He is justified to make such assumptions because of the combination of the "weird" picture caption "Helping Daddy with Dinner"... Good for you that you have cleared it up stating that:
I want to say again that child pornographie is the absolute worst and whoever browsed any 4chan forum or the deepweb before stumbles without wanting about stuff like that and knows how disturbing it actually is.
... so probably you are both right and both wrong at the same time...
try to judge him taking you out from the equation and observe it as a 3rd party, and then you will realize that he has good intentions...
He is not justified, you can find far more explicit content young looking girls and the same sort of language in perfectly legal porn. That porn is right there on Steemit why don't you go take a look? Or maybe google the words teen and daddy and see if you think all the results that appear in google are all illegal child porn as well
May I suggest you be responsible and do a little research if you're going to defend life destroying accusations.
Unless you want to argue that the law should be changed, but that rather changes the context when you call someone a pedophie and they know just how broadly you use that word
I hope btw that you realise that even if the images were underage and technically met the conditions of being childporn (they do not.) it STILL doesn't mean someone is a pedophile. Pedophilia is attraction to PREpubescent sex characteristics. Calling someone this is far more serious and implies far more than an image of a girl slightly below 18 and so misleads people who assume they're not being lied to.
Oh, and there were image actually from a legal porn site. Titan knows this, he's been shown, he says somehow it doesn't matter and still calls it child porn. He backpeddles with no shame.
Thank you edb1984! You're support is just amazing. The argument you brought is really important. Biologically is a girl a woman once she has her menstruation since she can birth children then. (around 13 to 15 I think - I'm not sure) In the history there are a lot a lot of examples where kings would take wifes who are in that age range. I don't support that - I just want to mention it because everything we know is made by society and for example in Germany is a different law than in the US - in Germany children can have sex with other children once they are 14. Adults having sex with under 14 is extremely illegal (that's good) and under 16 is also illegal as far as I know - over 16-18 is a greyzone I think.
And for humans to be attracted to a body of a 16 to 18 year old woman who could be easily 18 or 20+ is similar to a woman who is 24 but looks 16. My girlfriend for example is 28+ but people often think she is under 18. That's not the reason she is my girlfriend of course haha - it's because that I love her.
I just said he is justified to make the assumption that the picture with the combination of the caption refers to Child Porn... NOT that the upvoters of course are pedophile...