should I delete my comments? I really don't want to defend libertarian shit even if it's an accidental defense. I don't think it was defending it but I'm worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don't think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn't) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn't the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
if it didn't act like a child AND didn't look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn't look like a bear and didn't act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a "bear-but-not-a-bear", you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn't sound too weird. I'm not really defending the Baldur's gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers () can't get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles () because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing () childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don't realize how fucked up they are
So in your mind if the three thousand year old child didn't act like a child...
should I delete my comments? I really don't want to defend libertarian shit even if it's an accidental defense. I don't think it was defending it but I'm worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don't think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn't) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn't the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
if it didn't act like a child AND didn't look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn't look like a bear and didn't act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a "bear-but-not-a-bear", you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn't sound too weird. I'm not really defending the Baldur's gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers (
) can't get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles (
) because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing (
) childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don't realize how fucked up they are