Forum - View topicBeing an English-speaking fan of lolicon manga really sucks
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||
It's your personal opinion that his analogies were "infantile and baseless."
Blindingly obvious? Mankind thought the Earth was flat for many, many millennia, and even with Ferdinand Magellan's fleet (later led by Juan Sebastián Elcano after his death) circled around the world many were still hesitant to believe it. It was only until Apollo 8 when men could see the entire globe with their own eyes, and that was less then 40 years ago.
Of course I wouldn't bother; how long have you been here on these fora, mate? I've tired of doing it again and again, knowing that no matter how many reasoning I find you won't change your mind a single bit, for deep in your heart that each and every analogy supporting the legalization of lolicon manga for the Western hemisphere is always "infantile and baseless," if not simply "WRONG." "Cuz Brawndo's got electrolytes." - Secretary of Defense, Idiocracy Heh, if ANN allows signatures I'd use this one for mine. |
||||||||||||||||
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||
Yes. Whose opinions were you expecting me to present?
That's right. And those who wanted to persuade the overwhelming majority that they were, in fact, mistaken had to use persuasive arguments and scientific proofs to do so. Criminologists, psychologists, sociologists and most well educated adults amongst the general public (at least here in the West, which is what we're talking about) see nothing analogous between homosexuality (and opinions pertaining to homosexuality) and paedophilia (and opinions pertaining to paedophilia). The onus is, logically, on the miniscule minority who think otherwise to prove the rest of the world wrong.
I see. So you could definitively prove (or at least substantially support) your argument...but you're not going to and I'm just going to have to take it on trust that you're right and I'm wrong? That's not tremendously persuasive.
Eh? Loli hentai is already legal in most of the Western hemisphere, it just isn't widely available because the overwhelming majority of retailers don't want to sell it and reputable publishers don't want to license it. And nowhere in this thread have I suggested it should be outlawed (did you actually read the previous posts or are you just cutting and pasting from some sort of standardised good-in-any-circumstances loli defence manual?). Nor, for that matter, was einhorn303 talking about legalisation in the post I responded to - he was talking about social acceptance and it is, indeed, blindingly obvious that the majority of people in the West are not going to treat child porn (virtual or otherwise) or the people who buy it with anything less than contempt for the forseeable future. If you had lived your life in the West, you'd have seen nothing but increases in hostility from both the press and the general public towards paedophiles over the past 20-30 years. |
||||||||||||||||
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||
The forum has a search function. Use it. And I no longer want to persuade you people. As an atheist, I know how futile it is to disprove the existence of deities in front of fundies. Okay, so we've talked about Wayanaguda and Yu Aida, who's next? I'd say in order to avoid introducing "extra" material that might be inappropriate for ANN, let's continue with authors who have works within the Encyclopedia. I'll start with Keito Koume: while he (?) draws manga versions of Kujibiki Unbalance and Spice and Wolf, as well as commercial titles like The Pollinic Girls Attack! (which has been animated), the author also has dōjinshi based on Dennō Coil, Manabi Straight!, and Fushigiboshi no Futago Hime, and those who don't like loli can still enjoy C.C. from Lelouch. Both Madarame and Sasahara from Genshiken praise his (?) works at the end of Kujibiki Unbalance manga volume 1, and Madarame even has some of those dōjinshi. |
||||||||||||||||
PantsGoblin
Subscriber
Encyclopedia Editor Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||||||||
Ah, I have the Manabi Straight one. Manabi Kirakira, correct? It's a pretty popular one, since I see it posted pretty often in the places I get my, uh, stuff. |
||||||||||||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||||||||
You can't seriously be claiming that there is a reasonable comparison to be made between homosexuality and pedophilia. Factually, they are inherently different as homosexuality is possible to actually act on because it can be between two consenting adults. It is logically impossible to for this to be the case with pedophilia. Therefore the idea that pedophilia will eventually become socially acceptable in the same way homosexuality did is inherently flawed.
Hang on though, there is a big difference between not liking a particular genre or type of anime and this. I don't like harem or dating sim anime. In my personal opinion it isn't really at all quality anime. If others disagree though then they are entitled to their opinion. I'm certainly not going to claim that makes them less of a fan. In fact, I think that under almost any circumstances the whole "more/less of a fan" thing is just mindless elitism. However, it is certainly not just that I don't like loli. It's not just that I find the genre unappealing. I have a serious problem with it for obvious reasons. In the end, I do still support their right to do it if that is their choice since it isn't directly harmful to anyone. However, I certainly don't think they should and though that is still my personal opinion, it is not simply a matter of personal taste as with disliking a genre. Therefore while they are still entitled to their opinion I feel strongly that their opinion is wrong and I will not simply write of the disagreement under the old "everyone has their own opinion...yada yada yada". Again, I don't think any of this has any bearing on how much of a fan they are. Of course, I recognize the futility of arguing with people over this and trying to convince them and resorting to insults is just childish so it's not like I'm actually going to harass people who like this stuff so maybe it amounts to the same thing in the end. |
||||||||||||||||
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||
But you're going to post argumentative responses anyway. I think you'll find that's called "trolling". It's generally frowned upon.
Well we have that much in common at least.
Nobody asked you to disprove a negative. Quite the contrary in fact. |
||||||||||||||||
blind_assassin
Posts: 755 |
|
|||||||||||||||
And just when I was gathering some faith in the discussion. If there is one thing I have absolute confidence in my knowledge of it's the Canadian and American justice systems. I couldn't write a book on them or trace their lineage to every minuscule degree but I can shoot down almost any idea about how it works or what it does. |
||||||||||||||||
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||
I just realized that I didn't express my thoughts about the definition and purpose of the age of consent in my old blog article, so for the record I'll write it down here. Let me start with two questions. The legal drinking age of US is 21, while it's 18 in Mexico and 18-19 in Canada. Does it mean a 20-year-old young American is less capable to control the effects of alcohol than youths in the two neighboring countries? A 17-year-old college freshman has straight-A and is looking for opportunities in Harvard or Yale Law School, yet s/he is still too young to vote. Do you think his/her political awareness is less capable than a 25-year-old illiterate? I think most people would answer "no" to both questions. If so, then why do you think when someone grows beyond the legal age of consent, s/he suddenly becomes fully responsible of his/her body and can conduct sexual activities that s/he can't do just a few days earlier? Many would just say "because the law says so." But why? Why does someone suddenly become more "mature" when the ticking clock simply goes beyond a certain number? Because a line has to be drawn, yet, similar to my second question, the actual level of mental maturation (knowing the effects of alcohol, political awareness, or consent of sexuality, etc.) is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure, thus an objective (and probably the only objective) standard has to be adopted, and that is the physical age. It's a compromise rather than a perfection, and I personally dislike the system very much. Furthermore, saying "minors can't be effectively consent" is equivalent of saying "blacks can't be effective soldiers and sailors" back in the pre-WWII US Army and Navy. Those who decides that minors can't be effectively consent have the same minds and backgrounds of those who decided that blacks couldn't be effective soldiers: they have power, and they don't want to be challenged, let alone possibly replaced. Moomintroll also kept saying the social attitude towards homosexuals has been more and more open for the past decades. It's the right to vote, stupid. Let's see an imaginary situation: the Republic of Elbonia, in addition to having a predominant religion (not state religion, just predominant) don't quite appreciate homosexuality, also has two laws: 1) only married couple with children can register to vote 2) marriage is a combination of one male and one female. Did they even mention anything about homosexuality? No, but they can deter rights of vote of gays and lesbians effectively, and the law won't be able to be changed because most people affected by the law can't even vote. If you can't vote, won't be able to vote in a near future, or affect the voting behavior of other individuals (such as parents would care about education policies of their young children), no politician would ever give you crap. |
||||||||||||||||
einhorn303
Posts: 1180 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Have you ever been a homosexual in the year 1900? Nobody then would have predicted the coming of the "gay rights" movement. As recent as 1970, Nixon's Whitehouse Plumbers broke into the therapist's office of Daniel Ellsberg, a political enemy, attempting to find evidence he was a homosexual...because being outed as a homosexual would "completely destroy his political career." Also, I wouldn't dismiss myself as "some dumb pedo." I'm studying political science in a college honors program that the government is paying for on Merit Scholarship money. Although as a I said before, this thread wasn't really intented for debate, there are plenty of other places for that.
Where would that be? I used to love desuchan's /loli/ board, but there servers crashed or something and now they only have one or two backup boards. And not4chan has annoying pop-up ads. And 7chan /cake/ is full of...hmmm, I guess "newfags" would be the term.
Dennou coil was MADE for doujinshi, I swear... Last edited by einhorn303 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||
fighterholic
Posts: 9193 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Then you consider yourself warned. |
||||||||||||||||
PantsGoblin
Subscriber
Encyclopedia Editor Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||||||||
Not4chan mainly. Even though not4chan is full of pop-up ads, it is still usable and people still post there. I don't really go to 7chan that often because of your reason. There's also a few smaller ones I go to for weird stuff like Nyou 2. |
||||||||||||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||||||||
I can't believe that someone like you is honestly saying this. I'm not attempting to be rude but this is just unbelievable. "...that s/he can't do just a few days earlier?" Nobody is taking about a few days short of legal age. In fact nobody is even talking about legal age. Yeah, it's not some magic number that makes all the difference. However, there's a reason they picked that number. It's an age at which you can be sure kids are old enough to have sex. Yeah, it's not perfect because kids are sometimes (maybe even often) ready before that. However, it is necessary to protect the kids that aren't. Sure, especially nowadays you can make a decent case that maybe the limit should be lower. That doesn't blow the whole concept of "age of consent" though. Clearly, pre-puberty children which are the issue here can not have consensual sex. It's not even biologically possible. I stand by that and by the way I find your comparison to racism highly offensive. It's an absurd comparison. Being Black or White does not effect what kid of person you are. Being a Child versus being an Adult clearly does. |
||||||||||||||||
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||
I was expecting you saying so. The issue is not about lowering the limit, but the very basis of why creating such an age of consent. Think about it from the fundamental human nature.
You think it does, and I think it does not. I was able to point out numerous errors on my science and geography textbooks twenty years ago (when I was nine) and backed my claims with references, yet my teachers told me "Nonsense! How could textbooks be wrong?" Being much older than I was didn't mean they were more "mature" or intelligent. Oh wait, a voice in my head just told me "dormcat, your 9-year-old self were already smarter than ikillchicken is today." It was not my ad hominem attack to you; instead, I believe it was a voice from the God of the religion I just joined five minutes ago. RAmen! |
||||||||||||||||
sykosteve
Posts: 356 Location: columbus, ga |
|
|||||||||||||||
I think one of the major problems occurring in this thread along with any kind of discrimination of would be pedophiles is that people dont want to differentiate between thinking pedophiles and practicing pedophiles.
People cant help what they like, but they can sure as hell control what they practice. Not all pedophiles are bad because they don't practice what they desire or think of. Just like not all men are bad because a few rape women. There's just such a social stigma attached to those who actually act on their desires that those that simply think of it feel the need to defend themselves from the onslaught of those who view even the thought of it as 'repulsive' as i've seen mentioned a few times throughout this thread. |
||||||||||||||||
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||
This is a bit of a red herring given that the discussion was of paedophilia and not ephebophilia. There's a world of difference between somebody who's mature for their age and is a year or two below the age of consent and an infant who's, say, 10 years below the age of consent. Even if that were not the case, your argument only addresses the maturity of the child and not the psychology of the adult (as in: why would a normally developed adult want to have sexual relations with a child, regardless of that child's mental maturity?).
Virtually all legislation, by necessity, is a compromise. Without such compromise we'd have no workable legal frameworks at all.
Eh? You can measure the abilities of black adults and scientifically demonstrate that their race does not diminish their abilities - that the average black man is no less able than the average white man. You can equally demonstrate that the average child is less mentally developed than the average adult.
Homosexuals, when homosexual activity was illegal and thus generally kept under wraps, were equally able to vote 100 years ago as now. Given that homosexuals represent a relatively small proportion of the population (something like 1 in 10?) they clearly could not have influenced either legislation or social attitudes to any great degree as long as the overwhelming majority of the population were openly hostile towards them - if you're a politician, who are you going to court, the 90% or the 10%? Clearly there had to be an attendant shift in social attitudes independent of the homosexual demographic. ---
This is true. Thankfully, we have the gift of hindsight and can evaluate the social changes that resulted in the gay rights movement and we can equally evaluate whether or not the same or similar social changes are playing out in the present with regard to paedophilia.
Yes. And? I said attitudes had softened, not that homophobia had been eradicated.
Nobody here equated paedophilia with idiocy. ---
I think most, if not all, of us on the "anti-" side of this debate are actually in agreement with you on that point. My problem is with those who say that loli fans aren't paedophiles because they aren't actively involved in child abuse - that's an argument that I simply don't think stacks up for the reasons I've given previously. |
||||||||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group