fchan

>>334
a) Host != mod. I don't know where you get that idea.
b) The point of stylization is that without external cues, we can't tell the age of characters. An example of an external cue would be diapers. IF the character isn't stylized there wouldn;t be a problem to begin with.
c) Where did you get the idea that babyfur is banned? Only that which is indistinguishable from cub porn is illegal.
d) The legislation targets porn. There's a clause stating that "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;" is a requirement for said works to be targetted.

>>332
Neither loli and cub are real children. Cub just has more differences to differenciate from a child. There's no information just how much differenciation is required, due to vagueness of legislation.

"It's at this point that you start frothing at the mouth and declaring all non-human juvenile art (see tiny toons, muppet babies, rugrats, baby looney tunes etc) not only porn, but childporn, when it is clearly neither."
--- I don't understand your logic. Please explain why this would be the case. Even if we were banning cub porn just because, there's no relationship whatsoever. Unless the US Government also decides to make said works illegal, but that's not our fault (again).

>>329
No one ever said it's illegal if it's not porn. There's no arguement.

Even though the rule changes state cub art outside of /c/, if it is not porn, it's supposed to be in /c/ anyways, hence they'll still be deleted for being out of topic.