Lolwut? Some fictional characters are based on real people, including the horrible exploitative crap that residentgrigo mentioned a page or two ago. Doesn't mean that any of those real people they are based on have been harmed in any way or form during the creation process. And by fictional I mean that they are not, say, actual pictures of children (or indeed, people). There is also the thing that manga character look like manga characters, not like real people. Vast majority of people have no difficulties in telling which is which.

But 100% fictional characters are just that.. it's kinda in the term.



And no, you pointedly did not, until now. All your previous comments have been about protecting children. Now suddenly it's all people. That actually does make you less of a hypocrite. But then, if you really believe this would protect anyone.....



How do you propose to "not allow" something to be published, if not by ban / making it illegal? I iz confutze.



I did. I wanted to make sure I'm not remembering it wrong.



Protecting children, not people.

Edit number 54: Awesome post by duskyderp below. Opinionated, but well constucted and addressing something well beyond personal feelings on the matter. I wish we saw more post like that from the yes/yes crowd.

Last edited by Baalzebup at 12:18 pm, Nov 20 2014

________________

Check my previous post, it's there. And the point of discussion is about loli and shota, is it not? Meaning about children. I don't see where I have to dive further into everything I believe in? You can, but I certainly won't.



Meh. I don't know much about how all that works but I know in order to sell something you need it to be published?

EDIT: I don't know where the post went but I did reply back to -shiratori- or at least I think I did. >_< So you're right I guess. But I still told you anyway, so...

I voted that both should be illegal to reflect the culture, that I live in. It would be prejudice to think the reason loli should be banned is just an issue about censorship vs. freedom of expression. There are deeper historical reasons for people's dislike of loli.

Imagine a town where every day 1-2 childern are abucted. In fact, because the town hosts the largest international airport in the country; it makes the best place to go for kidnappers making a quick escape from the law or would be pursuers. Due to the port, every month there are 500 new people being trafficked--300 girls and about 200 boys. This means every year about 6000-12000 total new people are abducted, pass through this town, and sold like cattle or pets. This is the kind of town I grew up in.

I live town where people hearts have been hardened by countless decades of abuse. everyone on the block has a sibling that has gone missing or that was raped by someone older than them. Clearly, any form of desire for young aged people is met with disgust. Thus for public safety in preventing hate crimes and vengeance crimes from being sparked against those who like the genre, lolicon and shotacon are illegal in public places and banned in most work situations in my town.

I voted that both should be illegal to reflect the culture, that I live in. It would be prejudice to think the reason loli should be banned is just an issue about censorship vs. freedom of expression. The Suparśvanātha from Janism means peace and the life/death cycle, but you don't show it around Jewish communities or they would think your a Nazi and shoot you. Its the same thing with loli here.

If you curious:


Last edited by duskyderp at 12:00 pm, Nov 20 2014

Well, I did
...but it was a chore and it caused problems with keeping track of what I was reading.
Unstructured walls of text like that, are an abomination...

Sure ...and some people insist that the Earth is flat.
How is any of that relevant?

Bullshit.
...but then again, you believe in the notion of cultural marxism (a conspiracy theory, that exists only in the minds of the most fervent and paranoid of conservatives), so...
I'm not exactly surprised.

No.
Their manifestos are on their own sites.
...and their own words are the ones they themselves speak. With microphones and video cameras, catching every part of it. Often with no signs of any editing, cuts. Just constant video, from the one camera, with no breaks or switches to any other camera, where you could edit things.
Their behaviours... Well there is generally ample evidence of that.

I don't exactly have a massive trust in the media, but...
Also, could you please explain the existence of the countless people who wave the German flag and/or who are against muslim extremism ...indeed the majority of the people who do either of those, who are not considered to be racist of nazis?

That's not something caused by his urges.

Finally an argument that has some reason behind it.
I feel that you are wrong ...but I can't see any argument against it.
So on that point, I'm not gonna disagree.

Not quite.
I agree that the people who go bananas, when children are hurt in media, but who don't bat an eye at adults getting hurt, are kinda hypocritical, but...
It's nearly as bad. Not just as bad.

Last edited by zarlan at 5:13 pm, Nov 20 2014

Oh really?
This will be interesting.

That is a Non Sequitor Red Herring. You are equivocating.
There is no problem with [i]disliking[i], or even being disgusted by, loli/shota. I am, as are most people here.

That's not the issue here. We're talking about making it illegal.
That is a completely separate issue.

Well that is quite horrifying and all, but...
How is any of that relevant?

We are not talking about real children being abused.
We are talking about lines on paper. Pixels on a screen
No one gets hurt in its making, no one gets hurt by it, no one is assisted in hurting other with it, no one is encouraged to hurt anyone by it...

Good.
...but how is that relevant?

That is utterly preposterous!
That's no different from saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because their children will get bullied for having gay parents.
The ones at fault are those who would commit hate crimes and vengeance crimes.
To punish the potential victims, is beyond absurd!
It is precisely the opposite of what should be done. The opposite of justice.

Oh, so you think culture should be the basis for law?
So what the majority like or dislike, should dictate what is legal or not?
...and you see nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about that?
You don't see how that would be a dictatorship of the majority?
You don't see how that would completely eliminate any notion of Freedom of Speech/Expression?
You don't see how that would completely eliminate any notion of individuality?

How would you like any of these statements?:
"I think that arguing for the abolishion of slavery should be forbidden, to reflect our culture"
"I think that arguing against FGM should be forbidden, to reflect our culture"
"I think that vaccination should be forbidden, to reflect our culture"
"I think that homosexuals should be killed, to reflect our culture"

How so?
You have yet to explain why that would be.

Why not?
If you are clearly someone of an eastern religion, no one but the most ignorant would even bat an eye.
If not, then you might avoid showing that symbol around there, to be considerate and/or to avoid the hassle, but...
There is absolutely no reason for there to be a legal ban on the use of the symbol. Especially in non-Jewish places. Yet, by making the analogy, you are arguing that it should be illegal everywhere.

That wouldn't be a problem with jains, showing their symbol.
That would be a problem with the jews in question, being murderous criminals.
That would mean that something needs to be done about those jews.
Not the jains.

In effect, you are arguing that people should be banned from any expressions that might be considered to be deeply offensive.
In other words, you are saying that we should get rid of the right to Free Speech/Expression (which is the right to free offensive speech/expression. Inoffensive speech/expression needs no protection).
You are saying that we should blame the victim.
You are saying that we should oppress the weak (rather than protecting them).
That we should punish those who harm no one, so as to cater to murderous and criminal scum.

Well constructed?
Addressing something well beyond personal feelings on the matter?
...
What post are you talking about?

No need for the rethoric question, even if you don't agree.

duskyderp's post gives reference and points to symphatise with, unlike "I don't like this and it should be banned" comments. It gives a wider viewpoint to a larger group of people who are quite likely to agree with the opinion due to a persisting and apparent problem that is at least remotely related to the subject being discussed.

So yeah, taken by face value, if has far more argumentative value. I did mention that it is opinionated. So yeah, IMO, it is what I said it is. You seem to disagree. I'm okay with that.

Note that I don't even agree with the basics of post itself (that loli/shota should be banned because whatever or the seeming approval for lynchmob "justice"), nor did I even imply such. I just found it a pleasant change from two sentence posts that don't convey any kind of rhyme or reason to the opinion being given.

Last edited by Baalzebup at 6:05 pm, Nov 20 2014

________________

It illustrates your arrogance of unquestioningly believing in the stance of the society you live in on this matter, even if the majority of the world disagrees with it.

By the way, I don't think homosexuality should be considered a disorder. Or pedophilia for that matter. But since there are simply no universally agreed upon criteria for classifying mental disorders, this is just my subjective opinion.



How about at least trying to disprove what I wrote?



Cultural marxism is simply a buzzword to refer to everything that went wrong with the West since the 60s. There's no conspiracy behind it.




Ok just to clear this up, who exactly are you talking about?



As soon as they gather on a public space, they are nazis whose rights of holding demonstrations should be revoked. Media logic. There've been peaceful (!) demonstrations against muslim extremism in some cities after that one in Cologne and the German media and politicians are going batshit about it.




Yes it is. If he didn't have those urges, he wouldn't end up in jail or dead.




Nah, it's just as bad.

________________

I don't unquestioningly believe anything. I question everything.
...and I certainly don't believe things, just because some society believes it.

I believe in evidence and reason.

How about writing something that isn't too preposterous to be bother with responding to?

I have already stated which groups I was talking about.

No.
The same exact people I mention, who wave German flags and/or speak against muslim extremism, but who are not considered racist or nazi, sometimes do so, while gathered in public spaces.

The people you mention do, without exception, have countless other things, besides merely waving a German flag and/or speaking out against muslim extremism.

No it isn't.
That is a consequence of the laws, where he lives. The society.
Not his murderous urge, nor his committing murder.
It has to do with what others do, in response to his murdering.

Why?

In what way?

So it's "they don't like it" rather than "I don't like it".
How is that any different?

How was it better constructed?
In terms of logic? No. It is largely identical and to the extent that it is different, it is worse.
In terms of language? The wording is different ...but not better or worse.
In terms of structuring the text (into paragraphs and the such)? No. Not notably, anyway.

As to going beyond personal feelings... It makes clear that it is based on emotion, due to the history of where duskyderp lives.

Last edited by zarlan at 7:20 pm, Nov 20 2014

Because.



Now you are just being fucking obtuse and I have no desire to play your stupid game. I answered, it's there for you to read why it is *any* different. If you can't see it, I will not help you in that particular task.



Or perhaps I just don't feel the need or desire to continue a dialogue with an individual who seems to take almost perverse pleasure in dissembling what other people write, including but not limited to multipost arguments on semantics (and yeah, I do pretty much the same sometimes, but eh, I too am a hypocrite now and then)? See, I can just take my ball and leave.

Last edited by Baalzebup at 7:37 pm, Nov 20 2014

________________

How convincing...
This coming from someone who complains about me playing stupid games?

So...
You are unable or unwilling to explain what you mean.

Most people on this thread are committing slippery-slope, in one side of the argument or the other, could we cut down on speculations?

Last edited by BlackOrion at 9:09 pm, Nov 20 2014

Well then please do show me where and how I made fallacious arguments.

I don't like being wrong, making mistakes or errors. I want to believe as many true things and, more importantly, as few false things as possible.
Thus I would like to encourage anyone show me any errors I have made, so that I can correct it ...and thank the person who showed that I was wrong.

A list says nothing.
You need to show where and how I've committed any fallacy. Just saying I've committed some fallacy, is a mere assertion. It tells me nothing.
I have no idea what you are talking about, because you aren't specifying that you are talking about.

Edit: You mention my making ad hominems. I suspect that most, if not all, of the instances you see as ad hominems, are actually merely insults. A common mistake.

obviously not. that is CENSORSHIP. it has age restrictions for a reason, obviously, but banning it helps no one, since no real people are harmed in it's creation.

also, everyone who says something along the lines of "making it illegal would be too much work" it IS ILLEGAL in the USA. so, if that's where you live, think about that for a bit.