pikachudidnothingwrong gives a reasonable argument for the Texas law, gets negrated since he's not going full Spanish Inquisition and gets accused of being a pedophile.
View attachment 86218
View attachment 86216

THE MILLIONS OF RAPED CHILDREN REEEEEEEE
View attachment 86217
When did they defend CP?
View attachment 86219
I will protect the neko shota broken dick gooner with my life!
View attachment 86220
View attachment 86221
Should there be a separate thread for that thread and the "everyone that doesn't fully agree with me is a lolicon and has CP in their drives!" users? I can predict this purity spiral is going to end with all the accusers turning out to have even worse shit in their hard drives they accuse others of having.
They're seinen series (made for adults), they shouldn't be there in the first place!
So this is a perfect example of the 'Appeal from Authority' fallacy and a good sign that someone is likely a midwit.
"Jersh is the owner and admin of Kiwi Farms, Jersh has dealt with the law before, therefore Jersh is an expert."
So what the Appeal from Authority fallacy states that midwits will often pick and choose what "experts" or other figures of authority they want to use to back up their confirmation biases. This is peak midwittery because cherry picking what you want to confirm your personal beliefs as the 'Be all, End All' for an argument is not an argument. Figures of authority are also subject to be proven wrong when presented with objective reality.
Let me provide my own example of why Appeal from Authority to try to win an argument is a weak ass way to win an argument:
"Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins is an atheist, therefore all atheists are smart."
While there is no denying that Richard Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist and has contributed much to the field of Biology, that doesn't mean Richard Dawkins is an expert in everything. Richard Dawkins has been rightfully criticized for his dumb hot takes when it comes to politics and social issues where people from both the Left and the Right often rip on Richard Dawkins for his shitty takes on world issues; Richard Dawkins being an atheist doesn't make him any smarter or better than a homeless man with a meth addiction and Richard Dawkins being an atheist doesn't mean every atheist in the world is smart (anyone that was on the Internet during the 2010's will know how atheists can be just as retarded as their religious counterparts).
Another example would be like how the late Stockton Rush thought he was an expert in submersibles because he used to work in airplane engineering and he thought the ocean exploration business would be just like the airplane industry (look how that worked out for him when he rode inside Oceangate Titan for the final time).
Jersh is not the 'Be All, End All' of how the Internet works. There's no denying that Jersh is tech savvy and knows how to run a website (most of the time) but this doesn't mean Jersh is an expert in other fields outside of his expertise.