Forum

fighterholic wrote:

psycho 101 wrote:

I don't feel people wanting to clarify a point is invalid. Is there nudity in this manga? Is there sex? If not, then it's not porn. That's just the facts, morality and opinions aside. It is not porn and it isn't unreasonable for fans of it to what you to clarify that point Zac. You did clarify your post but it seems like it was pulling teeth. That said yes it is still gross and morally wrong. However, simply saying it's porn is not valid and ANYONE saying that should really pay attention. If you CONSIDER it porn then fine, but make it clear that's your OPINION and not fact.

You wouldn't consider it porn, but given the CONTENT, meaning REFERENCES of what's in it, it ain't a little kiddy comic.

Never said it was now did I?

psycho 101 wrote:

Never said it was now did I?

I never said you did, and I didn't refer to it that way either. All I said was that it is not a comic that should be in the hands of younger readers.

Berserkfury819 wrote:

YES THEY ARE.

A pedophile merely thinks about raping children, and may consider it immoral. A child rapist actuallly does rape children.

Berserkfury819 wrote:

YES THEY ARE.

A pedophile merely thinks about raping children, and may consider it immoral. A child rapist actuallly does rape children.

Berserkfury819 wrote:

Anymouse wrote:

I don't like pornography of any kind, and Nymphet seems a bit tasteless, but I am not willing to call this immoral. I am holding to individualism and free markets for the time being, and I believe people who wish to read this have almost as much right to do so as children have the right to be protected from molestation. Whether it was a good idea to license this, I would have to agree with Zac that the answer is no. It's too risky and tasteless. Just to let people know where I am coming from I do consider child pornography and erotic child modeling to be immoral.

Quote:

But c'mon, defending lollicon is bad enough, now peoplw are saying there's nothing wrong with being a pedophile?! God help us. To the lolli defenders, do you understand the word illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is illegal? Do you realize that pedophilia is a form of rape? I do not see how anyone who considers themself a human being can defend child rape, its beyond disgusting.

Pedophiles and child molesters are not necessarily the same thing.

YES THEY ARE.

Please do some research and know what you're saying first.

Definition of Pedophilia---Pedophilia, paedophilia or pædophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile.

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child.

Pedophilia is the attraction to young children and people with this attraction are pedophiles. This DOES NOT mean they have actually molested anyone or anything. Just that they think about it. Once you commit the molestation (of any group/age)you are a molester, in this case a child molester.

Moros wrote:

Ai no Kareshi wrote:

I get the feeling you are missing the point of Godwin's Law, Moros. Razz

So you stick your tongue out at me. Well, may I suggest you read what Godwin's Law is about on Wikipedia (there was a link in a previous post).

Wikipedia wrote:

Godwin’s Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[3] that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

i.e., references to Nazism can still be made as long as it isn't overused. The debate now is whether or not the link between some posters and Nazism is valid. Perhaps it wasn't in this case, perhaps it was. But trying to hide behind the Law actually harms the people it was trying to protect.

Wikipedia wrote:

It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s Law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as “Quirk’s Exception”).

Wikipedia wrote:

However, Godwin’s Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent’s argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

Case closed.

When I brought up Godwin's Law, I also made it clear that I was ON HIS SIDE. I just thought it was indeed quite a farfetched hyperbole to bring up Nazis in a forum on anime. I'm assuming you had read that Wikipedia article, and realized this:

Wikipedia wrote:

Godwin’s Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Hitler or Nazis.

Here's the original quote:

The Big Bang wrote:

Yeah,like watching a 8 years old girl dropping its like its hot. Can be consider anything more than morally wrong and digusting. What have this country come to when this material is defended. And people keep using that freedom of speech card when defending this material. What are the next thing people are going to defend what the Nazis did

The poster is insinuating that people defending lolicon is similar to people defending Nazis. As much as I disagree with lolicons, this is still an extreme hyperbole. Furthermore, it is inappropriate. You're comparing people defending drawings on paper to people defending genocide. Lolicon has nothing to do with "genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime". This is also what the Wikipedia article means by "overuse" of Nazi comparisons. When you're overusing Nazi comparisons by relating them to Japanese manga, you're belittling the seriousness of what the Nazis did, and thus robbing actually valid comparisons of any impact. If the next debate topic here ends up talking about genocide for some reason, and someone brings up Nazis (which is relevant now), it's going to call to mind lolicon mangas. That's why Godwin's law is cited: to prevent such an event from occurring.

The poster later tried to defend himself by claiming that he's only trying to show that the free speech card is a cop-out, and could be used to defend the Nazis just as well. This is absurd, as lolicon manga does admittedly fall under printed speech, whereas what the Nazis did don't fall under any kind of American law, so even this relationship is totally fabricated and pointless.

Now, I agree with the anti-lolicons, but I'm not foolish enough as to think that everyone who agrees with me are also using the best tactics to argue their point. When such irresponsible posts spawn responses like:

ZaWarudo wrote:

And now people are saying that those who enjoy lolicon are the same as Nazis and murderous pedophiles. Awesome.

You can bet I'll speak out to correct it. Now, what the original poster should have done was compare defending lolicon manga to defending pornography. This would have been a legitimate comparison in that both do fall under the jurisdiction of American free speech law, and thus can be treated similarly on both a moral and a legal basis. But bringing up Nazis instead? That's just ridiculous and uncalled for.

Moros, if you're so adamant that I'm just using Godwin's Law as a distraction (for the side that I agree with >.>), then show me why the original quote was a legitimate comparison to Nazism.

A few more points: Moros, don't end posts with "Case Closed". Besides being a lackluster dubbed anime title, such a line suggests an extreme amount of arrogance. You seem to think that no one can come up with a legitimate response to what you said, which is a terrible thing to do in a dialogue, because it could so easily be disproved, thus humiliating your pride. And to start with, your argument was flawed to begin with. Just because Godwin's Law "can" be misused doesn't mean it automatically has been misused in any situation. You must first show that the original use of Nazis was legitimate. Is the case closed, when you haven't even finished making your case? You never even brought up the original quote in that post! Does the law really harm the people it was trying to protect in our current circumstance? Tell me, who are the people it was suppose to protect? The Jews. Since when were Jewish people even mentioned in this thread?

Steroid wrote:

I'd like to see that panel.

Somehow I knew that comment would result in someone like you busting out with "Hurrr I sure would like to see you kill yourself hurr this is appropriate and witty hurrp"

For all the people beating on me in this thread, I have to ask you - does it really sincerely bother you that much that I don't back down on this issue and say "oh well I could be wrong I guess"? Is that really that difficult to swallow? Nobody else is giving any ground either; it's the same arguments over and over again, and yet every other post here is about how I should be behaving this way or that way.

The very act of defending myself and my stance on this issue seems to anger a great many of you. It's bizarre.

Like 4 pages ago I said I was sick and tired of this already. Unless anyone has anything new or interesting to say, I'm locking this up and we're going to stay away from this issue for a long, long time.

Zac, to be fair, in my OPINION, I think you encourage that kind of stance from your opponents by adopting (or projecting) a stance of "this is what I think and if you disagree you're some kind of deviant". Speaking only for myself from the other debate I jumped in on that you started you basically projected (intentionally or not) a viewpoint that anyone who liked a certain character were all morons or misogynists. In this one, you're saying anyone who is even just AMUSED (not even AROUSED, but AMUSED) by Nymphet is obviously a deviant and closet pedophile. I'm not saying you've got to say "Nymphet ain't that bad", hate on it all you want, but you get the visceral response because you're basically making your opposition out to be bad people, and while some of them may be such, some people might LEGITIMATELY disagree with you on a point without being a complete pervert. (again, THIS aspect is encouraged by the tactic of you and some of the people who agree with you to totally IGNORE reasoned responses and basically just poke at the "whee whee, pedophilia is the greatest thing since the moon landing" nutcases)

Please do, Zac. Everything relevant has already been said, that is, all the usual arguments have been taken out of the drawer, and thrashed again. Now the debate has just descended in to name calling, while nothing new has been said for many pages (apart from the definitions of Paedophilia and Homosexuality, which I guess was supposed to be interesting but I found this Yawn).

I cannot believe this thread has gone past 335 posts, and nothing has really been gained from all this. No-one has been convinced either way, and all I have done is insult people (who in my view deserved to be insulted, but...). I guess if I had read Nymphet, I could have had a better understanding of it, but I - perhaps wrongly - refuse to read anything like that, even for research purposes.

So, everyone had a chance to air their views, again, and isn't that what free speech is all about? I don't agree with them, but at least I allowed the pro-lolicon faction to express their opinions (then ripped into them Twisted Evil

).

So lock it up. I need a rest (well, my hands do, my brain maybe) before the next Answerman is put up. Just promise me, this week be a breather? No controversial comments? I can only hope. A good rant would be nice, hope it isn't mine (written up in a hurry at 3am, awful to say the least Rolling Eyes

).

@ Mohawk52: I was a little hurt by the post but apology is totally accepted. I can understand your feelings. I've gotten worked up about similar cases here in the US. Clearly I disagree with the notion that reading something like Nymphet has much of an impact if any in causing such crimes, but I can understand that you believe it and that you have strong emotions about the issue.

It might seem strange to you, but we probably have similar views on punishment of actual criminals. Depending on your views on violence and execution, my punishment system might even be worse.

While I approach this debate with a different mind set, I'm quite cold-blooded on punishment methods for criminals.

And Mister is a good character for an avatar. Very fatherly in his own odd way.

dormcat wrote:

They did, before its declassification in 1973. Source: official website.

The official website of American Psychiatric Association wrote:

Remove Gender Identity Disorder From DSM

By Richard A. Isay, M.D.

APA removed homosexuality from DSM-III in 1973; with the 1987 publication of DSM-III-R, ego-dystonic homosexuality was deleted as well. Thus, homosexuality is no longer considered an illness.

I was wondering if anyone brought this up. (Wow, this thread went to hell after I left to study and sleep.) It needs to be factored into any discussion of mental disorders that part of the definition is often conflict with society. If that conflict ends due to society accepting the behavior, it changes things dramatically.

Zac wrote:

The very act of defending myself and my stance on this issue seems to anger a great many of you. It's bizarre.

Just to mention, I'm not angry with you at all. When you're not using hyperbolic statements like the "slide show suicide" post, you argue a fairly good point.

I disagree with you because I approach the issue from a different viewpoint and use a slightly more codified logic structure, but no rage here. Irritation at times but no outright anger. Just thought I'd mention.

Considering that this thread has begun to meltdown, I'm checking out of the conversation. If anyone wants to flame me, praise me, or spam me, please use either my PM or my e-mail.

I vote for lock too.

HeeroTX wrote:

Zac, to be fair, in my OPINION, I think you encourage that kind of stance from your opponents by adopting (or projecting) a stance of "this is what I think and if you disagree you're some kind of deviant". Speaking only for myself from the other debate I jumped in on that you started you basically projected (intentionally or not) a viewpoint that anyone who liked a certain character were all morons or misogynists. In this one, you're saying anyone who is even just AMUSED (not even AROUSED, but AMUSED) by Nymphet is obviously a deviant and closet pedophile. I'm not saying you've got to say "Nymphet ain't that bad", hate on it all you want, but you get the visceral response because you're basically making your opposition out to be bad people, and while some of them may be such, some people might LEGITIMATELY disagree with you on a point without being a complete pervert. (again, THIS aspect is encouraged by the tactic of you and some of the people who agree with you to totally IGNORE reasoned responses and basically just poke at the "whee whee, pedophilia is the greatest thing since the moon landing" nutcases)

And so what, this is supposed to be somehow worse than the folks telling me I'm Thought Police Satan Incarnate for not endorsing Nymphet? Nobody else is doing anything differently at all. There have been numerous attacks on me personally and a lot of folks telling me how to do my job and run my column. But all of that is moot because of my stance on the issue? Why are you getting so upset about my comments, but everyone else gets a free pass? I don't get it.

Psycho101 just went on a little rampage back there telling me his immigrant relatives fought and died in various wars over history to protect free speech rights, as though somehow because I don't like Nymphet that means now I want to burn the constitution. I never said that. The implication that I'm trying to muzzle free speech is ridiculously insulting and absurd. But I can't take any of this too seriously; I'd never be able to sleep at night.

I also didn't say that anyone who likes Belldandy is a moron or a misogynist. I said I didn't like the character and I thought she represented step back for the women's movement. That you chose to interpret my comments as "everyone who likes this is an idiot"... I mean, that's coming from you, not me.

For the record, I don't think anyone who enjoys Nymphet is a sick pedophile freak. OK, maybe you like it because the thought of an 8-year old desperately trying to screw her teacher is just hilarious to you. That's pretty twisted and wrong, but I won't deny someone their sense of humor.

Problem is the thing is clearly designed to appeal to lolicon types, and I don't really draw a line between that and pedophilia. There is sorta one, I guess, in that they aren't consuming porn that exploits real children, so there's that. People have this weird perception that pedophile = child molester, but that isn't the truth. All it means is that they're sexually attracted to children. That, to me, is creepy, gross and wrong. So I don't really see what the issue is; my stance on this is very clear. If someone wants to be all offended and angry because of it, then fine, I guess. I just don't see why. Surely if you're the type who is sexually attracted to kids then you might be used to people thinking that's creepy. Especially if you live in America.

Quote:

Psycho101 just went on a little rampage back there telling me his immigrant relatives fought and died in various wars over history to protect free speech rights, as though somehow because I don't like Nymphet that means now I want to burn the constitution. I never said that. The implication that I'm trying to muzzle free speech is ridiculously insulting and absurd. But I can't take any of this too seriously; I'd never be able to sleep at night.

You asked is there anyone who was supporting it from a free speech perspective did you not??? I answered. That part was not meant to insinuate you're a flag burning nazi bastard. It was background information. You, and all the other mods, constantly berate others to "give more info" then a simply one liner. Shall I have simply posted "I do" to your question without any reason as to why??? How would that have gone? Instead of you misunderstanding me I'd be getting yelled at by you for no substance to the post. I was not making that to sound like a slant against you, if you perceived it as such my apologies. I already PM'ed you personally about the issue of misunderstandings, even going so far as to ask your opinions and advice. I have yet to get a reply about that.

Moros wrote:

Godwin's Law - what a crock of baloney.

Seriously, Moros, you really don't understand where Godwin' Law came from. The thought behind it is not "Oh no, let's avoid talking about Nazis." It's that the thread has passed a point of no return once anyone is compared to the Nazis (not in the context of genocide or somthing similar, OK? I think that would obviously be a different story).

It's intended somewhat in jest, in fact, but the basic point the Law makes is that the argument has reached a stage of nonproductiveness as soon as "Hitler" or "Nazi" is invoked in a comparison, because it reeks of desperation on the part of the invoker and only leads to flaming. That's all it means.

I wish there was a way to burn things on the internet.

We're done here.

Forum - View topic
Hey, Answerman! [2007-05-18]

Japanese TV Special Ranks Top Anime Songs, as Chosen by Foreign Fans

This Week in Anime - So, Is Sound Euphonium Queerbaiting or Not?

Wonderful Precure! Episodes 1-12 Anime Review

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

Forum - View topicHey, Answerman! [2007-05-18]

Forum

Forum - View topic
Hey, Answerman! [2007-05-18]