>>52143407>cartoons are peoplea cartoon human is still meant to represent a human, its just not real. if you ask someone to describe a character like poppy, they'd just say she's a child who trains pokemon. they wouldn't say "a cartoon" because they'd assume you're talking about the character in context of its own medium
for example, take
>>52121596's question: how would she react to being shown a pp (a euphemism for penis)?
well cartoons aren't real and cant talk, so going by the logic lolicons themselves use the answer is she wouldn't
the only way for this question to have an actual answer is if you're talking in the context of the universe where she can respond. and in the context of the universe, she's a human child not "a cartoon"
likewise, being a lolicon just means you're attracted to fictional female children and dialogue like picrel enforces this
the problem normalfags have with this simply lies in the fact of the accuracy of that fictional counterpart to its real one and if they're close enough to where liking one means you like the other
I personally don't think so, they're different enough imo, but obviously not everyone agrees hence the discourse. When people like
>>52140579 complain about a fictional child not being sexy enough obviously the average normalfag is going to see a problem with it when you're meant to view it as a child
you're still jacking off to little girls, they're just not real so nothing is wrong with it and you're not hurting anyone by doing it (assuming you don't act upon those urges by going after the real counterpart)
tl;dr lolicons are attracted to fictional children but jacking off to them doesn't mean you're going to molest children nor is there anything wrong with doing that (depending on which government you ask)
