4651234]

>>4651210
:) Aww look he's stooping to the lowest common denominator. I felt a little more effort in that one but it still isn't working.

Hey, just wondering, are you attracted to underage girls because you're mentally a child yourself? Just judging from your shitty trash talk here, it's like a kid trying to be edgy. The bad insults would almost be an endearing trait if you weren't human garbage.

[Anonymous No.4651235]

>>4651231
>You people
>>4651170

> the boogeyman is now just all "normies."
well i don't know how many people in wider society approve of such things but the number has to be pretty low.

also, i don't consider pedophilia a fetish. nor do i consider lolicon a fetish, it is pedophilia. i don't see convincing arguments to otherwise

people would disapprove of a lot of things about the way i live my life, i don't let it drag me down

[Anonymous No.4651239]

>>4651234
they're not insults, it's friendly banter bruh. if i truly hated you i would bash your skull in with a hammer. because you're an anonymous internet user, that's impossible. it would be unhealthy to invest hate into internet messages

[Anonymous No.4651242]

>>4651233
>consistency would be allowing consenting adults to do whatever they want
1. Kids aren't adults.
2. No one really does care. We wouldn't even know about it if LGBT never brought it to our attention. I don't need to know about your foot fetish, your BDSM fetish, your same-sex fetish, or your anything-fetish.

The only reason you're getting heat is because you can't stay out of the sun. But, you feel like you must be treated like the people who can handle the sun and that you are capable of handling the sun, but you don't realize that you aren't like those people who can handle the sun. Instead of adapting yourself and making changes so that you can handle the sun in your own way, you just demand everyone else to turn off the sun.

You don't realize how you're creating your own problems.
>>4651235
... Yeah? You people. You LGBT people. Would you prefer, "You mutated abominations?" You're trying to pretend that LGBT is the same thing as an immutable characteristic, like skin color and sex. It's not. It's an ideology. It's a fetish. Nice try on the "bigot" card.

[Anonymous No.4651248]

>>4647206
this was never a secret

[Anonymous No.4651251]

>>4651242
>>4651239
cringe anime villain monologue

[Anonymous No.4651255]

>>4651251
>I can't use critical thinking, so I'll just compare everything I don't like to some oversimplified version of an archetype

[Anonymous No.4651256]

>>4651242
>1. Kids aren't adults.
do you think i'm making some stand for NAMBLA here or something? or are you talking about lolicon?
>We wouldn't even know about it if LGBT never brought it to our attention
well, up until the mid 19th century, if you recall, open homosexuals were imprisoned, excuted, or castrated, in almost all countries

>your same-sex fetish
you have an interesting definition for fetish. do you think all sexuality are fetishes, besides heterosexuality? interesting, but it's too broad to be useful.

the rest of your post is gibberish. if you think pedophilia is an ideology and fetish, then you should write to all the pedophiles in prison. they could use your help, i'm sure most of them wish every day that they weren't pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.4651259]

>>4651255
He keeps doing it!

[Anonymous No.4651279]

>>4651256
>well, up until the mid 19th century, if you recall, open homosexuals were imprisoned, excuted, or castrated, in almost all countries

I don't see how this is refuting what I said. Like, yeah. They did it in the open, so they got killed for it. I don't think they should have been killed. I also don't think their sexual urges need to be public knowledge. This isn't mutually exclusive.
>you have an interesting definition for fetish. do you think all sexuality are fetishes, besides heterosexuality? interesting, but it's too broad to be useful.
No. I don't think every sexuality (there's only one, but we'll be nice) is a fetish, because not all fetishes are a sexuality.
>the rest of your post is gibberish.
It was a metaphor. Simply replace "the sun" with "society."
>if you think pedophilia is an ideology and fetish, then you should write to all the pedophiles in prison. they could use your help, i'm sure most of them wish every day that they weren't pedophiles.
It is. The Psychological definition of fetish is defined as a (paraphrased) laser-focused sexual obsession with an object or body-part to a point of distress or interference with otherwise typical/normal behavior.

Humans are mammals, mind you. So, why don't dogs have pedophilia problems? Why are all adult male dogs willing and able (assuming no deformities) to mate with adult female dogs? And no, a dog occasionally rubbing himself against your leg isn't a "sexuality." The dog is just trying to get off because it feels good and it needs release. Mating is a different story.

Pedophilia, homoerotic behavior, foot fetishes: all learned.

[Anonymous No.4651283]

>>4651259
You don't even know what you're doing anymore.

[Anonymous No.4651296]

>>4651256
>the rest of your post is gibberish. if you think pedophilia is an ideology and fetish

Yeah but it is a fetish. Pedophiles are made from porn or being abused as a child and subsequently getting into that porn afterwards, and in rare cases it's from a mental development problem. It's being fixated on the idea of doing adult things with children. You get mental stimulation from that fact and it gets you off. And one day when porn isn't enough you will go for the real thing to get off.

It's been proven by you people time and time again. The pedos in prison that you mention will admit that shit themselves.

Get help. You are sick. It is not normal. It is not okay.

[Anonymous No.4651298]

>>4651279
>why do entirely separate species with entirely different brains that've evolved into completely different social structures not have sexuality completely identical to humans?
Gee I dunno.

[Anonymous No.4651307]

>>4651296
there is no help system in place for pedophiles. the way society deals with them is by shunning and isolating them or by putting them in prison.

your arguments are tenuous and i won't consider acting on the advice of someone who has spent several orders of magnitude less time thinking about the predicament. but i appreciate your concern if it is sincere, either for me or for the children of the world. many people lack either and are simply good at feigning it

[Anonymous No.4651313]

>>4651298
So, if I make an analogy using dogs, it's inaccurate.
But, there's no shortage of LGBT arguments also using dogs and dolphins to make their case.
This is what I mean when I say you're inconsistent: It's only okay if your side does it; everyone is else doing it is retarded.

[Anonymous No.4651323]

>>4651279
>I don't think they should have been killed. I also don't think their sexual urges need to be public knowledge. This isn't mutually exclusive.
yes but whether public knowledge or not is a stark limitation on the way they live their lives. a gay man not being able to simply go to a restaurant with his lover, or publicly display affection, etc.
>I don't think every sexuality (there's only one, but we'll be nice) is a fetish, because not all fetishes are a sexuality.
it's too limiting to be useful. i don't even reject the idea that all non-heterosexual urges are an aberration, but it's not useful because there is no proven method for reducing or removing such urges.
>laser-focused sexual obsession with an object or body-part to a point of distress or interference with otherwise typical/normal behavior
which begs the question, because i don't consider any of my urges to interfere with 'normal' behavior, while someone else might. i also don't see how this encompasses sexuality like homosexuality.
>why don't dogs have pedophilia problems
because it is a construction formed from social conditioning. dogs often cannibalize and eat eachother including their young. this aspect of dog relations is mysteriously absent from your dialectic

>Pedophilia, homoerotic behavior, foot fetishes: all learned
ok

btw this thread will be deleted, since we are actually discussing things and not just shitposting now. mark my words

[Anonymous No.4651326]

>>4651313
The "LGBT arguments involving animals" only exist to refute the extremely popular suggestion that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature. The point isn't "oh, it occurs in nature so it's automatically ok", the point is that it actually doesn't fucking matter but also if we're here making the argument that it doesn't occur in nature you're wrong too.

[Anonymous No.4651329]

>>4651313
instead of making generalizations, which is a tiresome and facile cop out, address the points at hand

[Anonymous No.4651335]

>>4651307
Try googling for therapy my man. It exists. Idk what your pedo friends have been telling you but there are people that want to help you brainlets.

[Anonymous No.4651340]

>>4651335
no, there aren't. therapists are required by law to report to the state if they feel a client of theirs could be at risk of harming others. if you were a therapist, would you risk legal action to protect someone you most likely despise with every fabric of your being?

[Anonymous No.4651346]

>>4651340
Well hopefully you haven't been diddling children or thinking about some girl down the street or anything, huh? If nobody is in danger and you're just a guy that got into some porn bullshit who wants help, they're not gonna report you for it. If they think you've got a kid in your basement tied to the radiator or something then yes they will call someone.

[Anonymous No.4651353]

>>4651296
>And one day when porn isn't enough you will go for the real thing to get off.
In your eyes everything is just one big slippery slope, isn't it? Ban death metal, soon the lyrics about blood and death won't be enough and they'll all become satanists and sacrifice our kids to the devil. Ban violent videogames, soon the simulation won't be enough and we'll have hordes of kids shooting each other in the street because of call of duty. Ban porn, soon when pictures of women aren't enough we'll have hordes of sex hungry men prowling the streets looking for women to rape.

Your ilk get struck down by a hard dose of reality every single time without fail. You need to stop. Ironically, there is already evidence to suggest that legal, real life child porn may result in lower actual child abuse rates.

[Anonymous No.4651354]

>>4651346
>If nobody is in danger
well if you express that you have such desires it will be difficult to prove. you're essentially saying to put your life (because it would ruin your life) in the hands of some random therapist just punching the clock in the hopes they won't dob you in - something they stand to lose nothing by doing except a client they most likely don't want.

[Anonymous No.4651357]

Why are you guys talking about this shit instead of drawing?

[Anonymous No.4651359]

>>4651353
life is a big slippery slope down to dying

>Ironically, there is already evidence to suggest that legal, real life child porn may result in lower actual child abuse rates.
even if that is true you shouldn't use it as an argument in favor of legalizing such material, as you necessarily create a victim in the manufacturing of it

[Anonymous No.4651361]

>>4651357
i dunno about these guys but if draw every day my hand starts to hurt. i have to take a break every week or so. you could post this in every thread on /ic/ bru

[Anonymous No.4651362]

>>4651326
>The "LGBT arguments involving animals" only exist to refute the extremely popular suggestion that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature.
"Well, we only do it because we do it the correct way."
Every time. Every. Single. Time. You people never fail to be hypocrites.
It's only okay if your side does it.
>>4651329
You... didn't make a point.
You simply just made fun of mine, ironically, without addressing what I said.

It never fails to amaze me how left-wing and SJWs never catch themselves doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

[Anonymous No.4651364]

>>4651279
>I also don't think their sexual urges need to be public knowledge
Why is it okay for straights to be straight in public but not gays?
>homoerotic behavior is learned
Source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.4651366]

>>4651364
>Why is it okay for straights to be straight in public but not gays?
???
Do you not know about PDA laws or something?
>>4651364
>Source: dude trust me
I already made the case as to why I'm saying this, literally above that line.
You're choosing to ignore it. Not my problem.

[Anonymous No.4651367]

>>4651362
you didn't make a point you just assumed SJW terrorists have arrived to anally diddle you. at the next "your ilk" conference i will bring up your points and we will democratically vote on them.

[Anonymous No.4651369]

>>4651367
>you didn't make a point
I did. You're choosing to straw-man it into this ridiculous representation of "SJW terrorists" you seem to ironically think yourselves to be.
If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. Just stop wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.4651370]

>>4651361
I agree but this is about the most retarded and non-/ic/ thing to even argue about

[Anonymous No.4651371]

>>4651370
>>4651357

Well, why are you here reading it instead of drawing?

[Anonymous No.4651372]

>>4651369
>I did.
what's your point bro? that leftists suck ass?
what do you want me to do about it?

>>4651370
don't you know this is a fbi honeypot for catching incels and fuckups. this is the perfect topic for this website

[Anonymous No.4651375]

>>4651371
he's in the upper plane laughing at us mortals

[Anonymous No.4651376]

>>4651371
Bold of you to assume I even read this shit
>Not drawing
Woke up and waiting for my breakfast to arrive via Uber cause drawing on an empty stomach is shit

[Anonymous No.4651378]

>>4651366
>Do you not know about PDA laws or something?
I highly doubt there is a law about holding hands or kissing in public. Even if those laws exist that wouldn't make them okay. A law isn't a good law because its a law
>literally above that line.
I'm not interested in defending the behavior of animals, nor does your tirade about dogs at all demonstrate that human homosexuality is any more a learned behavior than heterosexuality.

[Anonymous No.4651380]

>>4651362
>"Well, we only do it because we do it the correct way."
It's a direct refutation to an argument most commonly made by your "side", dipshit. If I make an analogy using animals it's also pointless because dolphins aren't people but if you make an analogy using animals it's not only pointless, you're also basing your analogy on something that's factually incorrect to begin with. Which, simple math, would make that argument wrong *twice*.

[Anonymous No.4651381]

>>4651369
also, in case you don't understand, the problem is you randomly bringing up the fact that LGBT people make points about dolphins and dogs, something which, i'm sure you're aware, nobody in this thread has control over, and then you use this to paint everyone in the thread with the same brush. it's lazy and nobody is gonna step up and argue with it, seeing as you're the one who brought up such arguments in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4651382]

>>4651372
>what's your point bro? that leftists suck ass?
>what do you want me to do about it?
Why are you wasting my time? We were having a pretty chill conversation about pedophilia stuff and here come the "Ecks Dee" people.
>>4651376
Either way, you're doing [x] instead of drawing.

[Anonymous No.4651383]

>>4651376
Have you tried cooking your meals like a functioning person instead of being a lazy shit?

[Anonymous No.4651385]

>>4651380
but you're the only one here making arguments about animals bro

[Anonymous No.4651387]

>>4651359
If CP being legal definitely means significantly less new child abuse cases, then absolutely it is an effective argument in favor of legalizing it. The victims that exist are already victims, and keeping the material banned isn't going to change that. If we know banning it raises new cases, and legalizing it reduces new cases, then to argue against legalization is to say you support many new child abuse cases over fewer new child abuse cases.

[Anonymous No.4651388]

>>4651382
I'm spending like 5 secs typing a post than arguing about LGBT and pedophilia and whatever else
Ain't the same bro, at least argue something art related on fucking /ic/

[Anonymous No.4651389]

>>4651382
well i can't exactly do much other than shrug and disavow arguments from nature so i'm not sure what else you want me to do.

[Anonymous No.4651390]

>>4651385
You know we're still in the same thread as this post, right? >>4651279

[Anonymous No.4651396]

>>4651387
>The victims that exist are already victims, and keeping the material banned isn't going to change that.
i understand your logic, because i thought this was reasonable at one point. but then i realized that by circulating such material you would be perpetuating their abuse. they didn't consent to that material being made of them (they couldn't), they shouldn't have to live in a world where it's being traded freely and possibly fucking their lives up. like some kid is molested then when they get to high school everyone is sharing their images and laughing. not the world i want to live in.

>then to argue against legalization is to say you support many new child abuse cases over fewer new child abuse cases.
i hope that legalizing fictional depictions would be enough to do that, with actual methods of therapy available for people who need it. also, child sex bots would be the ultimate solution.

[Anonymous No.4651397]

>>4651378
>"Why do straights get to be straight in public?"
>They can't. It's illegal.
>"Liar!"
Literal public education schools forbid intimate touching of any kind.
Here's an article I found explaining some of it:
https://legalbeagle.com/12333582-can-arrested-public-display-affection.html
Quote: "A party can get arrested and fined for a public display of affection. Such an act is usually called by other names. In New York, the term is public lewdness; in South Carolina, lewdness; in Nevada, indecent or obscene exposure; and in California, indecent exposure or obscene exhibitions. The level of seriousness and penalty for the offense varies by state."
>Even if those laws exist that wouldn't make them okay.
I don't care if you think it's okay or not. Your failed attempt at portraying the country as oppressing the gays is over. We don't tolerate PDA from anyone, gay or straight. Now, shut up.

[Anonymous No.4651402]

>>4651380
Oh, I see. So, every argument made about "nature" made by the anti-LGBT crowd must all just automatically be referring to animals, since genetics and reproduction aren't also possible references when someone talks about "nature."

Either way, "it's only okay if we do it." is what you're telling me.

[Anonymous No.4651403]

>>4651397
simply appearing in public with your significant other is straight if you are straight, or gay if you are gay. do you think that in ye olden times, people were A-OK with gay people rolling up to town but then whipped the nooses out when they started holding hands? no bro that's now how the planet operated for ~5000 years

[Anonymous No.4651404]

>>4651381
lmao
It wasn't "randomly brought up."
But, I know you know this. So, I'm not going to keep wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.4651406]

>>4651388
Not doing [x] is still not doing [x].
>>4651389
Idk. Maybe not grandstand over the rest of us like you're superior or something when you're doing the same thing in not doing [x]? lmao

[Anonymous No.4651408]

>>4651404
it's an argument from nature so it's not useful. i'm sorry you feel sad that i rejected it for being fallacious due to the fact we can find many examples of human behavior which have no analogy in nature, and, as i mentioned before, dogs eat each other yet we don't do that because nature is not some role model to be followed for guidance, but that's the way the cookie crumbles

[Anonymous No.4651411]

>>4651403
>"Quickly! shift the goalpost!"
Nobody would know you were a gay couple if you literally did not do the things listed in PDA laws, which include hand-holding and kissing.
Nobody would know you were a couple, period, actually.
That's the whole point of PDA laws: we don't give a crap and don't need to know. Keep that crap private. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.4651412]

>>4651406
i have not once made an argument from nature in this thread other than >>4651323 where i astutely noted how it is fallacious to make such an argument with a counterexample demonstrating why

you can restate your point in a way that doesn't rely on some magical natural example if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.4651413]

>>4651408
Yes, yes, you're smart, me dumb, gays superior, blah blah. Ideology win!

Go make a Twitter post about it or something.

[Anonymous No.4651414]

>>4651402
>Either way, "it's only okay if we do it." is what you're telling me.
I literally just said the opposite. I said that the appeal to nature argument is pointless, but if we were giving that argument any validity, it'd still be a piss-poor argument against homosexuality. If you can read, it should be pretty easy to tell that's very different from making the appeal to nature argument.

[Anonymous No.4651416]

>>4651412
The point simply was to stop being hypocrites.
Stop smelling yourself so much.

[Anonymous No.4651418]

>>4651411
yeah 2 guys who go everwhere together and live in the same house alone... it's a platonic relationship bruh
>PDA laws
fuck that gay shit.
>we don't give a crap
clearly false or there wouldn't need to be "pda laws"

[Anonymous No.4651419]

>>4651396
So you think the value of reducing new child abuse cases is lesser than that of protecting the victim status of current victims? In other words, you would rather another child be abused than 2 existing abused persons be reminded that they were abused in the past?

[Anonymous No.4651421]

>>4651414
>I literally just said the opposite. I said that the appeal to nature argument is pointless
No you didn't.
You said the appeal to nature via using animal species not our own, is pointless. My point was that you do the same thing, which you confirmed by saying you do it to refute points about "nature," which don't necessarily mean "animals" yet can include "animals."

It's easier to just call you "stupid" and move on, desu. I'm done with this.

[Anonymous No.4651422]

>>4651416
but, as i said, no one in this thread has been hypocritical, as you, my friend, are the one who started to bring up the fact lgbt people make fallacious natural arguments. unless you can prove that people actually in this thread are doing that, you are - and i take pleasure in uttering this word - strawmanning.

[Anonymous No.4651428]

>>4651397
>Conflating obscene exposure with holding hands
You fucks are unreal
FROM THE VERY ARTICLE YOU LINKED
>In New York, a party commits public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act in a public place
I don't think anybody is getting arrested for holding hands or kissing. If you'd like to demonstrate that being arrested for kissing or holding hands actually is the standard for public lewdness then you are more than free to do so but vaguely gesturing at laws relating to fucking in public are in no way the same thing as a law that might restrict holding hands
>Your failed attempt at portraying the country as oppressing the gays is over
Man, wouldn't it suck if there was some kind of trend of gay people being killed in public for being gay, and that these crimes were not uncommon within the last hundred years?
Sure would suck if you were a lying sack of shit or anything.

[Anonymous No.4651430]

>>4651419
no, and you're being facetious. you clearly ignored this part of my post
>i hope that legalizing fictional depictions would be enough to do that, with actual methods of therapy available for people who need it. also, child sex bots would be the ultimate solution.
if you can provide evidence showing that actual child abuse material is significantly better at reducing offenses than fictional child abuse material, then i will consider it. i don't think such evidence exists, and i doubt it. i think fictional material suffices, and for those who it does not, therapy would be the best option (if the system was completely reformed)

[Anonymous No.4651435]

>>4651418
>yeah 2 guys who go everwhere together and live in the same house alone... it's a platonic relationship bruh
... Yes. Like. That's exactly what friends do. Close friends. You people have destroyed the concept of intimacy to a point where you don't know where the line is drawn.

Intimacy. Kissing. Hand-holding. Certain ways of hugging. This isn't hard to grasp.
>fuck that gay shit.
Okay, I still don't care about your thoughts on the laws. We don't want to see your faggotry in public. We don't care. I always knew that this LGBT-movement crap is just about you perverts wanting to flaunt yourselves everywhere, because you're here seething over the fact that a law exists indiscriminately telling you to keep that in private, gay or straight. Straight people mostly follow it, but LGBT? No, no. They have to have it differently.
>clearly false or there wouldn't need to be "pda laws"
The PDA laws aren't personally targeted. You're just taking it personally because you LGBT types take EVERYTHING personally. So, no. We don't care. You do, to a pathological extent. If we say to everyone, "leave it in private," it's still somehow oppression to LGBT. What a meme.

[Anonymous No.4651438]

>>4651422
see
>>4651421

[Anonymous No.4651440]

>>4651435
>We don't want to see your faggotry in public. We don't care.
my god... pure stupidity in written form.

[Anonymous No.4651446]

>>4651438
all i see is you not understanding what proof by contradiction entails

[Anonymous No.4651449]

>>4651428
>You fucks are unreal
>FROM THE VERY ARTICLE YOU LINKED
It varies by state.
It's also very prominent in grade schools. But, go ahead and keep pretending, I guess.
>Man, wouldn't it suck if there was some kind of trend of gay people being killed in public for being gay, and that these crimes were not uncommon within the last hundred years?
You have pride parades every single month.
You're all conveneiently located in condensed areas.
If anyone wanted to killy ou for being gay, that wuld be the absolute best time to do it.
But, it never/rarely happens.
Because no one cares. If gays die, it's usually some other thing that caused it -- like presenting yourself as female when you have a dick and lying to straight guys up until the bedroom, then getting your ass beaten for it. Stop reading Buzzfeed. Thanks.
>Sure would suck if you were a lying sack of shit or anything.
Believe what you want. You're all mentally-ill anyway. Delusion is quite common when needing to justify your own pathological need to have sex with anuses.

[Anonymous No.4651450]

>>4651421
Appeal to nature by using the human example of "pp go in vagina baby come out(which is implied to be automatically good and automatically makes gays bad somehow)" is also dumb and barely worth discussing if we're getting into that. Beside the point however given that you were starting arguments SPECIFICALLY making comparisons to animal behavior, and all your bitching up until now has been related to those arguments which (at least in regards to homosexuality) don't hold water even if we consider arguments involving other species to be valid. If you want to complain about shifting goalposts, vaguely suggesting "oh hey there's other nature arguments tho" when you're out of options is actually shifting the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.4651453]

>>4651440
>>4651435
i have to add, who is this "We" with the capital W this mysterious anon keeps referring to? is he in fact the member of some secret organization pulling the strings, here to taunt us in the underclass? fascinating developments on the artwork/critique board. i can only hope i will live to see the day when "The Line" is finally drawn

[Anonymous No.4651455]

>>4651430
I don't think research on that even exists at the moment, except maybe comparing reduction in child abuse cases over periods of legal CP to child abuse cases in countries where fiction is protected speech compared to where it is not, but I do believe it would be the case that real material would reduce it further than fiction if it were to be studied. The former findings I brought up were only incidentally discovered, the actual study itself was about the effects of banning of pornography in general and just so happened to find that legal CP correlates with significantly lowered child abuse rates over the same period. I don't think many researchers would want to go out looking specifically for the answers to these questions considering what they might find combined with the fact that we're at the height of pedo hysteria.

[Anonymous No.4651457]

>>4651453
Is this motherfucker using the royal "We"? Lmao what the fuck

[Anonymous No.4651459]

>>4651440
You don't seem to be able to parse "We personally hate you being gay" separately from "we don't need to see you being gay."
Be gay if you want. Be gay in private.
Be hetero if you want. Be hetero in private.
It's not all about YOU, faggot. It's about sexuality in public, in general.
>>4651446
Look, you clearly want to think you're a genius or something. So, go ahead. I don't too much care to keep doing this with you, because you're enot here to talk. You're here to grandstand and derail.

[Anonymous No.4651465]

>>4651450
don't you see anon, all this "rationalizing" you're doing is just you reacting to his stark, revelatory and profound labeling of you as "one of Those People" who "only takes offense when the other side does it", while conspicuously allowing "your side" to constantly break the laws of logic. all to advance "your stance" which will ultimately slippery slide us down the rabbithole of sjw degeneracy to ageplay diaperville.

[Anonymous No.4651466]

>>4651453
>who is this "We" with the capital W this mysterious anon keeps referring to?
Is this a serious post, or do you actually not understand:
1. Capitalization at the beginning of statements?
2. Pronoun usage (heh) in reference oneself as people that think like oneself?
I'm sure you do and are just an attention-seeking conspiracy nut that wants to believe the "normies" are out to get the gays, while ironically projection on us the idea that we're the crazy ones for thinking the gays are are coming for us.

[Anonymous No.4651469]

>>4651457
>he's actually playing into this like this is a serious thing
>>4651465
What's with all the quotations?

[Anonymous No.4651474]

>>4651466
We are the normies. We are legion. We do not forgive the fags. We do not forget their transgressions against our PDA laws. The Line Has Been Crossed.

[Anonymous No.4651477]

>>4647206
>pander to a certain demographic
You mean marketing?

[Anonymous No.4651480]

>>4651449
>You have pride parades every single month.
Pride parades exist for the same reason that any other advocacy group exists. It would be like saying racism wasn't real in the 60s because why would all those black people go march
>But, it never/rarely happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

[Anonymous No.4651485]

>>4651455
I am certain it doesn't. part of the problem is no researcher wants their name associated with the pedophile issue.
>but I do believe it would be the case that real material would reduce it further than fiction if it were to be studied
it's nitpicking, but i don't feel strongly one way or the other. i don't think we need to do so, because to me it is obvious that circulating actual images of child abuse has real potential to cause child abuse victims damage, whereas circulating fictional images is a victimless crime
also, you made a point earlier about "protecting one victim but creating more". this might surprise you, but yes. i can imagine circumstances where that might be preferable. consider 2 people being tortured once, vs one person being tortured and then being reminded of their torture in a visceral way an arbitrary number of times. it's a problem for the utilitarians but something to think about

[Anonymous No.4651487]

>>4651480
b-but they broke PDA laws before they were hit in the head and left in a coma

[Anonymous No.4651488]

>>4651474
ok
This retarded attempt at mockery still doesn't change the laws that exist. Stay seething, I guess.
>>4651480
>Pride parades exist for the same reason that any other advocacy group exists
Okay. And? The point was that if people wanted to kill you for being gay, it'd definitely happen at those parades. It doesn't. So, stop saying gays are being murdered left and right. And stop cutting off sentences out of context.
>It would be like saying racism wasn't real in the 60s because why would all those black people go march
... Yeah, I'm wasting my time with you, too.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people
Hahahahahaha.
Oh, man. Imagine thinking that isolated acts of violence means general oppression. It's almost like violence against anyone can and does happen on a daily basis, for varying reasons not always centered upon sexuality.
Hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.4651491]

>>4651487
Bro, you are seething so much right now.
Was it that much of a shock to you to find out that your narrative was garbage?

[Anonymous No.4651497]

>>4651491
>>4651488
You can't tell when you're being made fun of, huh? Is it the 'tism?

[Anonymous No.4651499]

>>4651488
and look what we have here. the post number ends with 1488. i bet you're fuming your little ploy has been revealed for what it really is: an alt-right neo nazi attack plot on our precious artwork critique board.

>Imagine thinking that isolated acts of violence means general oppression
imagine shifting the goalposts...

[Anonymous No.4651506]

>>4651497
I know you're trying to make fun of me.
You''re just bad at it. You think it replaces making an actual argument. It doesn't. You're just an attention-whore.
>>4651499
Dude, gays experiencing violence doesn't mean they were violated on premise of being gay.
They happened to be gay.
That's all. It's not a plot to destroy gays. No one cares about you. So much so that a lot of us ignore your blatant attention-whoring during "Pride Parades." So much so that you're allowed to violate many PDA laws, because the authorities don't want the Woke Twit mob chasing them down.
You're one of the most privileges groups in Western countries. I wish I could grope my girlfriend in public, just because "Hetero Pride." Shut up, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4651509]

>>4651497
it makes sense someone on the spectrum would be so concerned with PDAs, they are uncomfortable with intimacy. he's the perfect material for the next CIA sponsored mass shooter

[Anonymous No.4651513]

>>4651497
>lel you can't tell when you're being mocked, huh? literally said in >>4651488:
>This retarded attempt at mockery

LGBT confirmed brainlet-tier

[Anonymous No.4651517]

>>4651506
i bet you wish you could kiss and hold hands with your girlfriend in public real bad. those pesky gays kissing in front of me and my girlfriend all the time! god it gets my blood boiling! fucking faggots! no! don't kiss! MAKE THEM STOP KISSING!

[Anonymous No.4651522]

>>4651485
>consider 2 people being tortured once, vs one person being tortured and then being reminded of their torture in a visceral way an arbitrary number of times. it's a problem for the utilitarians but something to think about
The problem you left out is just how unlikely for something like child abuse imagery to come up in a person's daily life. Are they living in a community made up of pedophile collectors? How did they even identify the person as an adult when their material was made when they were small children? If we assign a value x to the person's suffering, then I would say, yes, I would much rather one person suffering x*1.4 than two people each suffering x resulting in a total suffering value of x*2.
This is also ignoring that with reduced new abuse cases there has to be less people who exist that can suffer x*1.4 in this way, which further reduces total suffering. And ignoring that the vast majority of CP in existence is self-produced by children, that is to say, has no real victim, so the number of people who are going to be personally brought back to their childhood trauma is smaller than you realize.

[Anonymous No.4651525]

>>4651517
It's almost like you folks know you're not oppressed, but just pretend you are because you don't have enough power over us yet.

I'm waiting for the "mandated relationships" with trannies. After all, you're already complaining that straight men don't want to bang you and calling that "bigoted."

[Anonymous No.4651527]

>>4651506
There's at least 2 other people dogpiling you right now dude I don't think your opinion on whether or not making fun of you is working is really relevant. I'm not directly refuting your point about PDA laws or whatever because I don't even get why you'd make the argument, how it'd justify whatever greater point you're trying to grasp at and I'm honestly just stoked that it's what you're going with because you're grasping at the tiniest straw possible right now and that's honestly the funniest part.

[Anonymous No.4651533]

>>4651522
>The problem you left out is just how unlikely for something like child abuse imagery to come up in a person's daily life.
not particularly unlikely, seeing as people's nudes might be shared between friends then spread round a high school like wildfire, for example, causing great embarrassment.

>How did they even identify the person as an adult when their material was made when they were small children?
the images would need to be at some state level verified and cataloged, to prove that they are images not of ongoing child abuse but former child abuse. this requires identification of victims at some level. why are you limiting it to small children? it's easy to identify a picture of someone from when they were 12

>we assign a value x to the person's suffering
that would be a major philosophical achievement

>And ignoring that the vast majority of CP in existence is self-produced by children, that is to say, has no real victim, so the number of people who are going to be personally brought back to their childhood trauma is smaller than you realize.
no, they are still victims in this case. they are unable to consent to the manufacture of the material, meaning that they cannot consent to it being circulated. otherwise by the same logic a child can simply consent to having sex with an adult. also, since they are children, we should permit them the chance to make mistakes which don't result in their life being ruined. if such material circulated freely, it could easily fuck up their life

[Anonymous No.4651535]

>>4651506
>Imagine thinking that isolated acts of violence means general oppression
>Isolated acts of violence

>thirty-two people died of fire or smoke inhalation as the result of an arson attack on the UpStairs Lounge, a gay bar in New Orleans,
Wonder if arson against the gay bar might maybe be motivated
>Several men were assaulted on July 5, 1978, by a gang of youths armed with baseball bats and tree branches...the assailants later confessed that they had deliberately set out to the park to attack homosexuals
>Tennessee Williams was the victim of an assault in January 1979 in Key West, being beaten by five teenage boys...The episode was part of a spate of anti-gay violence inspired by an anti-gay newspaper ad run by a local Baptist minister
>On November 18, 1980, Ronald K. Crumpley, a former Transit Authority policeman, fired 40 rounds from a semiautomatic rifle and two Magnum pistols (all stolen from a Virginia gun shop) into a cluster of men standing in front of two gay bars...Crumpley admitted to having paranoid delusions that gays were agents of the devil, stalking him and "trying to steal my soul just by looking at me."
>Rebecca Wight was killed on May 13, 1988, when she and her partner, Claudia Brenner, were shot by Stephen Roy Carr while hiking...Carr later claimed that he became enraged by the couple's lesbianism when he saw them having sex
How about we jump to recent years
>In March 2014, John Patrick Masterson, an openly gay rapper professionally known as Jipsta was attacked in a New York City subway station as he and his partner were celebrating their 10-year anniversary. The assailant began calling the couple homophobic slurs
>Mark Carson, a 32-year-old gay man, was shot to death by a man who trailed and taunted him and a friend as they walked down the street in Greenwich Village, New York, yelling anti-gay slurs
On and on and on and on and on.

[Anonymous No.4651537]

>>4651525
why stop there? you're gonna be mandated to wear a diaper and say goo goo gaa gaa when i rule the world bub

>>4651527
hes just owning the libs with facts and logic

[Anonymous No.4651548]

>>4651533
also, i'll note before i put myself into a medicated sleep, that you can envision an opt-in system where former victims who have reached adulthood volunteer their abuse material to this general database of verified historical abuse for the purposes of lowering pedophilia-related offenses. it seems morally permissible. but it would be a pretty small database. hell, i wouldn't volunteer my own material (if i had any, i don't) to such a database. i don't even trust the government with my phone number. and i am able to see the benefit of such a system; how many victims can we expect would feel good about people satisfying their urges in that way?

[Anonymous No.4651550]

>>4651527
>There's at least 2 other people dogpiling you right now dude I don't think your opinion on whether or not making fun of you is working is really relevant.
"Haha, numbers beats logic!"
Moving on.
> I'm not directly refuting your point about PDA laws or whatever because I don't even get why you'd make the argument, how it'd justify whatever greater point you're trying to grasp at and I'm honestly just stoked that it's what you're going with because you're grasping at the tiniest straw possible right now and that's honestly the funniest part.
"Haha, you're making 'random arguments' even though someone made this post: >>4651364 and I'm just going to pretend I'm smarter than you for the (You)s"
Moving on.

[Anonymous No.4651555]

>>4651535
Bro. 1978. 1980. 1988. 2014.
Do you not see how these incidents inconsistently occur?

lmao
You can't eradicate evil, dude. You can't create an LGBT utopia. Shitty people exist! I'm sorry! Like, what do you want us to do, man? lmao
>>4651537
>hes just owning the libs with facts and logic
Seems like it, because you still can't diddle kids.
Womp womp.

[Anonymous No.4651562]

>>4651535
Additionally, if you're under the impression that 1980 days are the same as 2020, you're out of your fucking mind and it shows the entire premise behind this LGBT" thing.
You never wanted rights. You wanted a power shift. This is a power grab.

[Anonymous No.4651563]

>>4651533
>not particularly unlikely, seeing as people's nudes might be shared between friends then spread round a high school like wildfire, for example, causing great embarrassment.
You see no difference in context between child porn, something traditionally traded through secretive vectors, something very important to not let anyone else know you have because even if it were made legal today it would still be social suicide, and teens trading nudes, in which a person intentionally takes or sends a nude photograph to someone they know, which then gets passed around a school because someone betrayed someone's trust or got into someones phone? These things are not equally likely to happen.

>the images would need to be at some state level verified and cataloged, to prove that they are images not of ongoing child abuse but former child abuse.
Why is that information suddenly public? CP is already catalogued by the American government and it isn't public information.

>this requires identification of victims at some level.
With no reason for it to be public information.

>it's easy to identify a picture of someone from when they were 12
Usually only if they already hit puberty. I could hand you 50 pictures of extremely famous celebrities as children and I doubt you could name many of them.

>that would be a major philosophical achievement
You misunderstand. x stands in for an arbitrary person's suffering and everything else is relative. x isn't about finding absolute value of suffering. I can suffer x, the amount I was going to suffer, or I can suffer x*1.4. Obviously I want to suffer x.

>no, they are still victims in this case.
But they aren't going to be sent into traumatic convulsions thinking back to the time they were standing naked for ten seconds in front of a camera on their own accord, which was the point. Remembering that time you were an idiot child doing something embarrassing compared to remembering the time you were beaten within an inch of your life.

[Anonymous No.4651576]

>>4651550
I don't think me, making fun of you, right now proves I'm smarter than you. As far as I'm concerned I'm done, you successfully convinced me that you're a dumbass at least 20 posts ago when you kept making the "why's there no pedo dogs??? oh that's a dumb argument huh, well why is it only YOU that gets to make that argument! Oh, you say you're not making that argument? well have you considered that: you actually ARE? DUN DUN DUNNNN" posts. Now I'm just doing it because I get a kick out of it.

[Anonymous No.4651593]

>>4651525
"You gays are just going for a power grab" isn't actually an argument though, it's paranoia. I don't really see any way to debate it out of you that would be a preferable alternative to, I don't know, stress medication? Exercise? Eating healthy? Meditative therapy maybe?

[Anonymous No.4651601]

>>4651555
>Do you not see how these incidents inconsistently occur?
Its not a comprehensive list of every motivated killing of every LGBT person on earth ever.
Even if it was a comprehensive list you cannot honestly tell me that a gay person getting shot outside a club by a schizoid or getting beaten in the park for being faggots has absolutely not a single thing to do with the society around those people thinking LGBT people are less-than?
I'm not trying to eradicate evil. It would be one thing if LGBT people got killed at the same rates (in regards to motivated hate crimes) or for the same reasons as straights, but LGBT people do get murdered and targeted disproportionately and the response is that we're supposed to just sit down and take it?
Straight people aren't getting killed for celebrating their anniversary while being called slurs or having their clubs shot up because somebody things breeders are the spawn of the devil.
>what do you want us to do
Stop being homophobic or letting it go by unchecked. I don't expect the average person to become batman or anything but its far easier to kill gay people or justify killing gay people when everyone around you is willing to shit on and bully gay people.
If the tables were turned and breeders were somehow magically the minority and were getting kicked out of their homes, killed/beaten in the streets, and generally treated like shit in many regards would you just passively sit there and be cool with gays passively letting it happen or turning around and mocking you for being killed? Would you never expect anyone to help you at all, or be okay with being targeted? Would you be completely fine if you knew that it was a very real possibility that one day somebody might come push your shit in because you're a breeder?
>>4651562
>You never wanted rights. You wanted a power shift. This is a power grab.
Another "Source: My Ass" claim. Fuck off

[Anonymous No.4651606]

>>4647206
Instead of bitching or even attempting a redline, why don't you go ahead and create something you feel would look better than this.

Not defending the image, sure it looks bad. But I'm doubting you can do any better.

[Anonymous No.4651613]

>>4651593
>"You gays are just going for a power grab" isn't actually an argument though, it's paranoia.
No, it's just a statement of fact.
No, it's not paranoia. Nobody's worried about you like that.
I can say this, because every time we do solve an "LGBT" issue: the goalposts move. First it was marriage. Then, it became more than just marriage. Trannies. Now, it's not just about trannies. Multiple genders and sexuality on a spectrum. Pronouns. Gender theory. It never stops. It's never good enough. You're imposing upon basic human knowledge at this point. It's a power grab, on that basis. There's your argument.
I'll wait for the non-argument mockery to come in your next post, read it, have a giggle, and ove on.

[Anonymous No.4651617]

>>4649658
>"N-N-N-NOOOOOOO WOMEN SHOULDN'T LOOK LIKE WOMEN!! REAL WOMEN DON'T HAVE TITS!!"
lol

[Anonymous No.4651627]

>>4651613
>because every time we do solve an "LGBT" issue: the goalposts move
Because LGBT rights were never a single issue matter. Very rarely, if ever, does fixing a large problem mean that all you need to do is meet one single goal which requires one single step. LGBT people are trying to get equal treatment. Being able to get married but still having the seven hundred other issues doesn't mean the whole thing is solved

[Anonymous No.4651629]

>>4651601
>Its not a comprehensive list of every motivated killing of every LGBT person on earth ever.
Sounds like a YOU problem.
You're the ones claiming oppression via constant violent attacks. You gotta prove it. Not me. You can't? Then, doesn't exist as far as we're concerned. Shut up.
>Even if it was a comprehensive list you cannot honestly tell me that a gay person getting shot outside a club by a schizoid or getting beaten in the park for being faggots has absolutely not a single thing to do with the society around those people thinking LGBT people are less-than?
So, we can't generalize LGBT, but you can generalize non-LGBT? "It's okay, if we do it!"
Inconsistent.
>I'm not trying to eradicate evil.
That's exactly what you're doing. As long as someone, somewhere, gets targeted for being LGBT, and as long as you keep attributing that one person's motive to the mindset of the rest, it logically cannot follow that you're not trying to eradicate evil if just one person doing something means EVERYONE will.
>It would be one thing if LGBT people got killed at the same rates (in regards to motivated hate crimes) or for the same reasons as straights
... They do. Not everyone committing a crime against you knows you're gay. That's just common sense.
>but LGBT people do get murdered and targeted disproportionately and the response is that we're supposed to just sit down and take it?
... Um. Sweetie? You haven't proven that to be true, yet.
>Stop being homophobic or letting it go by unchecked.
Yeaaaah, homophobia isn't a thing. Sorry. No one has "an irrational fear of the same." Check your buzzwords.
And I don't think homoerotophobia exists, either.
(cont.)

[Anonymous No.4651632]

>>4651613
>when we solved a gay issue a trans issue that already existed wasn't solved alongside it what's up with that guys seems kinda culty?

[Anonymous No.4651635]

>>4651601
(.cont)
>I don't expect the average person to become batman or anything but its far easier to kill gay people or justify killing gay people when everyone around you is willing to shit on and bully gay people.
um. sweetie? Everyone gets bullied and shat on. You're just a narcissistic snowflake, if you can't handle a gay joke or a gay-specific insult.
And honestly? This proves that if you stopped drawing attention to being gay, nobody could make fun of you for being gay. Shut up about it and you'll feel way less targeted. Promise.
>breeders
... Is that what you call us, now?
lmao, this is hilarious because it inherently admits that gays can't reproduce
lmfao
I don't care to respond to the rest. This is retarded.

[Anonymous No.4651643]

>>4651627
>Because LGBT rights were never a single issue matter.
We sure know that, now! lmao
>Very rarely, if ever, does fixing a large problem mean that all you need to do is meet one single goal which requires one single step.
The problem is that none of you can prove this "large problem" exists in the first place.
You just scream and cry victim over and over until daddy gives you what you want. Then, you get bored of it and start throwing a tantrum for something else. Repeat.
> LGBT people are trying to get equal treatment.
Hahahahaha.
I don't see a "Hetero Pride Month."
I don't see anyone complaining about improper use of pronouns applied to hetero people. Some of us don't like being called "cis" and prefer just "man/woman." do you care? Nope!
Shut up.
>Being able to get married but still having the seven hundred other issues doesn't mean the whole thing is solved
Christ, If you have that many issues and we really were a "homophobic" world, it'd be far less costly to just get rid of all of you entirely and be done with it. You'll never be happy, it seems. lmao

[Anonymous No.4651645]

>>4651632
>mocking again
Next, you'll pretend I didn't address the well-thought-out "argument" in this post, right?
lmao

[Anonymous No.4651652]

>>4651645
Probably, yeah. If the subject's moved onto "homophobia existing" I've personally witnessed it existing so debating over it with you is pretty pointless if the stakes here are "guy online that I consider to be a supreme cinderblock dumbass isn't convinced homophobia exists".

[Anonymous No.4651658]

>>4651652
>And goes right on to pretending that his post that simply mocks peoples' points is making any argument whatsoever

[Anonymous No.4651663]

>>4651629
>You're the ones claiming oppression via constant violent attacks. You gotta prove it
I just proved it.
What is your standard of evidence here? What bar would you like me to clear? Does it mean that gays aren't oppressed because we aren't getting killed en masse on the daily? Does it mean that gays aren't oppressed because I'm not an omnipotent creature who can produce a full and flawless list of every single instance in the history of mankind where an LGBT person has been wronged because? Do you expect me to be able to see into the minds of every person on earth and pull their motivations from their neurons because anything short of that just isn't proof enough for you?
>as long as you keep attributing that one person's motive to the mindset of the rest
Do you not believe in society or something? Would you require every single person in america to be openly and constantly antagonistic towards LGBT people for you to then possibly consider that maybe society might be prejudiced? I don't think every person on earth is bigoted, but if there is a constant and consistent trend of LGBT people getting killed, evicted, beaten, harassed, and having their rights restricted is that not some form of evidence that society as a whole (or at least some major sects of society) are prejudiced towards them?
>if just one person doing something means EVERYONE will.
Where did I say that? My assertion is that the average person is, at the very least, still willing to allow these things to occur.
>Not everyone committing a crime against you knows you're gay
Never did I imply that random acts of violence means motivated violence. There is a difference between a guy getting shot in the park and a group of dudes being beaten by a gang who themselves admit that they were in the park to beat faggots.
>And I don't think homoerotophobia exists, either.
You're playing word games and have already admitted that you're willing to ignore evidence

[Anonymous No.4651676]

>>4651663
>I just proved it.
Hahahaha. Okay, kid.
>What is your standard of evidence here?
Um, how about... data showing constant attacks on gays, with criminals stating the intent of their attack and why they chose the victim. That's a decent request, right?
>Does it mean that gays aren't oppressed because we aren't getting killed en masse on the daily?
Yeah, and I said why.
If people wanted to oppress you, you wouldn't have an entire month of Pride Parades. I think that's a fair assessment of not being oppressed: being able to parade around like the fags you are, without any violent crimes occurring, despite all of you be conveniently located in select areas.
>Does it mean that gays aren't oppressed because I'm not an omnipotent creature who can produce a full and flawless list of every single instance in the history of mankind where an LGBT person has been wronged because?
You're not omnipotent? Well, shucks. The claims you make kind of require that ability. Especially the "because we're gay" ones, which assume intent, which requires mind-reading.
I expect you to bring data. It's not hard to do. you got those ones from Wikipedia, right? So, if law enforcement can grab those, why wouldn't it stand to reason that it could grab the rest? Yeah, some crimes go unreported. Happens with straights, too. Doesn't mean that we still can't get a decent statistic. There's enough gays around to get one. Enough violent crimes happen. But, somehow: you never have one. Hm.
>Do you not believe in society or something?
Well, society isn't a religion, so no. Not in that sense, I'm sorry. lmao
>Would you require every single person in america to be openly and constantly antagonistic towards LGBT people for you to then possibly consider that maybe society might be prejudiced?
Well, they had no problem doing this with blacks when there actually was black oppression. So... I don't think it's a far cry, no.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.4651677]

>>4651658
This thing you're doing where you act like you know everyone's intent at all times absolutely screams paranoid disorder.

[Anonymous No.4651684]

>/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4651686]

>>4651663
>I don't think every person on earth is bigoted,
Could have fooled me, dude. For real. also, you can't be bigoted against gays. It's not an immutable characteristic. Sorry. Pick another hill to die on, because you're not the same as the Civil Rights Movement. So, stop trying.
>but if there is a constant and consistent trend of LGBT people getting killed, evicted, beaten, harassed, and having their rights restricted
There isn't. We just went through this with the Wikipedia page. You're claiming it exists, but can't show it does.
>some form of evidence that society as a whole (or at least some major sects of society) are prejudiced towards them?
Yeah, if you could show it to me! lmao
>Where did I say that? My assertion is that the average person is, at the very least, still willing to allow these things to occur.
... No. Funny how you guys conveniently get amnesia. Look >>4651601: "a gay person getting shot outside a club by a schizoid or getting beaten in the park for being faggots has absolutely not a single thing to do with the society around those people thinking LGBT people are less-than?"
You're asserting that the actions of one are influenced by the beliefs of many. So, you're blaming the people who didn't even do it for what the one person did. Which means that as long as one person does something, anywhere, it'll be the fault of the rest. Yes. You're hypocritically generalizing us. Stop it.
>Never did I imply that random acts of violence means motivated violence.
How else do you figure the reason behind the violence, bro? The only way to know if "LGBT people do get murdered and targeted disproportionately" (you, in >>4651601) is to know why people do it. lmao
>You're playing word games and have already admitted that you're willing to ignore evidence
Hmm, no. I was just making fun of you using buzzwords that don't mean anything. I lookd at and discussed the contents of that wiki link you posted. What else do you want me to do, man?

[Anonymous No.4651689]

>>4651684
I know. I'm sorry. I'll stop giving them (You)s.
They get off on it.
>>4651677
Hahahaha
Coming from people that think everyone is out to get them!
HAHAHAHA.

[Anonymous No.4651706]

>>4651689
No, no, it took me until now to pick up on it but it's finally clicked that your entire argument up until this point has just been trying to justify an assumption about the intent of the LGBT movement by doing mental gymnastics whereby you link some random tangent (eg. "gays aren't being slaughtered at pride-") to intent ("-therefore they must all be going for a powerplay"). That's absolutely batshit, the sheer amount of it that I'm seeing now that I've noticed it, holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.4651713]

>fishing for (You)s

[Anonymous No.4651723]

>>4651713
I'm not joking any more, I'm legitimately in awe of the sheer amount of random shit you've pulled out just to try to somehow prove this point you're trying to make - that intent of the LGBT movement is just vying for power or increased degeneracy or whatever it is - that requires extrapolating intent, which is a thing that you've just now personally said that you believe requires "mind-reading". The sheer amount of stuff you've built up for this, the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance, it's insane. I don't have any other word for it.

[Anonymous No.4651744]

>he's still fishing, hoping someone will bite

[Anonymous No.4651761]

We're going to end this conversation with me thinking that you're actually, legitimately certifiable unless you can explain how "you can't say they're homophobes without mind reading, that's assuming intent!" isn't directly opposed to your argument that because you can't personally be convinced that LGBT has legitimate concerns then you know for absolute certain the entire movement exists just to move the dial closer and closer to babyfucking or whatever it was that started this argument. There's nothing as far as I can see even linking the debate on homophobia existing, or PDA or any of that other shit to the point that you're convinced that you're making an airtight argument for.

[Anonymous No.4651771]

>>4651744
>he

[Anonymous No.4652466]

>>4651563
>You see no difference in context between [...]
no dude, those are both instances of child porn

>Why is that information suddenly public?
>With no reason for it to be public information.
yes but still requires the govt asking "hey can we keep these images of you naked as a kid so pedos can jerk off" which i think approximately 0% of child abuse victims would agree to

>Usually only if they already hit puberty.
it's not impossible and that's what counts.

> x isn't about finding absolute value of suffering.
you're still quantifying suffering which is pretty ground breaking. you haven't proven you can discretely identify how much suffering some given event causes

>But they aren't going to [...]
but it's still a miscarriage of human justice allowing children to unwittingly make a mistake with such potential lifelong impact. you can't prove conclusively that access to historial material wouldn't cause genuine ongoing damage to a given victim, so i don't see it as a valid solution.

[Anonymous No.4652468]

>>4651629
>neurosis: the post

[Anonymous No.4652538]

>>4652468
>non-arguments: faggot NPC style

[Anonymous No.4652571]

>>4651627
People are starting to invent problems now.

[Anonymous No.4653579]

>>4651364
>Why is it okay for straights to be straight in public but not gays?
Because that is actually normal and reproduce the species perhaps. Geez. Only thing faggots breed are STDs.

[Anonymous No.4653628]

>>4653579
"It's acceptable because it's normal" is circular reasoning, and reproduction of species is irrelevant to the situation unless you're going to give out hand holding licenses to straight couples who intended to have kids only

[Anonymous No.4653651]

>>4652571
Whats your point? A social movement doesn't depend on the whims of a few randoms on twitter. Not every activist is the arbiter of the movement

[Anonymous No.4653659]

>>4651643
>The problem is that none of you can prove this "large problem" exists in the first place.
What do you mean? Trannies are basically the big social issue of the day and they obviously face a lot of issues, it's a bit silly to demand proof when it's just a google search away but
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/
Check the various risk factors and the data collected on them
>I don't see a "Hetero Pride Month."
What for? Just so you can satisfy some kind of "now it's equal" autism even though it serves no real social function?
>I don't see anyone complaining about improper use of pronouns applied to hetero people.
>Some of us don't like being called "cis" and prefer just "man/woman."
Cis is applied when it's warranted but beyond this, got any stats on this? I'm a straight cis male and I don't really give a shit either way

[Anonymous No.4653981]

>>4653651
I see these whims slowly going mainstream. It's like previous anon said, the goalpost moves from actual issues like acceptance and violence to more subjective demands. Now you need to have X amount of minority seats in position of power and media, psychologists attacking masculinity, changes in language like gender pronouns, stuff that goes against science like gender fluidity and not to mention the thought police coming after you if you disagree the slightest, like what went with Bret Weinstein. It's when activists start targeting scientists that I start to have a problem with them. Progressiveness has done enough, it's time to take a step back and rethink the direction we are going with this.

[Anonymous No.4654654]

>>4651080
it was clear in the original design the character was some kind of pterodactyl or something.
>or something
Seems like it wasn't clear enough huh faggot?

[Anonymous No.4654838]

>>4654654
well it was a dinosaur now it looks like some brainlet /v/irgin's wet dream