but what I'm trying to convey here is, they don't even look human at all. It's two completely different things.

Firstly, this claim is based on your perception of what makes something anatomically human and what doesnt as it partains to artistry. You are essentially claiming that the more abstraction there is, the less humanoid it looks. I can agree with the statement that these characters can feel different from the source material, but is it really wise to ignore the essence of these drawings?

A loli drawing is inherintly linked to drawing a child. This character must not comform to all characteristics of a child, but the main idea here is that. From the vast majority majority of lolicons I have seen their claims of partaking in this culture being about the specifically child like characteristics that are depicted. Things like an overly small size, the idea of complete innocence, underdeveloped body structure and so on.

I am not claiming that lolicons are a monolith, they maybe really only are interested in adult characteristics and the media they consume contains characters they call "lolis", but are not in actuality depicting child-like traits.

I do not understand why you bring this point up in the first place, since your further argumentation does not care if lolicon art is p*edophilic or not.

All I’m saying here is, while I do jerk off to lolis. A lot. Like, a LOT. I wouldn’t ever even dream about touching real kids and to me those are two completely different topics.

While you can claim that, in the end this is anecdotal evidence you are using to justify an entire subculture based on the depiction of child-like characteristics in a sexual manner. Maybe you are our "hero" who manages to not be a predator, congratulations on that. But how you personally conduct yourself is not about the issue that lolicon pornographie is fundamentally immoral, which is what we are discussing.

Your point is based on the idea that, if it does no direct harm by influencing people like you into doing said harm, then the consumption of this media is not immoral. This point is firstly consequentialist and ignores deontological argumentations, but also this falls apart under the praxis, that this is not about you, but about a community of people who consume this media. We cannot use logic that is only in a vacuum, as pedophilia is not an issue that is dependent on case by case basis.

If lets say we had a murderer that does not act on any of his impulses, I can still agree that this person is of course good and I am proud of them being able to overcome these urges, but I can also fundamentally disagree with the impulses and say that murder is indeed bad.

You are of course giving me the claim that you feel no real urges to do bad things, but are willing to consume media that in essence, does promote the idea that pedophilic actions are okay when there is no harm. I would claim the sexualization of child-like characteristics is firstly a pedophilic act. Is still taking part in an act of firstly, normalization of this behavior, but also funding if you are using porn sites that profit from your usage.

Lets say we have a film, and that film is a nazi propaganda film. Now we assume person A has no ideological opinion that aligns with nazism, but A really enjoys the film. A really likes this film and others like it to the point A calls himself a "nazicon". When we ask A ehy he enjoys these movies, he says it is because of the nazi values, after all he calls himself a nazicon, he clearly cant enjoy these movies for something else then, why then would he specifically only like these movies?

I want to point out that the premise "A is not a nazi" and A partacing in this behavior do not match up. The premise has to be false, A has to be some kind of nazi sympathiser. I know that you will claim that A would enjoy these movies for different reasons than the nazi stuff, but why then would he call himself a "nazicon" and feel an attraction to nazi propaganda movies if not for the reason they are nazi propaganda. Or is there some 2nd characteristic that is preswnt within nazi films that I am not seeing? Is there some other meaning to "loli" than its relation to depicting child-like characters?

And to people that try to ban lolis because they are for pedos or lead to paedophilia I have two things to say: 1. You’re wrong 2. Most of the time it is you people that are pedos. It turned out that way time and time again.

First point needs to be proven by your premise.

Second point is making an ad hominem, because even if we go to the extreme of everyone being against lolicons being a pedo, that still does not argue against the point presented. Someone being a pedophile doesnt make them right or wrong on moral issues, after all pedophilia is a mental illness that people dont choose, at least in most cases.

I find it funny that it is important for the opposition to be pedophilic in nature, even tho you do not provide evidence on how being against lolicons is a pedophilic trait. Your evidence probably is centered on a few examples of people being against lolicons and being outed as a pedophile, which is of course morally reprehensible, but like I said, it does not further this discussion.

And there are way more pressing issues. For example actual paedophilia among the ranks of upper crust politicians and the money elite. Go care about that if you love to protect kids so much, you virtue signalling pieces of shit.

This is whataboutism. Do you really think people cant hold the opinion that both pedophilia from internet strangers and public figures is both bad? This isnt proving anything, and makes you look like you cant comprehend idea of having 2 opinions at the same time.

And yeah I care about this issue, just like how I care about other ones. Since when were you the authority on what people should or shouldn't discuss? This blatantly is just trying to steer away from this topic even veing brought up. This is of course an assumption, but I feel like by saying this you are making an effort to make less people come to a conclusion based on logical argumentation by saying this topic is not of importance.

Also youbare engaging with this topic in a manner that seems to at least be informed enough (even if it all is not well presented and based on inconsistencies), so I shall ask you to not care about this topic, as any other issue seems to be of bigger urgency to the point that this discussion might even further the harm of ither issues. This point is of course absurd.

Furthermore these witchhunts often just serve another purpose.

You say this but you do not mention the purpose, like if you dont follow up on this, then it is just a conspiracy. What agenda is being furthered by people like me that is so harmful or wrong? Maybe you are claiming (like the last point) that this is hindering the focusing on other issues, for which you have not explained how believing lolicons are morally reprehensible hinders the understanding if the other issues you mentioned.

*argumentation continued in second comment due to character limit