(2.1) Emotional Appeal and Faulty Logic
Now, let's assume that they actually do have good intentions. I'm humoring their arguments to prove that they didn't accidentally end up being morally upright by accident.
A lot of these idiots always say dumb shit, how certain pieces of media glorifies rape, romanticizes slavery, enables pedophilia, or some dumb shit like that.
If we ignore the facts and focus purely on emotion, that shows just how little faith they have in people to be able to critically think themselves and do what's right.
In fact, because they ignore the facts so much, it's so fucking obvious just how much they've dehumanized people who enjoy dumb fetish shit.
They don't see people who like lolicon as human beings capable of acting morally, but as latent subhuman criminals that need to be locked up at best, and tortured until
death at worst.
They like to use words like "literal child porn" and "an actual child" in order to try and elevate the issue to seem as if it's equivalent to real child exploitation by
comparison, which if you point it out, they'll play dumb and say it's not the same thing, yet compare it continuously and trying to determine the morality of a fictional
entity and fictional actions in a fictional world.
Often times, they'll cite the law, saying that lolicon material is illegal, but not only does the law not determine morality, but in countries like America, lolicon isn't
illegal, and any laws against it are unconstitutional.
Of course, once that's pointed out, then then say that "the law doesn't determine morality," ironically enough.
They often say that it's common sense that something is immoral, but anyone who's seen enough of the world or took an ethics class know that isn't as strong as they think
it sounds. Common sense in the past had justified slavery and genocide, for reference.
Those people might retort that they believe it to be bad, which imply they believe themselves to be the arbiter of morality, and one of the biggest sins happens to be
fictional sex. There is no point which is practical to anything in discussing the morality of a drawing.
Some people may even cite "God" or some other opinion on Twitter in a 100-tweet-long thread that they treat similarly, which also indicates how these people have their
morality stem from: the opinions and words of others, or in other words, they aren't capable of deciding what's moral and not themselves, but have to rely purely on others.
Some people drop various theoretically impossible situations, such as "what if a fictional character were real" and "what would the fictional character think" which the
reason why it's obviously dumb is that it's impossible and not even worth considering.
Some people say how it's bad because kids can stumble across porn, except not only are there filters for such things on Twitter and areas which they are not permitted
access to, but it's not for kids to begin with, and strangers are not morally obligated to take care of kids in such a space.
(2.2) The Facts and Stats
Now, all of this happens to be without evidence, involving things that are theoretically improbable, impossible, and unreasonable.
If we are to actually reach the point where real world proof, evidence, studies, and facts are considered, then simply put, everything says that drawings and other media
of the kind do not promote real world crimes in the slightest, and it suggests rather that crimes decrease with its availabilty.
I've gone through a few of those articles and studies myself, but I'm not obsessed nor bored enough to go through every single one I've found.
I don't think reading entire articles in a video is efficient, so in the description is your reading assignment to learn that lolicon media has no correlation, negative
if any, with regards to real sexual abuse crimes towards children and others in general. Extra credit if you research more articles and cite credible sources.
However, there have been arguments against this evidence, which I will counter here.
Some arguments I've heard is that such evidence is outdated and very few in number and thus unreliable, which is valid, but also used to completely dismiss and invalidate
the available data and evidence.
While it's true that the lack of data is an issue, the available data has shown that there is no harm, and one of the articles I've linked involved the data of sex crimes
during the lolicon boom in Japan, a situation where the hypothesis that "lolicon media is correlated with sex crimes" could be easily analyzed and be supported or rejected.
Furthermore, such studies can't be done easily because of the stigma involved. It's difficult to get anyone to admit that they would like such content, given societal
opinion and pressure, and those who carry out the study and don't get the results people want to see may be labeled negatively themselves.
Finally, there hasn't been a decent study which concretely proves that lolicon media is correlated, let alone causes sex crimes, and "innocent until guilty" holds, thus
preventing anyone from assuming that it does just from gut feeling or common sense, as it is not only unethical, but stupid to assume it causes harm out of fear.
Fearmongering has not helped anyone throughout history, more rather enabled great horrors to occur.
Lolicon media doesn't normalize or encourage sexual assault, and anyone who says that is full of shit and likely couldn't cite anything beyond "just trust me bro" or some
long Twitter thread equally as worthless.
Some have said that such studies haven't taken place in a country or area of significance, such as America or Europe, and it doesn't matter how many studies are done in
foreign countries due to cultural significance and other factors unknown and known.
Personally, I haven't found any studies that have taken place in any of these two countries, but I can still argue as if it exists by assuming 3 cases where if a study
did occur and its results.
Assume that there exists a study that takes place in America, done well and reliably. There are 3 possible results: positive correlation, no correlation, and negative
correlation. If it is such that the study is either zero or negative correlation, then it remains true that lolicon media doesn't cause sex crimes.
But if it is such that the study is a positive correlation, then here's the thing: there have been numerous studies done in various countries, of which prove that lolicon
media isn't correlated to sex crimes. If somehow this one country is the exception, then I think that says more about them than it does the media, the people who make the
media, and the people who consume the media, as a whole, because what the fuck kinda country can't help but copy the porn they watch?
Finally, none of these people know how this works.
First off, child abuse often come from family, friends, teachers, generally people close to them whom they trust, not random strangers on the internet, and even less so
some random dude who jerks off to lines on paper.
They think kids look at lolicon media and they think to themselves, "oh hey let's copy this with the guy in the white van."
Thing is, kids are not as helpless and dumb as people think they are. They are quite capable of thinking for themselves, and the only reason why they're incredibly dumb
is because they have zero experience on this planet to help them out. And their brains aren't completely developed.
Groomers groom their victims through gaining the child's trust, isolate them from anyone that can help, and maintain control over them. Anything can be used to groom a
kid, so long as it gains their trust, which includes the cliche candy and ice cream, but it can also involve exploiting insecurities, their status, bribery, flattery, and
intimidation to gain and maintain control over their victims.
However, that doesn't mean you ban candy or ice cream because they could be used for grooming. That's just dumb. Those kinds of people will use anything in order to get
what they want. Some might say lolicon media makes it easier to groom than other tools, but again, they have no proof and just chucked it out there to keep up the bullshit.
I hope that rings a bell, because groomers have actually used this entire lolicon drama to groom kids. They point kids at lolicons, say how horrible they are, introducing
them to the concept of sex and other adult concepts, then say that they're fighting the lolicons to protect kids like them, gaining trust, and I'm sure you can see where
that's going at this point.
Turns out the war on pedophilia that Twitter is running is run by real-deal pedophiles trying to groom as many kids as possible. Ironic, isn't it?
---
(2.3) The "Justice" which they enforce
Now, here's the deal; they speak no truth, and they aren't here to do good of any kind. They aren't good people, in any way, shape or form. You wanna know why?
Because if they really wanted to help children, there are infinitely many ways to actually help them, of which of all the possibilities, they choose to harass people off
Twitter at best, and pushed to suicide at worst.
Here's a short list of various volunteer work anyone can do if they not only wanted to help kids, but help various others as well, plus places to donate to help people
who actually need it.
> National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a private non-profit organization with various resources to battle child abuse on a national scale.
{
https://ncmec.elevate.commpartners.com/}
> Feed my Starving Children, an organization which uses donations to fund meal ingredients and volunteers to pack meals to send to those in need.
{
https://www.fmsc.org/}
> The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a non-profit organization that battles and prevents cruelty to animals around the United States.
{
https://www.aspca.org/}
> Volunteers of America, a non-profit organization which has helped one and a half million people through various programs.
{
https://www.voa.org}
Some may say that "others have that covered," but that's entirely false and bullshit. Not only do many places that require help completely have a lack of manpower or
focus, but in truth, those people are only saying that so they don't actually do any real help that has tangible effects on this world.
Some may say that "I don't have the resources to help!" which is a valid reason where someone can't reasonably help, except for the fact that apparently they have enough
time to whine about drawings over the internet enough to target harass random artists and people who create and like said drawings, and you can straight-up do some volunteer
work from home, no cost beyond time; the ONLY resource which they can claim to lack while they tweet non-stop online.
Not to imply I'm spending my free time helping everyone in need, but that's completely different from harassing artists and people online with your group chat in Twitter
or on Discord and making the world worse and more miserable.
And whether I'm a hypocrite or not for saying anything I have doesn't change the reality that what these people are doing is revolting.
There is no fact or truth about the universe which supports their claims or prevents them from doing any sort of good in this world, or encourages doing anything evil.
They're just horrible human beings.