/anime_backup/ - Old Anime board

OP here, there are a LOT of things to take in from this paper and I'm not sure how to tl;dr it frankly because of the complexity of the subject matter.

Fuck off. You faggots posted this in the lolipol thread and were appropriately BTFO. Stop making more threads over your fetish and go back to /b/

>>5236
I don't know what is this "lolipol" you're referring to, I just came across this paper.
>fetish
It's not exclusively a fetish; read the paper.

>>5237
use catalog you newfag
>it's not a fetish
&ltread the paper
I have read that abysmal paeudo-intellectual schlock and it is the most obvious attemtp at obfuscating loli and moe-shit ever. The sheer autism of writing a paper defending this is disgusting
And yes it is a fetish/paraphilia and no mental gymnastics change this.

>>5238
>mental gymnastics
The author used multiple academic sources. Are you suggesting the academic sources are responsible for "mental gymanstics"?

>>5239
1) citing academic sources means nothing when the extrapolations are his own - those are mental gymnastics
2) I can find academic sources for all sorts of inane bullshit and create arguments for why Dinosaurs and birds shouldn't be related. Doesn't make that thesis correct
3) This has been covered before. A lolicon is still a lolicon no matter what pseudo-intellectual trappings you dress it up in. Stop continuing this shit duplicate thread.

>>5241
>1) citing academic sources means nothing when the extrapolations are his own - those are mental gymnastics
Doesn't he directly quote the authors? Don't make me re-read the whole thing again.

>>5243
>Doesn't he directly quote the authors?
1) out of context excerpts can be made to mean anything i.e. Stalin's out of context quote about "no communists in Lithuania"
2) An author is not an objective source (death of author)
3) He takes a quote and then explains it in his own subjective and biased interpretation (obviously a lolicon will argue favorably for lolicons - including a lolicon in denial).
>reread
Then don't. It is an absolute waste of time to write such a paper on a subject of whether fiddling drawn depictions of child-bodies is pedophilic or not. And it is even more a waste of time to read and discuss it repeatedly. Don't take anime seriously and don't engage in drawn CP. All his citations and other crap still boil down to the same fucking arguments about 1000 year old vampire lolis or petite bodies or hebephilia and other nauseating semantics. Again go to the lolipol thread.

>>5243
>>5245
Just to add on: No matter how many quotes and deflections he uses, his arguments boil down to the same debunked shit. It's not worth the time of day

>>5234
>Lolipol thread gets deleted
<this garbage thread isn't
Moderation of this site is so retarded it hurts.