/abdl/ - Adult Baby - Diaper Lover★

Well that particular picture isn't really bad, there's nothing sexual about it… but uh… that artist, the one who made those images… he makes a bunch of ~other~ art that is, um… pretty much straight up child porn.

So they might have had more a problem with the artist then that particular piece of art.

>>52901 (OP)

>budding breasts

by definition it isn't loli and fucking since when can you not post loli on cuckchan's /d/? this is why i don't go there anymore

>>52904

>drawings

>"pretty much straight up child porn"

dumb nigger

>>52901 (OP)

It's very borderline. If you translate the description she's canonically underage, but she doesn't exactly have a stereotypical loli body type. You can also guess her age by the randoseru backpack she's wearing, typically used by elementary school kids.

Still, it's stupid to find loli "creepy", and you deserve to be banned just for being such a normalfag. It's a shame halfchan is normalfag central now.

>>52911

It's your own fault though. 4Chan gave the pedos an inch… and then they tried to take a fuckin mile, to the point where it started to hammer down on the rest of the server.

The same will happen here eventually. You can already see it with how you pedos keep getting out of your little cage and trying to infest other boards with your creepy kiddy shit.

You keep pushin and the more people will notice and in turn the more heat that'll come down on the board owners until they just lop your silly little heads off completely.

>>52909

Wow, look at that strawman bingo.

>>52937

…I don't think you know what a strawman is.

>>52940

I sure do. It when, in debate, you attack an argument not related to the general topic in a way to divert attention.

That's what that bingo image is. If someone make an argument and said argument is in that picture, but that picture is meant to be a joke, the argument is therefore false.

For instance, there's a "it's just a cartoon" there. Regarding drawings, it's just that, a cartoon. The product of an artist ability to draw something, there's not a kid in there, but to some people's mind, there is.

>>52945

Okay but it's not a strawman. I mean it leaves off a fair degree of context, but the context is still generally understood.

Like the example you made, the "it's just a cartoon"… the actual context is that it's a cartoon depiction of child porn and, further, it's a cartoon depiction of child porn that you're pleasuring yourself to.

The point of the bingo is to illustrate that pedophiles will always make excuses for their sordid, damaging interests and will ALWAYS try and justify them.

Which is how you know that pedophiles are unhinged, can't differentiate between reality and fantasy and therefor such material only serves as a very slippery slope to embolden their pursuits with attempted positive reinforcement.

And the "argument" that pedos always make, that they use such material as some kind of fail safe to keep themselves from raping real children is… honestly, REALLY disturbing. I mean that's like someone going around saying they need to eat a donut everyday or they'll go and murder someone. I don't think pedophiles even comprehend on any level just how insane that argument really sounds.

>>52948

>the actual context is that it's a cartoon depiction of child porn and, further, it's a cartoon depiction of child porn that you're pleasuring yourself to.

How can you say that I'm pleasuring myself? Do you cameras in my house? Do you glow in the dark?

If the depiction was about cannibalism? Would the picture itself be considered cannibalism? Like the person being eaten to be a real victim, a real person that just died? The artist is capable of materializing a real human in a drawing and killing him through other characters in the picture?

>The point of the bingo is to illustrate that pedophiles will always make excuses for their sordid, damaging interests and will ALWAYS try and justify them.

I'm against censorship, if the artist is drawing a granny or a woman or a girl, whatever, it's a product of the artist's mind. An expression of his/her creativity, if I like it or not.

>Which is how you know that pedophiles are unhinged, can't differentiate between reality and fantasy[…]

If that was the case, a pedo would try to fuck a child in front of a cop, after all, it's fantasy

>and therefor such material only serves as a very slippery slope to embolden their pursuits with attempted positive reinforcement.

You consider it a slippery slope. It's the same argument from the 90's that video games cause violence.

>And the "argument" that pedos always make, that they use such material as some kind of fail safe to keep themselves from raping real children is… honestly, REALLY disturbing.

All pedos make that argument? Have you ever asked 100% of them? Anyway, your claim is they save and masturbate to these pictures because, otherwise, they would go in a frenzy and try rape children on the street? I guess if that was the case, arresting pedos would be much easier. Because anyone trying to do that kind of harm to a child in the middle of a street would be beaten by everyone arround.

>>52952

Well one can't say for certain… HOWEVER, under the letter of the law, there's this nasty little bit about making reasonable assertions based on available evidence… so while you couldn't be arrested (in the United States) for simply possessing cartoon depictions of child porn… it could most certainly be used as a form of probable cause to get a search warrant, take your computer and scour through every last byte looking for incriminating evidence.

What's even worse is that you often get overzealous prosecutors, many of which are ELECTED and, as such, they want some easy targets to create bullshit stats with to try and win over voters… so they'll try and nail anyone to the fuckin wall if they think it'll help their reelection campaigns.

The bottom line is that you're playing with fire and you don't seem to grasp just how dangerous it is… to you if you get caught, convicted and forever branded and to real people if you ever try and act on your sexual nature.

If you were thinking rationally, at all… you would not take the risk, especially when there are *MUCH* better alternatives. They actually make these nifty pills that act like anti-Viagra that will completely kill off your sex drive for about 30 days… which, you know, would be a RATIONAL decision to make, not only to avoid the legal danger of getting caught pleasuring yourself to kiddy porn, but also to avoid ever acting on such desires.

And, once again, that "video games cause violence" comparison… doesn't hold up. Because it requires that players are of sound mind and body. If you are a crazy nutball… you should not be playing violent video games and they WILL encourage you to act upon such preexisting desires.

That's the point… when the vast majority of people play violent video games they are not inherently violent people, they are not people who have any genuine/underlying interest in killing people or whatever… but when you take someone WHO ALREADY HAS AN UNDERLYING DESIRE… and then they play a violent video game… yeah, yeah that's fuckin stupid. That's as stupid as selling guns to crazy people.

If you are mentally unhinged you should NOT be buying guns, you should NOT be playing violent video games and you should NOT be looking at pictures of naked children!

Pedophiles are inherently mentally unhinged to some degree or another. And even the ones who largely try and refrain from acting on their sordid interests only need ONE choice opportunity to fuck up and… they'll take it. Pedophiles are predatory in nature and more than often opportunistic. If you've read any court cases involving pedos or seen interviews, especially with "first time offenders"… that's almost always the excuse… that they had a "moment of weakness" and gave in to their desires when a choice opportunity arose.

Artistic expression is one thing… blatant fap fodder is another… if you want to take the risk and roll the dice on your life over a bunch of shitty child porn cartoons… hey, you do you man. You're the one who has to live with the consequences if your life is all fucked up as a result.

PS - Without easy access to such pictures/communities they would feel greater stigma and shame for what it is they're attracted to and in turn would be more inclined to get help, rather than congregate with like-minded lunatics. You know… like how 3rd Wave Feminism was born via kooks compiling their crazy together on Tumblr and Twitter… to the point where they've now fucked society all up in every other direction imaginable.

Pedos aren't any different, just another side to the same crazy coin.

>>52952

There's no sense arguing with him. He doesn't hold any sincere positions. Every post he makes is entirely fabricated to stroke his own ego and troll for replies. The only correct response is to filter and ignore him.

He was posting loli porn himself in another thread.

>>52966

See this is one of the easiest ways you can tell an adult baby from a pedophile.

You see when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine, they project themselves ~as~ the child. An AB sees themselves as being the child in the picture.

On the flip side, when a pedophile looks at that same picture they imagine, they fantasize about MOLESTING and RAPING the child.

But pedos… they're too stupid to understand that difference. To a pedophile they seen an adult baby and they project aspects of their own sick fuckery onto them, presuming that the AB is somehow like them or similar to them, completely unable to even grasp the fundamental difference, which is one of the primary reasons they infest our community like cockroaches.

We are not like you, we are not your brethren in loli arms, you already have your own board, so stick to your own kind you sick fuck.

>>52901 (OP)

>4chan

That's what you get for posting there

>>52970

>You see when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine, they project themselves ~as~ the child. An AB sees themselves as being the child in the picture.

You're a fucking creep if you go out of your way to look at pics of real kids in diapers for sexual reasons either way, self-inserting or not. Keep it to fiction like drawings or stories.

>>52981

Pretty sure not everyone who is AB is AB for a sexual reason last I checked.

Granted of course someone shouldn't be having a bunch of pics of unknown real kids laying around who aren't you yourself if you really want to be the one imaging yourself as the child in said pic as well I say.

I don't really see why someone would have a bunch of kid pics who weren't themselves, kids related to them in some way, or job related in some way like a teacher keeping a class photo each year or something.

On that note though; one of the things I like is physical age regression. Which is helped by the fact that a lot of media has a main character undergoing some age regression as well. There are even a few games as well with age regression as a focused theme: House of Dreams, Operation Babysitter, and Sunny Paws Daycare. Granted its still overall a pretty vast desert content wise compared to some things but oh well I don't think I can really complain that much in the end.

Anyway I bring this up because its pretty hard to find a spot to talk about it sometimes. One of the side affects of pedos being everywhere on here and invading everything and bringing it up all the time is that witch hunting happens. Witch hunts are a pretty big issue when it comes to this subject in general in society though I guess.

>>52981

And once again the pedos always easily expose themselves. They automatically presume the interest is SEXUAL in nature… because they're using their own sick, sordid interests as a template. Because they can't imagine looking at a child through any other "lens" they automatically presume everyone sees children through that same "lens".

In fact, if you've ever seen any interviews of convicted pedophiles one of their pervasive delusions is that they believe EVERYONE has the same sexualized interests towards children that they have and that the greater whole of society is either delusional, lying to themselves or that there's some kind of conspiracy involved.

Which, again, is one of the (many) reasons why pedophiles should NEVER be encouraged, even with cartoon depictions of child pornography.

>>52901 (OP)

I would say that is borderline loli. Like it isnt really loli, but it certainly does not depict an adult. I however am of the opinion that all loli/shota is not inherently bad though, it is the stuff that is just blatantly sexual that I don't like. To be honest, I sort of like some of it in a non sexual way, like I just enjoy cute kids being cute. Anybody else feel that?

>>52995

If you're an AB who treats it as a lifestyle rather than a fetish, then hate to break it to you, but you're mentally ill. Also, the point is that regardless of whether you're fapping to them or not, storing pics of someone else's kids for any kind of twisted pleasure is pretty morally repugnant (for example, something like using a photo of a kid as a dartboard to relieve stress would be fucked up even if you're not turned on by that).

Don't get me wrong, though, I do agree that us ABDLs should strongly frown on pedophilia for the sake of our image (much like we should frown on scatfags, furries and transexuals), but conversely, getting to see irrational pedo outrage up close when it's directed towards our community also leads some ABDLs to think deeply about precisely why pedophiles are an issue, and the answer is because they involve real children who are unable to consent. As long as they stay away from doing that, no need to be outraged by their mere existence.

>>53000

Okay, first of all dipshit, stop stealing my material (that you probably bitched off some ED article I wrote). That whole "don't turn your fetish into a lifestyle choice" is *MY* bushwa, MINE!

Not yours!

*points accusingly*

Second, for myself at least, it's not a lifestyle choice, it's largely about artistic expression and emotional resonance. Whether it's creating art, stories, games, etc… I draw inspiration from any and every source and finding a picture of a child cute and endearing is in no way a bad thing… in fact if you don't I'd say you're either sociopathic or, again, you're a pedophile who can't see a child as anything BUT an object of sexual desire.

Get help man… seriously.

>>53006

>Second, for myself at least, it's not a lifestyle choice, it's largely about artistic expression and emotional resonance.

I can get this. I mean I certainly have my own way of emotional resonance or whatever as well. However, it is a bad idea to do what you say you are doing (directly looking for and saving pics of real kids you don't from what I understand but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Yeah you aren't pedo and I don't really think you are mentally ill IMO or any of that other stuff people are throwing at you on here and I really don't care about what some ED article might say but at the same time I don't think you get that most people aren't actively looking for and saving things with kids in them that aren't their own or they don't have some reason to do so. When they are looking at kids they are usually doing it while they actively have some reason to be around said kid or so that isn't for their own mental benefit as well or whatever in some way.

I mean some person working at a market commenting about how cute or whatever someone's kid is they don't know as they they are checking out the parent at a cash register or the parent is asking the employee for help for whatever reason happens to be a lot less odd than a random person who isn't working there walking up to them at said market and saying the same thing. The employee doing it is just for general chit chat with a costumer to break the ice or whatever, a random unknown person you don't have any idea why they are doing it.

Teachers taking pics of young kids are usually taking pics of kids they are working with to give to their parents just in general to show that a kid has learned a skill or something to that effect.

For an example of an idea that chances are had innocent reasons behind it but was also sort of a bad idea: the AR archive in the past had people posting stories with real kids in a picture to use as a visual aide with the picture. The people were doing it with according to them pics that belonged to them from what I've seen (childhood pics and so on). However, those people doing it either failed to get that while they posted the pic for innocent reasons it might be a bit different than why someone would want to look at and then save said pic and they also didn't factor in how a witch hunt starts as well (they might not cared about any of that as well).

And in the end you I can give you another reason why it is a bad idea. You yourself sort of said why you shouldn't as well just from when you said things like this:

>>52956

>Well one can't say for certain… HOWEVER, under the letter of the law, there's this nasty little bit about making reasonable assertions based on available evidence… so while you couldn't be arrested (in the United States) for simply possessing cartoon depictions of child porn… it could most certainly be used as a form of probable cause to get a search warrant, take your computer and scour through every last byte looking for incriminating evidence.

>>52998

Yeah I get that.

>>53024

>So if you really want to waste what very little life you have trying to paint me up as some semblance of a monster… feel free to senselessly burn whatever fleeting time you have left.

Hey man I haven't actually accused you of being anything yet nor have I actually wrote anything attacking you, name calling you, or other about you and in truth this is like the 3rd time I've replied at anything you've said on this board at all that I can think of. With the 1st time being in the Diaper Quest thread where I was the one who said I liked the game idea you posted and wouldn't mind seeing more of a game ideas you had but also just asking you nicely to stop attacking that game thread and being off topic there and instead use the one for general gaming.

(For the record I'm not this person: >>53000 )

>As far as I'm concerned you'll all be nothing but DUST in just a few hundred years.

Yeah we all will but as far as I feel what do could easily affect others in that time even from beyond where we are dead so I actually try to be civil towards everyone here because I really don't want to actually screw up anyone. How one treats another could easily affect how that other treats another in the long run even after we are gone.

>>52901 (OP)

Sauce?

>>53035

玄米 on pixiv

https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=9954626