This statue isn’t of a historical figure, it’s of an obscure young boy who was a sex slave. And since you’ve been gladly playing the part of Alefantis defense lawyer, let’s hear what possible reason he could possibly have for using it as his profile picture. You keep insisting there’s no evidence against him, so how do you explain this? So far it looks like you can’t explain it, and if even you his biggest supporter can’t it’s a strong peice of evidence in a growing circumstantial case.
“This statue isn’t of a historical figure...”
Then why is his statue in museums and why does he have his own wikipedia article? He was the lover of a Roman emperor, that makes him a historical figure, whether you like it or not.
“And since you’ve been gladly playing the part of Alefantis defense lawyer...”
Another lie.
“You keep insisting there’s no evidence against him, so how do you explain this?”
I already said, I see no reason to explain it. What is illegal about it that it should need to be explained?
“So far it looks like you can’t explain it...”
Looks to me like you can’t read if that is what you get from my comment.
“you his biggest supporter”
Another lie. Do you think lying is going to help your case?
Sorry, but that's a display of stunning ignorance of history.
From Wikipedia:
"Following his death, Hadrian deified Antinous and founded an organised cult devoted to his worship that spread throughout the Empire. Hadrian founded the city of Antinopolis close to Antinous's place of death, which became a cultic centre for the worship of Osiris-Antinous. Hadrian also founded games in commemoration of Antinous to take place in both Antinopolis and Athens, with Antinous becoming a symbol of Hadrian's dreams of pan-Hellenism."
Not bad notoriety for an obscure sex slave, huh?
Greek museums are full of representations of Antinous, and he's an icon in the gay community - and not because he was underage.
About the quality of research I've come to expect from pizzagate researchers.