User talk:Analects/SoyBooru civil war

Wouldn't amogusimposter belong under Soybooru's administration side?

1. I don't actually fully support Mustard, I still think these should be deleted because they do not belong on Soybooru. Furthermore, I'm not in his side. I literally started out by calling him a pedophile, mind you . and, despite later on having cooled down, I still don't fully like this. I'm more neutral but i still don't like it fully. Also, your article sucks, you can just copy paste my article, that i made, vouched for its preservation, and then kept under my uesr page User:Analects/SoyBooru_civil_war

In a babyjak 'p post in the 'ru, They claim babyjak isn't real and people who say it's 'p are thinking otherwise

2. this is what I said he looks nothing like a child but most people headcanon babyjak to be an actual child which is where the disconnect stands from. Now, let's analyze this.

• he looks nothing like a child
• this is true. This is, in appearance, a grown man, with a beard, sucking on a binky. You can find this on the internet, (aka abdl and age regression). and NO ONE is calling that child sexual abuse material, or pedophilic in any way.
• but most people headcanon babyjak to be an actual child
• this is also true. in the so called "soymmunity", people do believe that babyjak, aka
  
  REPRESENTS a child. which means that in 'tosses needing a child, you put a babyjak in there.
• which is where the disconnect stands from this is true. people represent babyjak, what resembles an adult, as a child, so, when they see sexualized babyjaks, which are, in appearance, an adult in sexualized context; they see it as a child in a sexualized context.

This sounded eerily similar to lolicon gooners defending their material with "they are not real children!"

3. It's the opposite, actually

• Lolipedo logic : it looks like a child in a sexualized context, but since the character is not, canonically, a child, it's not child porn
• Mustard's logic (AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MINE) : despite canonically being a child, it doesn't look like a child in a sexualized context in any way, therefore, it's not child porn.

What does this look like to you?