Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! [2006-07-28]

Kilgamayan wrote:

RDespair wrote: Moral relativism sickens me. Although there are gray areas where people have differing opinions, some things are absolutely right or wrong regardless of what individuals think. Thank you to Zac and everyone else who has been trying to defend the idea that there is indeed such a thing as good and evil in the world and that life isn't just about doing whatever you feel like. Incorrect. Assuming there are universal morals and ethics is what is known in philosophy circles as the naturalistic fallacy (although it's more commonly phrased as "is does not imply ought"). I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that's just how it works. Argue about it with your resident philosophy professor if you'd like, because this isn't just me saying this, but centuries of philosophers that put far more of their life than either of us into studying that kind of thing.

"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”" -Douglas Adams

Good and evil exist and trying to prove that they don't through the use of philosophical BS strikes me as the height of stupidity and arrogance.

So the psychological effect on the viewer is only negligably different whether the porn is drawn or photographed. And that effect is that you are training yourself to get sexual satisfaction from looking at children. Just like Pavlov's dogs, after many sessions associating pictures of children (drawn or photographed) with sexual arousal, you will start to experience sexual arousal when looking at real children in everyday situations.

Naturally humans are attracted to small and cute things. That's why puppies and koala bears are popular. So some of the attraction toward lolitas is a result of this natural human instinct. Westerners, influenced by Christian/Judaic dogma, typically strive to suppress this natural instinct while Asians tend to accept it as a natural aspect of human nature and deal with it.

The Japanese fascination with lolicon- particularly the hardcore erotic fetishization of pre-teen girls by artists like Nishi Iori and Askray, and in anime like Little Monica Monogatari, is an expression of instinctual desire, and a symptom of personal inadequacy. Naturally humans are attracted to small and cute things. That's why puppies and koala bears are popular. So some of the attraction toward lolitas is a result of this natural human instinct. Westerners, influenced by Christian/Judaic dogma, typically strive to suppress this natural instinct while Asians tend to accept it as a natural aspect of human nature and deal with it.

The appeal of small girls is also in the ability to take control and fulfill the self's desire to be dominant and masculine. There's little fear of inadequacy or failure when facing a significantly less threatening opponent/partner. So in that sense, the attraction isn't the child herself. The child simply allows the man to feel more secure and confident.

The instinctual desire thing sounds reasonable enough.

Seriously, you must be kidding. Small body types? Have you ever actually looked at the cornucopia of animated pornography that comes out of Japan? Not that I am an aficictionado or anything but it isn't that hard to find petite woman of over 18 (or at least over the age of consent) in ecchi and hentai. It's cliche to say the least. There is the busty one, the petite one and the average one, ever show makes sure to have all three.

Kilgamayan wrote:

The instinctual desire thing sounds reasonable enough.

But, as Twage said, aren't you training yourself to get sexual satisfaction from looking at children?

I have been the proud owner of a guinea pigs on four separate intervals of my life. All of them have been very cute. Does this mean I'm training myself to rape guinea pigs?

Look, it's not me that's claiming these things. It's centuries of philosophers that have spent lifetimes studying them. I'm just regurgitating the information for your consideration. If you'd like to call countless lifetimes of work BS, then so be it, but bear in mind it weighs really heavily on the validity of any arguments you may make.

I am sorry that you have never had any sort of formal philosophical education. I recommend you take a class as soon as possible, preferably an ethics-based one because all the different theories you learn about are really interesting.

A sexual preference is only a mind issue unless it is acted on, and even then it is the act of say rape that is evil, not the preference. A rapist is evil because they are a rapist, not because they choose to rape men, women, children or animals. A person who knows rape is wrong and has no desire to hurt others, will not become a rapist whether they beat off to regular porn, S&M, rape porn, gay porn or loli. To say that a sexual preference inevitably leads to acting on it assumes that people have absolutly no control over themselves and are just instinct driven animals.

Kilgamayan wrote:

I have been the proud owner of a guinea pigs on four separate intervals of my life. All of them have been very cute. Does this mean I'm training myself to rape guinea pigs?

I certainly hope you don't indulge in photos of young guinea pigs in sexually exploitative positions.

Don't oversimplify things. We're talking about lolicon, which by its definition involves erotic portrayals of prepubescent kids.

John wrote:

Naturally humans are attracted to small and cute things. That's why puppies and koala bears are popular. So some of the attraction toward lolitas is a result of this natural human instinct. Westerners, influenced by Christian/Judaic dogma, typically strive to suppress this natural instinct while Asians tend to accept it as a natural aspect of human nature and deal with it.

Is that the main argument for lolicon, that it embraces a "natural human instinct"?

The appeal of small girls is also in the ability to take control and fulfill the self's desire to be dominant and masculine. There's little fear of inadequacy or failure when facing a significantly less threatening opponent/partner. So in that sense, the attraction isn't the child herself. The child simply allows the man to feel more secure and confident.

Kilgamayan wrote:

Look, it's not me that's claiming these things. It's centuries of philosophers that have spent lifetimes studying them. I'm just regurgitating the information for your consideration. If you'd like to call countless lifetimes of work BS, then so be it, but bear in mind it weighs really heavily on the validity of any arguments you may make. I am sorry that you have never had any sort of formal philosophical education. I recommend you take a class as soon as possible, preferably an ethics-based one because all the different theories you learn about are really interesting.

The naturalistic fallacy is supposed to prevent one from using existence as a basis of argument for a norm. The fallacy reminds philosophers to separate their arguments over what "ought" to be from what "is." That doesn't mean we can't argue over morality-- what ought to be. In fact, most of philosophy is arguments about what ought to be. You're misusing that example.

That is why I also look at ecchi and hentai with petite girls. In my eyes, they're all the same, just a bunch of drawings of anime girls. Lolicon just happen to have more of it. Oh noes. Label me pedo.

You can't have a child molestor without sexual attraction toward children.

So your argument is that you only look at loli because your lust for petite women cannot be satiated by the myriad of images (real and drawn) of consenting petite adults?

Man, your libido really is on overdrive... You ever ask a doctor about that? I mean the friction alone is liable to cause some serious damage at some point. Hand lotion will only get you so far...

burzmali wrote:

Also, has anyone kept track of the number of "you can have my loli when you take it from my clammy, sticky fingers" defense that the loli-lovers have thrown up, because 28 pages into this thread, we finally have a person calling for an outright ban.

You want someone to get banned because of their opinion? And I thought the pedophiles were supposed the evil ones.