On May 28, 12:49 am, "Not Roger" anon@anon wrote:
Toddie. Morally speaking, there are many of us who feel that your sick
cartoons of naked children are still just that. Child porn.
Cartoons or not, legal or not, Child Porn in any form is considered to be
the effort of a sick mind for some sort of sick sexual gratification. There
certainly is no "art" involved.
Depictions of grown men invading the vagina of a small, female child are
sick, sick, sick, though such depictions obviously turn you on.
Obviously you are sick, sick, sick, too.

Do you look at these cartoons and wish you were there, Todd? Since you
obviously cannot attract an adult female, do you wish you could violate a
child? Do you stare at these things while "thumping" yourself beneath your
Daddy's desk?

You are what? In your early thirties and still living at home? Under your
Daddy's roof?

You ain't "all there" in the head, Toad.

Morality is like an opinion, everyone has their own definitions of
what is morally right or wrong, Secondly it it LAW that governs this
country, not morality, if you want to live in a moral-based country
ran by morals (including those of a religious nature) go live in Iran.
As for ART, go to school (and I mean a University) and learn something
about art like I have, because frankly you don't know **** about art.
Most people who are are into children, are not going to look at
cartoons, they are going to look at real pictures. As the Supreme
Court stated if Child molestors or those who where interest in child
Porn where using cartoons and virtual child porn, the the real child
porn market would be dried up, the fact according to the FBI it
hasn't, it's accually grown bigger. In fact there is more real child
porn out there then there is Virtual child porn including cartoons. So
perhaps you and your BUTT BUDDY BRAIN "THE RAT FINK" CROW should know
what the **** your talking about when it comes to me before you open
your BIG ****ING MOUTH!!!