So when are we going to admit that drawings can be harmful given the questionable content

so when are we going to admit that drawings can be harmful given the questionable content

Attached: 00003142.png (598x589, 269.81K)

drawings aren't people

Let's just execute everyone with a Twitter account

And neither are you.

WHERE

this person draws very realistic drawings of children that look under the age of 12. It's a shame, because they are a terrific artist, but go show their artwork to your family and friends and see how they react.

>can be
anything can be harmful, but ultimately we have no catch-all way of knowing when, for what purpose and in what light drawings are made, and banning them would not only be an infringement of freedom of expression, but also just unbelievably difficult
which is why we dont

also wow that's a nice drawing, i dislike lolifags as much as the next guy but I gotta admit mans a good artist

Stop
Making
Twitter
Threads

Never, suck my dick.

Does that mean that human law doesn't apply to me?

>no blue check mark
Opinion discarded

Yeah, but you're still a pedo regardless if it's real or fake kids.

The day twitter threads become a bannable offense will be a good day.

>no cuckmark
opinion considered. then discarded only after consideration.

and yet it's not something that can be stopped now is it

also being attrached to lolis n shotas still doesnt define a pedo, it only means they're more likely to also be one irl

>how did he know?

Attached: dog-puppy-glasses-computer-laptop-ss-1920_ztih7s.jpg (1920x1080, 149.13K)

This so much. Screencap threads should be banneable.

Regardless of if this is a Twitter thread or not, it's still off-topic. This isn't a cartoon or a comic. This is someone's degenerate-ass porn drawings, and someone else patting themselves on the back for being against a very obvious and agreeable cause for clout.

damn that art is nice, even the bad day one is top but the latter is much nicer, esp the eyes area

they both seem to give off fairly diff vibes tho

This is hilarious from twitter where people think children have the ability to consent to taking hormone blockers and ripping their genitals off. Everyone knows that is just a stepping stone for getting kids to consent to sex.

You know what the definition of meek is? When you have the power to do something and you dont do it because its bad.

SJWs eating each other, nothing to see here folks.
Twatter is not real life.
Twatter is not society.
Twatter is the dark corner of the bottom of the barrel of the bottom pile of the garbage of Humanity.

Attached: SJW Pedo Peter Bright (DrPizza) 01.png (2145x1579, 1.88M)

seeeettle down buddy, no one even brought that up, dont get your boogeymen in a muddle.

Its two cancers at the same time, a twitter thread and a bait thread.

I fucking hate these people who think drawings are real life. That same argument can be made to every other medium and it will still be invalid. Does an artist deserve the same prison time as an actual paedophile who harms REAL kids? No. Art is meant to be provocative, its how the medium evolves no matter how confusing or fucked it is.

Thanks op. I'll be supporting the artist more now

Like how watching a violent movie makes you a potential murderer?

>and yet it's not something that can be stopped now is it
Sure it can, the cure is lead applied directly to the forehead

>also being attrached to lolis n shotas still doesnt define a pedo
user, you're attracted to kids. Just because they're drawn kids doesn't mean you're not a pedo.

A guy swearing off 3dpd dudes and exclusively whackikng it drawn schlongs doesn't make him any less gay.

Zig Forums anons
>art isn't indicative of real life! they're just drawings!
also Zig Forums anons
>all furries wanna fuck real life dogs kys furfag
understand the contradiction?

He used to post to 8ch/cake/. Even did requests.
Including shota on loli

They USED to be a long time ago. I even got a warning for posting in one once. But all the nu-mods don't actually care about board quality anymore and are completely hands-off. Unless its a few very specific subjects like Homestuck or Gumball, then suddenly they care.

Lol nah

The SCOTUS said that it depends on how close they are to real children.

>People didn't know that is is a notorious loli artist
I don't know whether to be sad for them or sad for myself.

How would they know about the sexualized art, unless they were looking for it in the first place?

Can a scientist just do a study on whether or not these drawings of fictional kids are actually harmful just so the internet can stop having these debates every week?

Attached: Ben annoyed.png (1920x1080, 647.06K)

No, because pedophilia is a state of being, while murder (like child molestation) is an act.

Regardless, snuff fags are terrible too and ought to hang alongside pedos.

the problem with art is that we dont know why it's made
sexual or suggestive shota n loli art could just be downright porn, but it could also be a political or social statement, an experiment, perhaps misunderstood anatomy practice...in some cases even if it's very clearly porn to you, they could argue that it's not intended to be and they'd know better because they drew, esp if its stylized enough. we have no way of knowing and because art is so general and hard to control, its be impossible to outlaw and then enforce. so even WHEN it's very clearly undoubtubly porn, as long as it's not directly hurting real children, we hold off on acting on it and banning it because the line between that and something that isnt is so blurred and thin that we'd be opening a whole entire can of fuck when it comes to people's freedom of expression.

If you jack it to lolis im gonna look at you different but im never gonna equate the suffering of real children to that of drawings.

Okay pedo

No because once they find that it is you'll just accuse them of being scientists with an agenda and cling to some 20 year old study like you do with "41%" trannies.