Explain

is not illegal yet, but it seems weird too me.......

I'm not talking about the image, I'm talking about the statements you put out. It has implied assumptions where there is no evidence but a instant labeling of a stranger.
Granted you are correct at the age of 16 as minimum criteria of being a pedo, but you failed to state the other part of the criteria.
>A person must be at least 16 years old, AND at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia

Don't leave out facts to push implied notations. So for him to be a "pedo" he has to meet the other half of the critera. Does the girl look 11 years old if he is 16?

Kill that pedo !

Keep it civil, no need to attack the poster, you're better than that, debate the reasoning for the accusation. You won't win a jury over if you just throw names around.

yes, tbh. I wouldn't have said he was a pedo otherwise. Maybe I'm just trash at geussing ages idk.

reported, you're not slick, Yea Forums rules state that thee are no pics of kids

Guessing age is by the individuals perception. It is a fool-hardy way to assume without proof on looks alone.
This image "looks" like its a female, but in fact, it is a male. But they identify as a female. Although biologically, they have a penis.
The idea of if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it must be a duck idea is a grey area in today's standards.
So my point is, you calling him a pedo is fool-hardy because you do not know all the facts and jumping to conclusions without reasoning other than, "that girl's too young, he's a pedo".

Forgot image.

Attached: 1568357199581.jpg (450x600, 75K)

India

She can be just short, retard