>purely fictional works that have nothing to do with a real child are fine
So UAB is banned, because even though it's purely fictional, at least hopefully the Laura B parts are purely fictional
, it has to do with real children? Or do you not consider it purely fictional if the fiction is based on a real child in any way? Either way, UAB and some Shadman works would be banned under the logic you've set forward. Some eastern shit would be too, like this. I sincerely doubt the rules ban these things though, believing they are just poorly made in a rush to combat a spike in pedoniggers.
>and should not be conflated
Should not be conflated in reports, or discussion? I bolded "pedophilia" for a reason. Obviously conflating loli with illegal material that is banned is outright factually wrong, but if that was the only thing the rule said and implied, it wouldn't say loli is not to be conflated with pedophilia, instead just not "any content banned under this rule". A lolicon work using the word pedophile by default conflates the two, and I never implied this was illegal
, only against the rules as they are written. Actually use your brain for fucking once and think about the implications of the rules you're reading. That is, if you even bothered to read them instead of assuming "Things I'm not okay with are banned, and thing I am okay with aren't. The rules are well written and Acid is infallible".