Lolidrama Anti-Loli Arguments (and how to make them crumble)

Dimunsis

varishangout.com
I think this would fit into the Internet Bullshit section, but since it's not specifying anything Twitter/Journo related, figured this sub section would fit.

What are some anti-loli arguments you've heard that you can counter? Are there some that haven't been countered? Been seeing people on Twitter push back more and more for lolis and figured a discussion on the arguments against them could serve to better any future arguments anyone may have with people suffering from brain rot.


  • That's a child! You're a pedophile!
    • No, it's an anime character. If you see a real child in an anime character, you are delusional and need to seek help. Also, you lack any evidence for your accusations. There's many reasons why someone may be into lolis, and I can assure you, 99% of lolicons have zero thoughts of actual children and probably do more to protect actual children than you.
  • The character is a minor! That character has the body of a child!
    • In-universe, said character may be a minor, but in the real world, they don't exist and therefor, can't have an actual age. They literally do not exist except in our minds, and giving non-existent entities real world laws and morals is a sign of mental health issues. As well, so what if they're short and petite? By your logic, if they're 'of legal age', then their body type doesn't matter. What about 'minors' that have fully developed looking bodies? Are they not worth 'protecting' because they're not short and petite? What about real life adult women who are short and petite? Are you gonna claim people fucking them are pedos simply because of their body type? If not, why say that about anime characters? The logic falls apart

That's just two off the top of my head, pretty sure I can find more on Twitter somewhere. But anyone else have any arguments they've shot down (and subsequentially had the other person ignore it and call you a pedo still)?
 

Jahy

varishangout.com
One of the most common and delusional beliefs I see pushed by the anti-loli mongoloids is that, even though the characters are not real, it is not a victimless crime. They try to justify this by claiming that consuming this sort of material is going to naturally lead into real life pedophilia. I have said this many times before but I find it to be a very apt and relevant analogy: this is the erotic drawing equivalent of the boomer argument that video games cause violence. This results in a two-for-one fallacy, invoking both a slippery slope and post hoc fallacy where they try to assert quite fervently that causation equals correlation and real harm will come to real children despite only fake, non-existent characters being involved.

Personally, I don't even know how to structure a counter this, because it's so backwards and illogical and nonsensical that I am not mentally equipped with the ability to even start holding their hands and explaining why. This is a major reason why I try to avoid drama or online "debate" at all costs, because the loudmouths trying to stir shit have already made up their minds, and all they seek is validation from their echo chamber of insanity.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
One of the most common and delusional beliefs I see pushed by the anti-loli mongoloids is that, even though the characters are not real, it is not a victimless crime. They try to justify this by claiming that consuming this sort of material is going to naturally lead into real life pedophilia. I have said this many times before but I find it to be a very apt and relevant analogy: this is the erotic drawing equivalent of the boomer argument that video games cause violence. This results in a two-for-one fallacy, invoking both a slippery slope and post hoc fallacy where they try to assert quite fervently that causation equals correlation and real harm will come to real children despite only fake, non-existent characters being involved.

Personally, I don't even know how to structure a counter this, because it's so backwards and illogical and nonsensical that I am not mentally equipped with the ability to even start holding their hands and explaining why. This is a major reason why I try to avoid drama or online "debate" at all costs, because the loudmouths trying to stir shit have already made up their minds, and all they seek is validation from their echo chamber of insanity.
>Videogaming causes violence fallacy
Probably a poor place to start. You'd be amazed at how many people under the age of thirty who buy into this fallacy but from an intersectionalist lens (e.g. GTA glorifies the murder of women, misogyny is an integral part of fighting games and its community, etc.).

Would work on people who know are keen gamers, wouldn't work on someone who's balls deep in the kool-aid.

ADDENDUM: Yeah, I'm with you on avoiding online debate, but for different reasons. I'm aware of the logic backing their arguments... I just suck at verbal sparring. Would rather be an encyclopedia for those who can spar.
 

Jahy

varishangout.com
Would work on people who know are keen gamers, wouldn't work on someone who's balls deep in the kool-aid.
Right, though I wasn't posing it as a suggestion rather an observation of mine. It's equally as ridiculous and functionally similar as the "protection the children" argument against lolicon. I wouldn't dare anticipate basic logical reasoning to be understood by these zealous dumbfucks.
 

Narbray

varishangout.com
Regular
One of the most common and delusional beliefs I see pushed by the anti-loli mongoloids is that, even though the characters are not real, it is not a victimless crime. They try to justify this by claiming that consuming this sort of material is going to naturally lead into real life pedophilia. I have said this many times before but I find it to be a very apt and relevant analogy: this is the erotic drawing equivalent of the boomer argument that video games cause violence. This results in a two-for-one fallacy, invoking both a slippery slope and post hoc fallacy where they try to assert quite fervently that causation equals correlation and real harm will come to real children despite only fake, non-existent characters being involved.
I totally agree, it is in fact not proven, as with many other mental disorders, pedophilia is an accumulation of several factors and it is very difficult to determine what its real trigger is. It has also been shown that people structure their psyche until they are 18 years old [more or less, although it is still believed that the brain can develop indefinitely, but this does not apply as such to the personality] which means that it is very difficult for materials that you consume lead to a paraphilic disorder of this type. In one of the quotes below he says that there may be a relationship between IQ and the appearance of a paraphilia, as well as that it has been shown that pedophiles diagnosed for committing some act usually have some other disorder such as an antisocial personality disorder [known as sociopathy]
Anyway, it is very degrading that they call us, the fans of the lolis, pedophiles, but even so their own use of the term pedophilia is partly wrong.

Many of these people are even wrong about pedophilia, which takes away all validity from their arguments, in addition to showing a considerable lack of empathy. I took some fragments from wikipedia that can serve as a basis to prove that they are wrong, I don't know if it will be very useful but personally I already used it once in a discussion and it had a lot of acceptance, although I must emphasize that it was not as toxic a community as that of Twitter. Even so, I think that some useful data can be taken from studying a little about it and showing them that they are ignorant.
Two point:
  1. Pedophilia is not a disease as such.
  2. there is no evidence that lolis cause the disorder.

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children.

Causes

Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function, beginning in 2002. Testing individuals from a variety of referral sources inside and outside the criminal justice system as well as controls, these studies found associations between pedophilia and lower IQs, poorer scores on memory tests, greater rates of non-right-handedness, greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences, lesser physical height, greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness, and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.

Paraphilia

There is no scientific consensus for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

Legal issues

In the United States, since 1990 a significant number of states have passed sexually violent predator laws. Following a series of landmark cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, persons diagnosed with paraphilias, particularly pedophilia (Kansas v. Hendricks, 1997) and exhibitionism (Kansas v. Crane, 2002), with a history of anti-social behavior and related criminal history, can be held indefinitely in civil confinement under various state legislation generically known as sexually violent predator laws and the federal Adam Walsh Act (United States v. Comstock, 2010).
According to this, even if you have pedophilia but have not done anything then no legal actions can be taken against you and probably all contempt and hatred would be treated as discrimination.
I don't know much about US law so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Pedophilia and child molestation

The term pedophile is commonly used by the public to describe all child sexual abuse offenders. This usage is considered problematic by researchers, because many child molesters do not have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles. There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to pedophilia, such as stress, marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner, general anti-social tendencies, high sex drive or alcohol use. As child sexual abuse is not automatically an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders can be separated into two types: pedophilic and non-pedophilic (or preferential and situational
[...] Algunos pedófilos no abusan de los niños. Se sabe poco sobre esta población porque la mayoría de los estudios de pedofilia utilizan muestras criminales o clínicas, que pueden no ser representativas de los pedófilos en general.

With the latter it can be seen that the attitude of these people is in fact anti-scientific, discriminatory and problematic even for specialists on the subject.
I must also add that I detest the attitude of some specialists, who, ignoring the scientific bases and incurring the fallacy of authority, support the decision to put anti-lolis laws. Many over put their subjective opinion over science and this is deplorable.
It is because of things like this that many psychologists and specialists today are treated like clowns and that in many trials [luckily] the psychological profiles are not available.
Most deplorable of all is the lack of empathy shown by these people criticizing and censoring without even thinking about who you are doing and what they are doing. But this lack of empathy can easily be used against them to make them regret their words and attitude.

I don't know if everything I wrote here is of any use and I'm sorry if it's a nuisance and I'm also sorry for my poor English. I only used Wikipedia because it is fast and affordable but any other source will say the same, I am not a professional on the subject but I have studied psychology a lot on my own.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
Right, though I wasn't posing it as a suggestion rather an observation of mine. It's equally as ridiculous and functionally similar as the "protection the children" argument against lolicon. I wouldn't dare anticipate basic logical reasoning to be understood by these zealous dumbfucks.
I know you read my rant on their reasoning - I saw the thinking reaction. It it logical, but it's based on what is essentially a religious (and almost Gnostic in a weirdly corrupted way) view of the world. They view the soul as pure, the body as a failed xerox of that pure soul self-ideal (I don't wanna be the one who brings up trans activism, but...), and that creations like art are a failed xerox of a failed xerox.
So when they make the arguments outlined above...
That's a child! You're a pedophile!
  • No, it's an anime character. If you see a real child in an anime character, you are delusional and need to seek help. Also, you lack any evidence for your accusations. There's many reasons why someone may be into lolis, and I can assure you, 99% of lolicons have zero thoughts of actual children and probably do more to protect actual children than you.
They see the anime character as a shitty attempt at capturing a real child - ergo it's the real child you want, you just suck at adapting it and had to make do with the anime depiction.
It's why they'll say things like "you just wanna rape a kid, just fucking admit it already" - thought and depiction is just action you haven't gotten around to yet.
The character is a minor! That character has the body of a child!
  • In-universe, said character may be a minor, but in the real world, they don't exist and therefor, can't have an actual age. They literally do not exist except in our minds, and giving non-existent entities real world laws and morals is a sign of mental health issues. As well, so what if they're short and petite? By your logic, if they're 'of legal age', then their body type doesn't matter. What about 'minors' that have fully developed looking bodies? Are they not worth 'protecting' because they're not short and petite? What about real life adult women who are short and petite? Are you gonna claim people fucking them are pedos simply because of their body type? If not, why say that about anime characters? The logic falls apart
Gotta break this one down.
They literally do not exist except in our minds, and giving non-existent entities real world laws and morals is a sign of mental health issues.
To them, existing in the mind is the most real thing a person can ever commit to. Because of this, the natural conclusion is "If you imagine it, you wish to enact it to bend the real, physical world, to match the ideal in your mind". Remember, they view reality itself as a failed attempt to capture the essence of thought.
Why do you think they harp on about 'Lived Experience' so much? In their worldview, phenomenology (to use it's actual fucking word) is the only thing that you can prove IS real.
Yes I blame Plato. Fuck Plato. He was a fucking idiot.
'Of Legal Age'
There was a push in my home country to render any porn depicting a woman of cup size less than a D illegal (I think they ended up enacting it in part, I dunno, internet meant it never mattered). There are people flat out pushing - due to some weird logic about hurtful body images because fat positivity is a thing - the idea that if you physically appear childlike, despite what your actual chronological age is, then the law should be treating you like a child.
Are they not worth protecting because they're not short and petite?
I've seen people who just say a resounding 'Yes, they're not worth protecting'. Usually race based argumentation, that the idea of ages of consent are prejudiced against some group or rather. Ask a Brit who lives somewhere where there's been a lot of Pakistani influence. They'll have heard this argument (Way I hear, it's usually a deluded Scot who makes the argument).
As for the ones who say 'No, they need to be protected too!', they're usually anti-porn puritans - basically sex-negative feminist types (feminism itself might be losing relevance as a a bloc, but it's ideas are being run with by other groups looking for an easy cudgel to beat people with).
Are you gonna claim people fucking them are pedos simply because of their body type?
Yes. That is EXACTLY their claim. They'll argue that you're seeking an 'acceptable' facsimile of the fundamental desire, that 'you want to bang a kid, and you're taking the petite woman who kinda looks like one if you squint as a consolation prize'. They also go one step further and demonise the women too, because their whole guilt by association shtick.
Why do you think they're always quick to play mind reader? As far as they're concerned, the only difference between cracking a holocaust joke and ushering in the second Shoah is time. 'Impure thoughts lead to profane actions' (for like, the three of you who'll get the WoW reference).

Understand: they're no different to the evangelical Christian nutters of 20 years ago - they're religious zealots of a different faith, just one they don't have the self-awareness to give a name.
My theory, is that it's kind of a weird mix of fertility idolatry and radical fundamentalist humanism. It's sort of like, communism mixed with early bronze age religion (which makes complete sense, it's the logical progression of Rousseau's ideas as the 'original' humanity untainted by society is basically Eden in his opinion).
I don't know if everything I wrote here is of any use and I'm sorry if it's a nuisance and I'm also sorry for my poor English. I only used Wikipedia because it is fast and affordable but any other source will say the same, I am not a professional on the subject but I have studied psychology a lot on my own.
Awesome, if you're reading up on psych, then Read this when you get a chance. This study explains so much of why the Twitter abusers get so angry all the time over seemingly petty shit.
tl;dr: it's a personality trait similar to narcissism. People with it view the world in a predator/prey paradigm and identify themselves as prey. If you accept their victim identity, you are fellow prey and you're cool. If you don't accept it, you are a threat and must be hunted down like one. They ruminate on things specifically to make them bigger deals than they are (e.g. microaggressions) and they feel morally superior when either they hunt down those who wrong them, or people feel sorry for them - and they crave that feeling.

I can't speak to the paraphilia stuff as such, I'm not really that clued into Clinical Psych, but I do know that the DSM relies on self-reporting for a paraphilia to be properly diagnosed which... doesn't help the search for a cause.
Interesting thing to note: search for a paraphilia to describe "someone who fetishises being the victim of rape". You won't find it. Too common apparently, it stops being a paraphilia if it describes almost 40% of the population.
 

Narbray

varishangout.com
Regular
Awesome, if you're reading up on psych, then Read this when you get a chance. This study explains so much of why the Twitter abusers get so angry all the time over seemingly petty shit.
tl;dr: it's a personality trait similar to narcissism. People with it view the world in a predator/prey paradigm and identify themselves as prey. If you accept their victim identity, you are fellow prey and you're cool. If you don't accept it, you are a threat and must be hunted down like one. They ruminate on things specifically to make them bigger deals than they are (e.g. microaggressions) and they feel morally superior when either they hunt down those who wrong them, or people feel sorry for them - and they crave that feeling.

I can't speak to the paraphilia stuff as such, I'm not really that clued into Clinical Psych, but I do know that the DSM relies on self-reporting for a paraphilia to be properly diagnosed which... doesn't help the search for a cause.
Interesting thing to note: search for a paraphilia to describe "someone who fetishises being the victim of rape". You won't find it. Too common apparently, it stops being a paraphilia if it describes almost 40% of the population.
added to reading list, thanks:salute:
 

NretsewThePerv

varishangout.com
Regular
here is my pro tip on how to deal with this you guys ready

Dont

ok, the real answer is most of the time it's not worth trying to argue with ideologues who have entrenched their stance already. you are gonna end up going around in cycles for hours talking to a brick wall

instead, the people you SHOULD be spending your time conversing with are the people who are undecided or might be more misinformed on the subject but are open to having their minds changed. I know sometimes it can be hard to determine who is who, but I think it way more important to get people onto the side of freedom rather than try and openly combat people who will never change their minds no matter how much fact and logic to toss at them

here are some other trips

  1. try to remain calm cool and collected. don't rage and don't ALL CAPS WHY YOU SO DUMB at people. you have to make yourself seem like the more reasonable one, you catch more people with honey than you do vinegar

  2. know when to quit. don't get dragged into 4 hr long debates with dumb people on Twitter who are most likely trolling you. it's ok to just step back and stop

  3. in the same vein, the point should not be to "win" or "own". the point should be to educate if not the person you are debating but the people who may be watching

  4. make sure to try and have sources for what you are talking about in case you need them. being able to back up what you are talking about is important


that's about all I can think for now but there is prob more. just remember online bullshit should come 2ed to your personal mental health
 

Narbray

varishangout.com
Regular
Should we share this thread?
It is supposed to be so that people have a way to defend themselves, so it is better to share it, right?
I'm not going to do it without permission.
 

Jahy

varishangout.com
Should we share this thread?
It is supposed to be so that people have a way to defend themselves, so it is better to share it, right?
I'm not going to do it without permission.
I would personally suggest that you take the talking points, arguments, and general counters from this thread and refactor it into your own words whenever you're engaging with someone. The last thing this place needs is attention from those sorts of anti crowds.

Unless you meant sharing it with other, like-minded cunny enthusiasts. In which case, why not? Get them to sign up, too.
 

Dimunsis

varishangout.com
Should we share this thread?
It is supposed to be so that people have a way to defend themselves, so it is better to share it, right?
I'm not going to do it without permission.
I meant for it to be a discussion in this forum, but if you want to bring others into here to give their their own thoughts and arguments towards anti-lolis, I don't see why not.

But as for sharing it to someone you're arguing with? Maybe not the best idea.
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
Should we share this thread?
It is supposed to be so that people have a way to defend themselves, so it is better to share it, right?
I'm not going to do it without permission.
Would prefer the name is omitted if you share any of my thoughts as such. Less out of humility, more because 'Beginner' as a name doesn't inspire confidence that I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
 

DarkMahesvara

varishangout.com
i already posted this but here:

If people act like sexual fantasies mean you want it to happen in reality just show them the statisics about over +50% of women (and men too but thats irrelevant to normies) having sexual fantasies about forced sex and ask them if they think that women want to be raped irl.


these 2 are also good:
1618092599682.png
1618092621847.png
 

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
i already posted this but here:

If people act like sexual fantasies mean you want it to happen in reality just show them the statisics about over +50% of women (and men too but thats irrelevant to normies) having sexual fantasies about forced sex and ask them if they think that women want to be raped irl.


these 2 are also good:
View attachment 2973 View attachment 2974
>That second picture
THAT.
THAT RIGHT THERE.
That's exactly what I've been sperging out over this whole time.
 
Last edited:

Beginner

varishangout.com
Regular
may as well put this here to


basically breaks down the "drawing of what" comeback and why it dont work. Joe knows his shit and is worth hearing out
I'll have to come back to that second one, don't have the 20 minutes to spare right this second.

As for the first one: His logic is sound and coherent, and tbqh, the correct one.
Take tentacle porn tagged with 'All the way through'. If we tried to enact it out in reality... well, best not to. No one would want to see those results.

Here's the problem with the Semiotic approach the way I see it:
He's arguing 'you have to prove it'. Under normal circumstances, this is correct, especially if the opponent cares about logical coherency.
Postmodernism however argues that logical coherency is by definition the hierarchical product of cultural dominance. In essence, logical coherency itself is a form of oppression best dispensed with.
They would counter with a 'no you' essentially: "Prove that my interpretation of Loli is wrong", and then they'll just stonewall you with that all day, not budging because every argument will always invariably circle back to "But MY interpretation is..." - the moment they fixate on that interpretation, they've won the argument under their worldview.
Because under their moral/philosophical framework, personal interpretation is the only thing that matters.
Postmodernism basically ignores everything Semiotics establishes with a simplistic approach: "I feel the sign means X. Therefore it means X. End of discussion."
Any attempt you go through to argue against that position is not received as an attempt to argue in good faith - logical coherence is an interpersonal power play after all. They would simply interpret your arguments as an attack on their person and react as such. 'You don't want to discuss ideas', they'd argue, 'you only want to kick people around and tell them what to do'.
And if you accuse them of being disingenuous? "No, you are."
(If you think I'm being unkind and strawmanning them to essentially being childish about all this, no really, that's how all this works. It's popular as a philosophy precisely because any old jackass can explain it all, and give you a theory on how everything works in like, 20 minutes and still sound smarter than he actually is in the process. It's the death of philosophy, just as the flat art style is the death of art).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hex

Jahy

varishangout.com
I've often seen this shared frequently on 4chan in response to those sperging out against lolicon. It's a bit of a long read, and it focuses mostly on rape or molestation in fiction specifically, but it's well worth the read.

I greatly appreciate how much of it focuses on the fact that not only does the nature of the material being discussed exist in the fictional realm but also that attention is being taken off real world instances of sexual assault and violence.

implying.jpg
 

namedoesntfi

varishangout.com
Regular
Patron of the Forums
  1. try to remain calm cool and collected. don't rage and don't ALL CAPS WHY YOU SO DUMB at people. you have to make yourself seem like the more reasonable one, you catch more people with honey than you do vinegar
  2. know when to quit. don't get dragged into 4 hr long debates with dumb people on Twitter who are most likely trolling you. it's ok to just step back and stop
  3. in the same vein, the point should not be to "win" or "own". the point should be to educate if not the person you are debating but the people who may be watching
  4. make sure to try and have sources for what you are talking about in case you need them. being able to back up what you are talking about is important
Very good points. I think all points are important, but number 3 may be the most important one. It is so common today to seeing people with the "winning"/"owning" mentality. I think we all have that in varying degrees especially depending on how passionate we are on the discussed topic. The difference is that we need to try to put this mentality and passion in check. Being self-aware when you might be overbearing is a great first step.

Number 1 is also important. Usually if you lose your cool when discussing this, it is likely with someone who is refusing to at least acknowledge your points (this in turn gets us to number 2). If you start losing your shit, you just provide the antis with fuel: "See, look at this **** losing their cool just because they can't handle the truth" or shit like that.

Long story short. I agree 100%. :salute:
 

Mandrake

varishangout.com
One of the most common and delusional beliefs I see pushed by the anti-loli mongoloids is that, even though the characters are not real, it is not a victimless crime. They try to justify this by claiming that consuming this sort of material is going to naturally lead into real life pedophilia. I have said this many times before but I find it to be a very apt and relevant analogy: this is the erotic drawing equivalent of the boomer argument that video games cause violence. This results in a two-for-one fallacy, invoking both a slippery slope and post hoc fallacy where they try to assert quite fervently that causation equals correlation and real harm will come to real children despite only fake, non-existent characters being involved.
Usually people into this whole "art causing real harm" also say that violence in video games don't cause IRL violence.
I don't see anything to answer to such contradictory beliefs, outside of pointing this out for the public, to see the applied double standard.
 
Top