>>1332768>1.The definition is a lot more amorphous, especially nowadays, but you should just know it came from the book Lolita, as people have already pointed out. However it seems to be a delineation nowadays that it is an attraction to childlike fictional characters. Not necessary children themselves, as "lolibaba" (the old copout of "I'm actually a 2000 years old dragon" that looks like a 6 year old) is a subset and many others that would fall above the 18 years of age or whatnot. That doesn't mean they are or are not attracted to real children, which is where that slippery slope comes to
>2.The best argument with someone is the one you don't waste your time with, most of the time. But assuming you are dead set in possibly wasting your time arguing against someone is not actually willing to have a conversation or even the open mind to do so:
>Arguing for loli/loliconIn what context? Legally? Morally? Ethically?
>LegallyCan't help you there. If your country isn't very liberal with porn you're fucked and better off moving out.
>MorallyIt is as immoral as consuming any media pertaining to any type of crime. It is fiction, the characters are not real and cannot be harmed and do not have rights, because they are fictional. If deriving sexual pleasure from it is part of their problem, then there is nothing to discuss. You are a sexual deviant and you are not about to open their mind about the subject matter.
>EthicallyRemind them that the production of loli anything harms exactly zero children. It is purely fictional and the production of it is no less ethical than a murder mystery. And if the author did actually look at CP to make it, then it is no different than researching forensic material of murders or whatever to produce a novel / game / etc that used said research.
