>>13441272 (pb)
Anons might not realize it yet, but anons are your fren, nao.
Dude, you gotta get some higher rez pics, mane.
>the fact that you disrespect the rules of anonymity makes you an insufferable cancer to this place
Anon,
Take a step back, and analyze the sitiashun.
God wins.
If you are going to post anime, senpai, then at least don't suck at it.
Dude, you have no idea. Or maybe you do. Interesting is definitely the right word.
He's not, but that's a fun thought experiment.
I bought at .05, but I only had 50 dorrahs. So far, so good.
>>13441362 (pb)
Yep. 1000% percent, percent. Now how do we overcome that? Don't want to sound cliche, but love is usually the only option that overcomes all challenges.
>Everyone that posts anime is a pedo
>Everyone that "avatar fags" is a pedo
I'm going to wait for you to figure this one out, anon. In the meantime, maybe:
Reality is the most malleable substance in the universe. The gifts we've been blessed with are as great as any imagination can fathom, and even greater once that potential is fully realized.
I'm moast definitely not a fucking glowfag. They wouldn't even remotely think of hiring me.
And I'm most definitely not a detractor.
>Should I have posted some boring image when trying to invoke the imagination?
My sentiments exactly.
>Did anyone else notice the SS or security were all wearing the same brown colored shades?
Style, anon. Style.
So, help me out, here. I don't get it because I'm full of dumb. Given that you might be the type to want to impart knowledge, was this a troll, or was there some meaning here?
>>13440631 (pb)
>are fucking pedos. Get it?
OK, so I'm in a rare "devil's advocate" mood, because I'm obviously oblivious to what the name means because my anime experiences are somewhat myopic (think super classic animes that everyone knows, and then limit that to the best of that group).
Yeah, yeah, I know. Fuck off, k? I got shit to do IRL.
Your statement is actually an assumption. You are assuming there's some sort of relationship between the posters, and the avatars they post. Going with that assumption, they are attracted to cartoonal depictions of age-agnostic characters. If they were to make posts where the depiction is that of an obviously sexualized minor, then you have a point (think lolis). But not a single time as animefag ever done that. It's just always been "assumed". You've come into the house of trolls and been conditioned so far as to question your entire reality, but you stopped questioning, and ended at a conclusion that's incomplete regarding a single anon.
"Little" can mean midget, or an 8 year old. But if most of those anime gals are midgets that are 44 years old, it sort of blows your argument out of the water. If you can determine they are posting sexualized images of obvious minors, then you have a case. But "animefag" isn't posting sexualized images. Animefag is posting reaction images of a particular character that may or may not be underage. Even if Satania or the other anime gals that animefag posts were underage, none of them are depicted in a sexualized manner. So your argument holds no water.
I've not seen a single loli in this bread. Care to point that out for anon?
We live in a universe of possibilities, anon. When you acknowledge that, you begin to notice the unnoticeable. That can be a strange and wonderful place.