/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>33461099
>It still is exact since it is mentioning a specific word that points towards a quantifiable aspect of part of the definition, like "occasionally"
Ohhhh my fucking god duuuuude
>If this indicator of frequency changed, we would no longer be talking about the same thing
No fucking shit, this is literally irrelevant.
>In the case of humans with down's syndrome, if at an attempt to create a total definition that perfectly describes reality we failed to measure incidence of trisomy 21, we would be describing some imaginary species of human that just very closely resembles the real one, a non exact approximation, outside of this ideally reality-matching definition.
Again, no fucking shit. Definitions are made to the best of our ability and knowledge.
What are you even saying here? Why are you pretending this shit about failing to take into account trisomy 21 in a defintion has anything to do with my position, when I've EXCPLICITLY stated the complete opposite? Is this some sort of bait?

And don't think I haven't noticed this bullshit strat you're doing to ignoring the vast majority of my posts to poke at one tiny point (that you then go and make a brand new strawman for). If you do it again, this is the last good faith post you'll get from me.
Which is probably what you're after, since I know you know you're wrong, it's just your ego keeping you still in this.
>>33461479
This is the only thing you've presented resembling an actual argument so well done I guess. Still wrong though.
>anatomically she is an ephebophilia (or ephebophilia-adjacent) trigger of sexual arousal which is an edge case
No it fucking isn't lmao. Have you ever heard of Oppai Loli? Have ever seen the proportions of prominent loli characters like Shinobu or Yamada? Pippa has no substantive difference anatomically from established norms, whether in height of proportions. Whether your particularly sexually arroused.
>"Oppai Loli? But you said flat chest earlier!"
True. I was not giving the definition then though.