.......why did they include the child, like i get shes a dragon and all and they age differntly, BUT SHES IN KINDERGARTEN FOR CHRISTS SAKES
Gayspaghettigirl
Jan 1, 2026 2:31AM
^ real like....oooo....thats a literal kindergartener.... But the actual manga/anime is also bad with that when it comes to poor ill Shota (ngl I probs spelled his name wrong). Like...what is Quetzo was A man and shota was A little girl??? The amount of backlash would have been neck breaking.
Sezter94
Jan 1, 2026 12:05PM
Geeze I thought this was a new upload by Yuriwhale but it's in fact an older comic they did. Hope they are okay, last update I saw from them was dealing with a flood that wrecked their house.
RiderFan
Jan 1, 2026 5:28PM
@Crabb15f She's not human. She's also a drawing. Clutch pearls elsewhere.
Moedred
Jan 1, 2026 5:44PM
^Oh yeah, I sometimes forgot You people are here too.
last edited at Jan 1, 2026 5:53PM
DumShork
Jan 1, 2026 6:12PM
This isn't the place for the weird moralist nonsense.
tam_fortress
Jan 1, 2026 7:10PM
This site allows loli and this work is tagged appropriately. If you have feelings against it go express it elsewhere. Also Kanna doesn't go to kindergarten, Kanna goes to elementary.
17hunter00
Jan 1, 2026 11:50PM
You'll always get the moralist idiots, if you don't like lolicon why would you click on a lolicon work? Only to whine? There's a blacklist function in this site too you know
kickap00
Jan 2, 2026 2:35AM
dynasty comments are so cringe. twitter is over there if you wanna whine about morals
Moedred
Jan 2, 2026 8:50AM
^^You can get to "lolicon" works just by clicking "next image".
Damn, I miss the times when being pedophile was an negative trait to have and didn't have army of weirdos to defend being one.
There is no such thing as "lolicon". That pedophilia. If a guy fantasize about fucking an anime male character I would call him gay the same if he would like to fuck real guy. I don't give a fuck about someone made up term so they can go "I'm not a pedophile, pedophiles are bad, I'm a LOLICON" to feel better about their attraction to children. I can agree with all that "It's better than real ones". "It give them possibility to vent without hurting someone" or "They are not real so it's not hurting anybody", But I will call people sexually attracted to children pedophiles, no matter how many times they will lie to themselves that they are not ones.
last edited at Jan 2, 2026 9:01AM
Chantelune
Jan 2, 2026 9:15AM
reality =/= fiction.
By your logic, anybody playing a video game involving killing people is a murderer.
Moedred
Jan 2, 2026 9:37AM
I love how this shitty strawman argument that is not refuting anything always come out in these discussions. You know you have a strong case when your first line of defense is an strawman.
Murder require an action - murdering someone in real world . You don't call someone murderer if they didn't murder someone yet (or at least attempt). I can have an "dream", "wish" or even simulate (like in game) to kill someone, but it doesn't make me an murder by any metric.
Being pedophile require just an attraction to children. You are consider "pedophile" if you want to fuck children. That's it. The same with any sexuality. You are considered straight if you are attracted to someone of opposite sex even if you never had sex in your life. The same with being gay, pan or anything else. If you are attracted to fictional or real opposite/same sex character/person you are still straight/gay. Most of you people seemingly cannot differentiate between "being pedophile" (attraction toward children) and "pedophiliac behavior" (molesting/rape/other sexual behavior toward children).
Like, imagine how moronic this "it's not real person" argument looks in reality. You would have a guy showing you image of naked "loli" start talking how much he wish to fuck her, how her body is "perfect shape" how "little girls have tightest pussies", how much he wish he could have a loli to fuck on his own, how much he wish he could do these things with his little sister/cousin/gradeschooler etc. (all these comments are actual comments under "loli" shit). And there he goes: "Oh but I'm not a pedophile". Like, it's pure insanity. It's like someone show you image of a dog, just as a drawing instead of a photo, tell you they find it sexy, wants to fuck it and you would go "Yep, not a zoophile".
Some of you really not making favours in refuting people "concerns" about connection between LGBT+ and pedophilia.
Honestly I already got bored with this. I know I not gonna convince people who are lying to themselves.
last edited at Jan 2, 2026 10:22AM
tam_fortress
Jan 2, 2026 10:50AM
Whatever your argument is it doesn't matter. Loli is explicitly allowed on this site.
Moedred
Jan 2, 2026 12:29PM
^What is moral is not necessary legal, what is legal in not necessary moral.
rainbow8
Jan 2, 2026 6:26PM
You already admitted there's a difference between attraction and behavior. You even said you agreed with "better pictures than two kids" arguments. So why are you bringing up morality now? Are you turning around and saying it's immoral to feel this attraction, despite the inability to control attraction?
You admit the images can be useful yet apparently want to condem the site for having them.
Argument seems incoherent, like you just want to feel superior to people even if they're not hurting anyone.
Crabb15f Jan 1, 2026 1:07AM
.......why did they include the child, like i get shes a dragon and all and they age differntly, BUT SHES IN KINDERGARTEN FOR CHRISTS SAKES
Gayspaghettigirl Jan 1, 2026 2:31AM
^ real like....oooo....thats a literal kindergartener.... But the actual manga/anime is also bad with that when it comes to poor ill Shota (ngl I probs spelled his name wrong). Like...what is Quetzo was A man and shota was A little girl??? The amount of backlash would have been neck breaking.
Sezter94 Jan 1, 2026 12:05PM
Geeze I thought this was a new upload by Yuriwhale but it's in fact an older comic they did. Hope they are okay, last update I saw from them was dealing with a flood that wrecked their house.
RiderFan Jan 1, 2026 5:28PM
@Crabb15f She's not human. She's also a drawing. Clutch pearls elsewhere.
Moedred Jan 1, 2026 5:44PM
^Oh yeah, I sometimes forgot You people are here too.
last edited at Jan 1, 2026 5:53PM
DumShork Jan 1, 2026 6:12PM
This isn't the place for the weird moralist nonsense.
tam_fortress Jan 1, 2026 7:10PM
This site allows loli and this work is tagged appropriately. If you have feelings against it go express it elsewhere. Also Kanna doesn't go to kindergarten, Kanna goes to elementary.
17hunter00 Jan 1, 2026 11:50PM
You'll always get the moralist idiots, if you don't like lolicon why would you click on a lolicon work? Only to whine? There's a blacklist function in this site too you know
kickap00 Jan 2, 2026 2:35AM
dynasty comments are so cringe. twitter is over there if you wanna whine about morals
Moedred Jan 2, 2026 8:50AM
^^You can get to "lolicon" works just by clicking "next image".
Damn, I miss the times when being pedophile was an negative trait to have and didn't have army of weirdos to defend being one.
There is no such thing as "lolicon". That pedophilia. If a guy fantasize about fucking an anime male character I would call him gay the same if he would like to fuck real guy. I don't give a fuck about someone made up term so they can go "I'm not a pedophile, pedophiles are bad, I'm a LOLICON" to feel better about their attraction to children. I can agree with all that "It's better than real ones". "It give them possibility to vent without hurting someone" or "They are not real so it's not hurting anybody", But I will call people sexually attracted to children pedophiles, no matter how many times they will lie to themselves that they are not ones.
last edited at Jan 2, 2026 9:01AM
Chantelune Jan 2, 2026 9:15AM
reality =/= fiction.
By your logic, anybody playing a video game involving killing people is a murderer.
Moedred Jan 2, 2026 9:37AM
I love how this shitty strawman argument that is not refuting anything always come out in these discussions. You know you have a strong case when your first line of defense is an strawman.
Murder require an action - murdering someone in real world . You don't call someone murderer if they didn't murder someone yet (or at least attempt). I can have an "dream", "wish" or even simulate (like in game) to kill someone, but it doesn't make me an murder by any metric.
Being pedophile require just an attraction to children. You are consider "pedophile" if you want to fuck children. That's it. The same with any sexuality. You are considered straight if you are attracted to someone of opposite sex even if you never had sex in your life. The same with being gay, pan or anything else. If you are attracted to fictional or real opposite/same sex character/person you are still straight/gay. Most of you people seemingly cannot differentiate between "being pedophile" (attraction toward children) and "pedophiliac behavior" (molesting/rape/other sexual behavior toward children).
Like, imagine how moronic this "it's not real person" argument looks in reality. You would have a guy showing you image of naked "loli" start talking how much he wish to fuck her, how her body is "perfect shape" how "little girls have tightest pussies", how much he wish he could have a loli to fuck on his own, how much he wish he could do these things with his little sister/cousin/gradeschooler etc. (all these comments are actual comments under "loli" shit). And there he goes: "Oh but I'm not a pedophile". Like, it's pure insanity. It's like someone show you image of a dog, just as a drawing instead of a photo, tell you they find it sexy, wants to fuck it and you would go "Yep, not a zoophile".
Some of you really not making favours in refuting people "concerns" about connection between LGBT+ and pedophilia.
Honestly I already got bored with this. I know I not gonna convince people who are lying to themselves.
last edited at Jan 2, 2026 10:22AM
tam_fortress Jan 2, 2026 10:50AM
Whatever your argument is it doesn't matter. Loli is explicitly allowed on this site.
Moedred Jan 2, 2026 12:29PM
^What is moral is not necessary legal, what is legal in not necessary moral.
rainbow8 Jan 2, 2026 6:26PM
You already admitted there's a difference between attraction and behavior. You even said you agreed with "better pictures than two kids" arguments. So why are you bringing up morality now? Are you turning around and saying it's immoral to feel this attraction, despite the inability to control attraction?
You admit the images can be useful yet apparently want to condem the site for having them.
Argument seems incoherent, like you just want to feel superior to people even if they're not hurting anyone.