I consider naked little anime girls to be equivalent to child porn, and I consider lolicons to be pedophiles. A lot of people have disagreed with me, but none of them have articulated a meaningful counterargument.
>They're not real
Child porn is a sexual depiction of a child. The definition for "child porn" doesn't mention anything about the child being real.
>It's not hurting anybody
I'm not arguing about whether or not it's harmful. I'm saying that it's a sexual depiction of a child, and thus it should be classified as child porn.
>I'm not a pedophile
If you enjoy masturbating to sexual depictions of little kids, it means that you're attracted to little kids, and thus you're a pedophile.
>I'd never touch a kid
Good for you, but you still masturbate to sexual depictions of little kids, so you're still a pedophile.
>Not all pedophiles rape children, pedophiles and child molesters belong in two separate categories
Irrelevant, doesn't change the fact that you should be classified as a pedophile if you masturbate to sexual depictions of little kids.
>Actually, if pedophiles are supplied with child porn, it keeps them busy, so they don't go out and rape real kids, so child porn is good for society.
Irrelevant, doesn't change the fact that naked little anime girls are equivalent to child porn, and you're a pedophile if you masturbate to them.
Why do so many people refuse to categorize naked little anime girls as child porn? If artwork is created for people to masturbate to, it's porn. If it features a child, then it's child porn. How can anyone argue against this?