I don't think you get it. And you clearly didn't look up what I asked you to.
Calling
Solipsism (look it up), a well regarded and entry level philosophical study, "quasi philosophical BS" and my "conjecture" makes you look... well...
uneducated would be a nicer term.
Talking about real issues is not a "defense mechanism." I am trying to
educate a prejudice against something that, in fact, every single person on Earth does. This is not a pseudo-science. We all can be attracted to what is not "real" say: an image of a beautiful man/woman.
And really, this is just a huge, narrow minded, mistake for the connotation of "attraction." Really, you and many others are mistaking attraction to:
sexual attraction .
It is perfectly understandable that you might infer this from the context of my question. But this does not give the right to imply this is my question.
I will try to prove your guilt, as you have ask, by using the transitive property where I can.
1. You used an emoticon:
2. This infers you can, in fact, have pixels represent a human form.
3. You have stated you are attracted to the human form, as represented by "real" humans, but all the same bouncing light hitting your retinas, signaling your brain.
4. If I were to create a "character model" whose "pixels" are so fine you could not see them individually, hook up, say a futuristic Oculus (that might completely "trick" your precious eyes) to your face and present you with a fictitious, albeit incredibly "lifelike," 3d model of a woman/man (whatever your into) whose characteristics you are most attracted to....
5. Then by the transitive property: you can be attracted to a character.
That is: You have made it apparent you can anthropomorphize pixels as representations to humans --> you are attracted to humans --> futuristic pixel created lifelife human model is subjected to your eyes in a vital space just as lifelife, surrounding your vision to give no "cues" to think anything is fake --> you are attracted to models.
Now this is character preservation. You attacked my character (no not my WoW character, in this instance of the word I am talking about my "mental and moral qualities attributed to myself", just so you don't jump the gun), so I felt it necessary to reply, as it seemed you might be educated in the matter, and hopefully learn.
Now I've thoroughly countered every point you have made. If you think I'm so ill-informed, please prove me wrong. This is how science triumphs over "conjecture." Do you see the irony?