Forum - View topic

INTEREST: Lerche Comiket Goods Includes Ranpo Kitan Hugging Pillow

There are people who lust after brutally murdering people just as there are people who lust after middle school age boys who look like girls. Your comment makes no sense, Lostlorn

Actar wrote:

Jajanken wrote: You do know that the character on there is an underage boy right? Or is everyone here desensitized as FuK? It may be desensitization, it might also be common sense to tell that the character's not real. People don't bat an eyelid when characters get murdered and slaughtered in movies and games. This is no different save for the double standards involved.

This is different. No one has instinctual urges to murder people, 95% of the time there is a weapon and a motive. You can't "normalize" murder because people aren't naturally prone to homicide.

The affect of watching violent TV shows and movies is simply not blinking when you see something horrifically violent. What happens if the case is the same when it comes to sexualizing children?

I see where you're trying to go with this but you have so many things confused, it's going to be hard to deal with the issues you've raised.

1. The idea that murder cannot be normalized is fallacious. While I don't know what your definition of the word "normalize" is, the fact that people don't care when they see a dismembered body on screen counts as it being a very "normal" concept in this society. In video games, you hardly need a motive to gun down hundreds of people save for the power-trip it affords you.

2. If you're talking about the effects that it can have on the viewers, the act of murder cannot be easily promoted due to the strict consequences it begets in real life. However, the idea of promoting violence still holds as humans are naturally competitive, angry and violent creatures and cases MIGHT escalate into a school shooting or two. This is one of the reasons behind the anti-violent video games movement. However, this is entirely baseless and many studies would prove that. Correlation does not equate causation, after all.

3. Similarly, not only are there serious consequences in real life for any form of child related sex crime, the idea that media can influence real-life behavior is unfounded. By your own argumentation of "people aren't naturally prone to homicide", then "people aren't naturally prone to having sex with children" holds true too.

The two issues ARE similar. Both are marketed as escapist fiction but demonized due to their controversial nature and fears behind influencing real-life behavior.

he looks like a "super" trap

Not at all. I'm able to distinguish between fiction and reality, thank you very much.

It's perfectly fine if you don't like something, but I suppose this "deeply squicked out" feeling is a driving factor behind the censorship of art where anything remotely offensive gets cleaned out without precedence.

Violent video games, perverted comics, I'm fine with anything and everything. As long as there's no victim and it's fiction, have at it.

It's perfectly fine if you don't like something, but I suppose this "deeply squicked out" feeling is a driving factor behind the censorship of art where anything remotely offensive gets cleaned out without precedence.

I whole-heartedly support freedom of expression. At the end of the day though, if your fetish involves a vile, disgusting slime of a concept, there's also nothing wrong with expressing an opinion that the work is utter, contemptible filth. It 100% has the right to exist, and it's also 100% repulsive. Sounds about right to me.

As for the difference between desensitization to artwork like this and violence, I would say that there's at least ambiguity to violence --- historically, violence has been seen as a potentially morally justifiable (or at least questionable) means to survive or combat an opponent, and is often criticized in entertainment when it's seen as particularly depraved or senseless (eg. Hatred). Virtual child pornography like this though has no moral ambiguity, it's an inherently depraved rendition of sexualized children designed to appeal as a pleasurable outlet for the off-kilter fetishes of adults. It's hella squicky.

transphobic slurs

Kikaioh wrote:

I whole-heartedly support freedom of expression. At the end of the day though, if your fetish involves a vile, disgusting slime of a concept, there's also nothing wrong with expressing an opinion that the work is utter, contemptible filth. It 100% has the right to exist, and it's also 100% repulsive. Sounds about right to me.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm and vitriol? ( The argument against your stand here is that "100% repulsive" is subjective. What is repulsive to some might not be to others as everyone has a different tolerance level. If we pander to every single person's idea of objectionable content, no one can say anything anymore. In a world where freedom of expression exists, the onus is on the person not to get offended (by arguing back, dealing with it or ignoring it) as opposed to silencing the dissenting opinion.

Kikaioh wrote:

As for the difference between desensitization to artwork like this and violence, I would say that there's at least ambiguity to violence --- historically, violence has been seen as a potentially morally justifiable (or at least questionable) means to survive or combat an opponent, and is often criticized in entertainment when it's seen as particularly depraved or senseless (eg. Hatred). Virtual child pornography like this though has no moral ambiguity, it's an inherently depraved rendition of sexualized children designed to appeal as a pleasurable outlet for the off-kilter fetishes of adults. It's hella squicky.

Ignoring the fact that morals are not set in stone, if you want to pull out the "historically" card to justify violence, I can just as easily say that at one point in human history before we became civilized and invented the idea of morality, any human who had reached puberty could be considered a potential mate. After all, propagating the species was the priority and how is that not beneficial for the human race? ( Not to mention, utilitarianism dictates that the action will indeed be moral.

Man how can you be so blind?

So eventually we got the idea that children for whatever reason deserve some minimal levels of protection, protection that no one is really invested on enforcing (mostly because no institution of power really cares about children, which are mostly just used as political means, but not as objectives themselves), and thus we still have child slavery, labor exploitation, and child pornography in various media, among other imparities, some even existing without mayor problem even when they should not, despite this being perfectly defined as an undesirable factors in society, for their sole ideas are already contrary to the main principle of protecting and promoting the protection of children, some may delude themselves that their shameless support for fictional pedophilia is fine as long as no action is taken against real children, ignoring that their support for fictional pedophilia is already an act of violence against children.

In resume morality is an "illusion" that is in the end justified by an agreement and enforced by military might, in order to achieve a functional society, and thus it can only exist within a society, that in most models in our current times "aims" towards equality and coexistence because it not only deems it desirable but it is also convenient, for it keeps a population manageable, and this is the key here, the whole point of this all is to keep order and control.

So when someone appears trying to engage in an anti-value within a society, this subject is already rebelling against the established norms, from here on there are only 3 out comes, the subject admits that its deviation is indeed an inconvenience to society and if it continues, it indulges in its activities within the realms of clandestinenesss; the subject tries to impose its own morals onto society aiming for a reformation in which its activities would become accepted and seem as ordinary; the subject leaves society and forms its own within which the new value is accepted.

Of course in here we are not talking about case 1, nor case 3, but of case 2, some people want to pass this as fine, and for that their only argument so far is that works of fiction have no repercussions on reality and thus possess no harm, but this is a fallacy for the sole representation is already an exposition of support for a problematic behavior which should be removed from the root, a behavior that comes from the consumers themselves in the form of desire, so the problem never was if someone acts on it, or if a child is harmed by it, the problem lies within an inability of fall in line and embrace the imposed values, is a problem of order and obedience first,

and secondly it is a problem of convenience, the main advantage that sexual practices among adult members of the same specie regardless of gender has from the others, is that they don't have to deal with the concept of consent, which is seem as a fundamental value within modern societies, thus they just had to find a justification for the religious opposition, and for that they used a fallatic argument, other orientations like pedophilia and zoophilia tried and try to benefit from this, however they do have to deal with the problem of consent, and until they solve it they are just depictions of rape, no matter how natural it may be, and rape is incredibly natural, and fictional works which try to picture scenarios where both parties engage in an state of mutual consent are in the end of the day just misinformation that under the current state of things (the current state is that those things are illegal) becomes just malicious content with an undesired agenda, that promotes the perpetuation and access to an undesired practice, in this case rape, and in this very specific case that of children.

So before anyone goes around passing this as ok content, they first will have to obviously come with something better than "it is just fiction" for their acts of dissent in their demonstration of the support of an undesired idea by society is already problematic enough, and no the satisfaction of sexual desire at the expenses of an entire group of society is not enough, because it is dehumanizing not towards an specific individual but towards a whole demography; a solution for the problem of consent; and a exposure of convenience, i.e. how this practice is not an inconvenience, in the same vein as heterosexual rape pornography while fictitious is an inconvenience for women, and while all pornography is by nature an objectification of something, it all comes down to how many layers it dares to violate, and pedophilia just breaks too many, to the point that the promise of not taking action upon fantasies is just not enough, this all goes down to an inability to adapt, in this case the subject persist and derives enjoyment from a thing which is agreed at large is undesired.

TL;DR: Societies advance, values advance with societies, and if someone can't adapt then the problem is with the person, and will remain so until they can demonstrate otherwise, be reformed, or eliminated, and this is not about acting a fictional scenario or not in real life, but just the mere inability to not derive pleasure from the fictional scenario presented, in this case pedophilia.

itachi06103570 wrote:

he looks like a "super" trap

Three comments in, and the transphobic slurs are already flying...my money's on this thread getting locked inside of ten pages.