@MangaField You're not really fun to debate with :/
Well, since I have my pride as an debater I'm going to go on.
I never said „liking loli porn“ leads to „being a pedophile
And when did I claim that you did?
That would be causation and I never said that, I never contradicted myself. What are you talking about, man? ?
Seriously?
And no, I am not saying everyone who watches sexualized cartoon children is automatically a pedophile
Does this not sound like "correlation does not equal to causation"?
Also, I have a feeling that you don't know what this quote means so here's what I got from google.
Correlation does not imply causation. In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other. That "correlation proves causation" is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.
Talking about logical fallacies, you are committing the
Hasty Generalization fallacy in which you make assumptions based on proofless constructs. You are also committing the
Circular Argument fallacy where you just repeat what you said before instead of presenting new points to your argument. Don't say that these are bs. These logical fallacies are used by professional debaters. Look it up.
3. the quote is shit. And Quora is shit. It‘s populated by Indians talking out of their asses. This quote is stupid and no backed by actual scientific evidence. AND like I already said - not every „lolicon“ is a pedophile!!!! How often should I mention that until you get it.
What is your source? Why is Quora full of Indians? Are you calling Indians dumb? It's not backed by scientific evidence? What science? Do you have any way to disprove what Quora contains?
And you keep on telling me that "not every lolicon is a pedophile". Yeah, I agree. Correlation dos not equal to causation. Why do you think that I disagree with you on that? What I'm saying is that since not every lolicon is a pedo, then liking loli lewds are 100% okay as long as they don't move on to real kids.
4. you can‘t ask sick lolicons whether lolicons are sick or not ???
I was obviously talking about 100 people who don‘t know manga/anime. I think that was clear... we are talking about normal people.
Oh alright then. So what evidence do you have that 99/100 people will be disgusted by you? Your guts? Yeah, I need, as you say,
scientific evidence. Go down a street and get a large sample size, obviously larger than 100, so that you have statistical proof. Don't want to? Too lazy? No time for that? Well too bad, your argument is no longer valid due to lack of evidence. Don't claim points without evidential proof.
5. you know that fiction vs. reality piece is the first one that resembles an argument. And yet, it fails once again. Violent videogames DO worsen violence-tendency of people IF they are already aggressive to begin with.
Give me proof.
Meaning, that a person who has interest in young girls (like you - why else would you even begin to seek out sexualized cartoon children?) will possibly get even more lust for young children, mabye resulting in actual child porn or worse.
Let me introduce you to a new logical fallacy, the
Slipery Slope fallacy. Where you take plenty of small steps to conclude to a very improbable conclusion.
1. You see lolis on anime
2. You see a bunch of loli lewds (which can come from curiosity; you are committing the
Black-and-White fallacy, I'll explain that later)
3. You need to be messed up enough to move from 2D to 3D
4. You also need to be messed up enough to act irl instead of on the internet.
5. You need to get caught.
Now you see how improbable this is? What's more probable? Easy.
1. You like lolis because they're cute.
Also, where did I write that sexualized children cartoons should be banned? I am just saying that mangaka should stop doing that, because it destroys any story (that‘s why I even wrote under the Saguri manga to begin with) and the nice side effect would be, that you sick fucks stop watching young children in sexual positions. (I just have to show this last sentence to every person on earth and 99,9999% of them would want to cut off your penis).
And now here's the fallacy that I said before. The Black-and-White fallacy is where you assume that there are only two options.
Here's an extreme example.
Either the pyramid is built by hand or by aliens.
Either random chance made humans or God.
Either the Earth is flat or hollow. (It's round.)
For the first two, the pyramid could be built by tools to make the job easier and humans could come from evolution.
Why should sexualized children be banned? They ruin the story? Then why does hentai exist? Why does Eromanga-sensei, OreImo, etc were made? If they ruin the story, obviously everyone won't be fans of it, right? WRONG. People could watch these things because: they like the art, their favourite voice actor(tress)(s) could be voicing a character, they read the manga or the LN and just wanna see the anime, they could watch it to make memes out of it.
Oh, and they could just watch it for the porn.
And...
(I just have to show this last sentence to every person on earth and 99,9999% of them would want to cut off your penis).
Give me proof. Gut-feeling is insufficient for obvious reasons.
Plus, I didn't respond to your second point because it's purely idiotic.
2. I wrote NON-generic thing. Liking ice-cream is generic. Liking bombs is generic for a student in explosive engineering.
Are you deliberatly misunderstanding me?
Oh okay. In that case...
Liking children is generic only to pedophiles.
Liking ice cream is non-generic to people on a strict diet.
If you are specifying the demographic, that attribute is no longer generic but rather specific - synonymous to "non-generic". I advice you to look things up you aren't sure with.