>>3495526Forgot picrelated.
Onto the next two.
>>3495464>You are LITCHERALLY defending the rights of FICKSHUNAL CHARACTERS XDDDDDD LMAO what a ledditor amirite fellow 4chan kids???And here we have another one of the classic pedo defense force retorts that, as usual, is a completely underhanded, disingenuous attempt to misrepresent the actual issue at hand and attempts to make their critics look foolish instead of actually proving a point.
Well, let me ask you a question. If you read a comic, let's say Assigned Male because everyone including tannins hates that garbage, do you hate the comic itself and the obnoxious, preachy queer characters spouting off their garbage? Well yeah, but who is really to blame? Who is it that is holding and espousing the viewpoint you hate?
Let's make it even simpler. Let's say you're a janitor and somebody shits all over a bathroom stall. What is it you're going to be angry at? The shit, or the shitter?
I think you understand what I'm getting at here. Nobody gives a damn about the actual chatacters, and that you would even think that's the case is actually fucking retarded.
Shove your strawman up your ass, faggot.
>>3495424"Criticizing loli faggotry is LITCHERALLY THOUGHT POLICING"
And there it is, ladies and gents! The last piece of the unholy motherfucking trifecta of pedoshit justification, the "complete ignorance of what censorship means" schtick. I could care less about whether or not it's illegal and it doesn't need to be, because we can do it the old fashioned way and drive your asses out of town on our own. Private enterprise, not public property, bitches.
Now I just have to wait for some fag to accuse me of being a self-loathing closet pedo projecting onto others and the inevitable comparison to violent vidya, and that should juuuust about wrap up the itinerary for this thread in time for my evening tendie appointment.
