>>9562
Foalcon, or lolicon, of an IRL person, is maybe weird, but it is not a problem, depending on certain things.
. stupid/problem: trying to be edgy, getting whoever (parents, the kid, et al.) to look at at, "harassment", "cyberbullying", "trolling", and stuff like that
. more or a problem: if there's evidence that a real child posed for some sexual drawing/non-photo that someone created
.. I remember that Shadman made lolicon artwork of some child actor from a "Terminator" movie or something; the drawing was in-universe and based on the character in the movie. This isn't a problem: it is about a fictional character. No would would reasonably think that she posed for him to make the drawing. Even if some artist made a sexual drawing of some IRL kid, I don't see this being a problem as long as the artist has basically no relation to them. It is literally a drawing, it hurts no one. Consider: some guy making a sexual drawing of some kid who lives on the other side of Earth and they never met vs. a father making a sexual drawing of his child. Obviously the latter is more concerning. Maybe the kid posed for him.
... People have artistic freedom to express themselves. If we ban sexual drawings of IRL kids, what's next banning drawings of IRL kids getting murdered? Then think what's after that if we allow prudes or self-righteous moralfags to have control. It is really stupid to limit such imagination-based works.
... Also, now with AI-generated stuff, you can generate many images. And out of this quantity of lolicon, many could definitely look like IRL people as a coincidence. It could just be unintentional. This shows that limitations on bans on these things are unreasonable.

Pony hairstyles from the channel which uploaded 66lDR9h6liU
>/z9/youtube/MLP_and_LPS_Lover_UCz8x_Uwc5poQygTVLEjcYdQ/Custom_My_Little_Pony_Styles_Episode_1_the_amazing_Pinkie_a-MLP_and_LPS_Lover-20140818-youtube-480x360-GdygYm8biko.mp4