So youve never checked someone about falsely accusing someone of being a pedo is what youre telling me. And the reason for that (as you stated before) is because you agree. How in turn does that make you any better? All that means is you side with faulty logic
Also how do you know those "girls" were actual girls in said header? Looks dont dictate what a child is as ive said numerous times here. And how exactly do you expect people to call that out when we arent the ones searching for peoples social medias? Thats you doing that. Youre the only one ive seen who cares enough to do that
I don't know that it's false, but I do know it has some merit. Look back, I said that it doesn't save me from being lumped in with people making the accusations since I don't call it out. But I'm fine with that.
True, a group of pre-pubescent girls could be 1,000 years old. Seriously, why is that even an argument? If they have the bodies and faces of children, a backstory won't change that.
It was posted here, in one of your guys' threads. Some people have even referenced it, so it was seen. But then, like now, defending the guy was more important. Someone else posted that, so it's not just me.