Forum - View topicNEWS: Nymphet Manga to Bundle "Unairable" Anime DVD in Japan
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unholy_Nny
 Posts: 622 |
|
|||||
Insinuating hypothetical notations on our universe is far, far different than insinuating that an 8 year old should be allowed to have full sexual knowledge and permission to use such knowledge. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
This is insane. I can't believe you just compared yourself to Giordano Bruno. Really, I can't. |
||||||
|
||||||
ichiro3923
 Posts: 167 Location: hiding in your closet watching you |
|
|||||
|
OMG! Thank you mskalla;
Your debate hasn't led to you or anyone who defends Nymphet to be branded as deviants, because you taught me (or linked to me) that it is termed as bulverism (where people argue that one is deviant because you assume that Nymhphet is wrong without thoroughly debating if Nymphet, or the freedom to read Nymphet, is wrong). |
||||||
|
||||||
britannicamoore
 Posts: 2618 Location: Out. |
|
|||||
|
mskala you get points for all you said. Good luck getting some to think about issues outside of the box (not just this particular issue but it seems like you're out to get people to think about society as a whole)
That was a really intresting article on the subject- and I agree with him 100% thanks for that intresting read. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||
That's because you live in modern time. Look at the #1 charge against Bruno:
Questioning the Bible was unthinkable at that time and was punishable by burning at stake. Questioning "the common knowledge that children do not and should not have their own opinion about sexuality" is unthinkable at this time and is punishable by burning with the holy flames of the Internet. Same mentalities here.
Aww, how dare I compare myself to a martyr? After all, I don't have the courage to face death in front of inquisitors and want to live a few more decades from now on. Please accept my partial recantation. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Shale
Posts: 337 Location: The Middle of Nowhere, DE |
|
|||||
You are having an argument on the goddamned Internet. No one is threatening you with death. "Your argument is fallacious, you are wrong, and we've been over this thirty thousand times so please just stop it" is just a bit different from "recant or be burned alive," no matter how forcefully the "shut up" part might be worded. Refusing to back down in an online pissing match is not the same thing as refusing to back down from a loaded gun. Not even close. Not even on the same [expletive] planet. |
||||||
|
||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
This raises an interesting issue. "Hindsight is 20/20". This old saying seems to apply to humanity too. Its kinda concerning, human history is filled with example after example of looking back and going: "boy wtf were we thinking." Like Dormcat said, at the time, going against the bible was unthinkable. Whats concerning is that at the time, that made perfect sense. Same applies to Women's rights for example. At the time it was pretty much accepted that women were not equal to men. Now looking back its easy to say "thats ridiculous, why shouldnt women be equal to men?". Same applies to Slavery, at the time we see nothing wrong with it, then in retrospect it seems obvious that its wrong. These are reverse examples so how bout homosexuality? In the past, it was thought to be wrong and that was pretty obvious. Now in hindsight we look at it and it seems quite obvious that theres nothing wrong with it. What Im getting at is, how do we know that in the future we wont be looking at something like pedophilia and thinking "ofcourse theres nothing wrong with it! What were we thinking?" Now maybe pedophilia doesnt apply here. Maybe its something that is considered wrong and always will be. There are certainly things that fall into that category. Still, its concerning because history has proven that just becuase it seems quite obvious that something is wrong now hardly means it will always be considered so. And if that happens, is it or is it not wrong? I'm still definitely against pedophilia. (I also think Dormcats comparison is definitely over the top.) Regardless of the future, for now I cant think of any reason why it wouldnt be wrong. I just think this is something kinda unnerving worth considering. The moral I think we can find here is, don't go to the future in a time machine. If you do you'll probably be considered a discriminator of some kind there. |
||||||
|
||||||
Daemonblue
 Posts: 701 |
|
|||||
If you're talking about the past as in up to 50 or so years ago, I'd agree with you on that part, but if you mean to say the past in its entirety, you're dead wrong. In ancient Greece, older men would, well, let's just use the term mount, children that were becoming adults as a rite of passage. When ancient warlords would conquer others (such as Alexander the Great) they would mount their opponents, as it was seen as a symbol of power and ultimate humiliation to the loser. In ancient Japan, warlords were known to have good looking male advisors because they couldn't bring women with them, such as Oda Nobunaga and his wakashu Mori Ranmaru. Homosexuality has a major part in ancient civilizations, so we can basically say right now we're just returning to our roots. |
||||||
|
||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||
And I'm sorry, but are you not applying bulverism yourself ? (in a subtle manner, but it's there) I have travelled in the wrong circles in my life. No one else recognises this guy? I've met people like him. When I first got married my husband met a guy into EVERYTHING-smart-an attorney. Some discussion came around somehow to sex with children & he said "If the kid wanted it, why not?" (I believe it was a statement to the effect nothing is wrong from the friend) This is where it starts. Example: Fiddler on the Roof. Teyva's morals/values are tested with the loves of his daughters & he keeps bending until he hits the point where he feels if he bends any further, he will break & has to hold the line. No one will argue our society isn't less repressed than it was & it's all been a slow whittling process. Elvis's hips on Ed Sullivan were forbidden in the '50's. Now we have night-time dramas with couples in bed. Words we never used in polite society are now commonly heard. The real question is Do we NEED to have a story about an 8 yr old coming on to an adult in a sexual manner? Oh, it's fiction. Oh, free speech protects the right for everything to be written. After all, it's JUST fiction? But it's still whittling. As I keep pointing out, when one author used a taboo for effect & possibly very well, others with far less talent come in & have to out-do that, go further. Just because Jerry Springer opened the kettle of fish to get ratings & a reaction doesn't mean we have to wallow in it. It's like cell phones. Has anyone else noticed the things one hears in public these days? People yammering away in the store or mall on subjects most people would only whisper about if they were at work, unworried who's hearing what they're saying. Because the Cell phone users speaking in this fashion(& we know it's just a few) are so used to talking in the privacy of their home don't think that they aren't home, they're in public & everyone can hear at least half their conversation that's within 10 feet of them. All fiction is ok? So if I wrote a story about some guy losing his baby's pacifier &, lacking anything else, stickiing his xxxx in there for baby to suck on, it's ok? BECAUSE IT"S FICTION? No. everything isn't ok. Whittling away. Shakey Roof. And so you not also use special pleading? Suggesting there are studies to support your side? You do realize anyone with half a brain in this day & age has figured out one can support everything on the planet with a study-look, chocolate's good for us, isn't it? And I even recognise the short posts (Remember the hubby's friend who thought it's be ok to have sex with a child. He did that. Less to trap/turn against) And dragging Vlad the Impaler, who lived in an era DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT to this one, who was apparently viewed as a heroic figure to his people & was also well known to be the subject of a smear campaign by the church to invalidate Zac's opinion is appeal to motive. Which the Nymphet people have been doing more often than not in these arguments. I'm a bit suspicious of mscala's site. It's not unusual for people with agendas to run things like this to whittle down society. California has many attorneys who were for yrs in favor of legalizing marijuana so they would take cases to push this issue & finaaly we got that insane vote allowing marijuana for medicinal use, except marijuana IS still illegal, so one can't have a valid prescription for the good stuff (That will get you high. THe medicinal marihuana, from what I've heard doesn't). If you have the $500 you can get a doctor to write out a piece of paper that says if marijuana were legal, the doctor would prescribe it. Anyone who has a child & anyone who knows child psychology knows a 7-10 yr old is a creature of pleasure & gratification yes, but that child doesn't naturally know or understand sex. Even kids who slept in family beds when they were small do not want to have sex with other people when they are 8. Yes, they play with themselves & yes, nasty types out there could somehow move that over to saying that children of 8 are sexual creatures when they are not. It's the responsible adult thing. It sounds like mskala is trying to demonize/belittle those who wish to protect those innocent beings like children & animals in our society that need protecting. ("Am I?" is what thatr friend would say). When even LeVey's Satanaic Bible takes a point that children & animals should be protected by any self-respecting Satanist, where the hell does that put this argument? It sounds suspiciously like stuff I've heard out of the Men/Boy love group that keeps getting busted on their little trips to Mexico & Tibet to find boys. Last edited by CCSYueh on Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
mokitty
Posts: 106 |
|
|||||
Your arguement just went from marginal to over-the-moon ridiculous. It's an awful huge leap to go from the Inquisition, where those who challenged dogma were challenging not just the status quo but by extension the entire governmental and economic system based on Divine Right to this, where people are challenging the notion that children need to be protected from "making decisions" (and I use the term lightly) that will damage and scar them for life, not only emotionally and psychologically, but also physically. One led to a revolution which allowed humanity to advance exponentially. To assert or imply that there is a need for revolution here is patently wrong; it was the developments of the Scientific Revolution itself via internal medicine and via Freud and psychoanalysis that allowed us to see just how good a thing it is that we as society already evolved past the point of allowing prepubescent children to enter sexual situations. These are two completely different objects of discussion. Allowing children to make their own decisions can be a positive thing, encouraging them to learn to take responsibility. Allowing children to sexualize themselves and pimp themselves out to adults does not equate to a revolution in respecting their "freedom of thought" or "human rights", but rather a huge step backward to knowingly allowing children to put themselves in situations the consequences of which they can't possibly grasp fully (you know, being undeveloped virgins and all). If we need to start "Questioning the common knowledge that children do not and should not have their own opinion about sexuality" in this matter, perhaps we should start questioning the common knowledge that other aspects of those times are best left in the past. Clearly, since G.W. Bush is in power, God must have chosen him, so his family should remain in charge. Oh, and your property? It's not yours anymore, it belongs to the Church and nobility. You can keep it, though, if you pay them half your earnings every month. Yeesh. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ichiro3923
Posts: 167 Location: hiding in your closet watching you |
|
|||||
About your argument, that all fiction is not OK: it may be offensive but Nymphet was probably shrinkwrapped and was given an age rating; but that wasn't enough. People had to flame others who defend Nymphet and (as mskala mentioned) forbid the idea of a child that is sexually aware by banning any offensive material completely, 2.Even if you're right that, reallistically, 7-10 year olds don't want be sexual with another person, Nymphet is fiction and does not have be 100% real; if they want a 8-9 year old character to behave like that, then the author can create that character in her story |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Unholy_Nny
Posts: 622 |
|
|||||
How else did he get elected for a second term? >_> <_< @CCS: Yeah, the site does give off a slight NAMBLA propaganda vibe, And on another side note about mskala's text patterns, every time he says "not true" it's in italics. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Daemonblue
Posts: 701 |
|
|||||
|
Just gonna point out your little error, it wasn't half, it was a tithe, or 1/10, which is actually less than what we're paying our government.
As for CCSYueh, honestly, I could barely get past the first few sentences of what you said because they were horrible to the point of being incomprehensible, you might wanna go back and clean that up a good bit so we can understand what you're trying to say better, as most of us don't want to have to draw conclusions on what you're trying to say. That being said, if you look at today' society and how they treat children, we're exactly the polar opposite compared to olden times. If we go back a good 100 years or so, they treated children as young adults, which, as we should know, isn't the case, not because they're young, but rather because they haven't had enough life experiences to truly be treated as adults. Now we practically treat children like animals, they can't think for themselves, we have to protect them from everything, and we beat them if they don't do something we want them to do and in the end, they tend to not get experiences they need to form their own opinions. Now, I'm not saying everyone treats their children as such, there are cases where the children are allowed to do what they want within set limits, and they're told why those limits are placed. Personally, I feel that this is the best way to raise a child because you're allowing them to have a free will, but also teaching them what's wrong and what's not. Kojika is a manga in which several of those factors are missing and/or changed so the way she was raised doesn't fit the norm, even in Japanese society. In the second volume, you find out about her past and the fact that spoiler[she's being raised by her cousin who , when she was just entering elementary school, was still in high school, and was in love with her mother, who died of cancer.] That being said, there's no real way to understand just what she's going through because most of us have not gone through such circumstances when we were that young, and considering just who's raising her, we don't exactly know what he's teaching her and what she found out herself. Anyway, I think that's enough typing for me for now, I have a lot of stuff to catch up on :X |
||||||
|
||||||
mskala
 Posts: 45 Location: Waterloo, Ontario |
|
|||||
Careful with your accusations. I had nothing to do with the comments about Zac's avatar. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
mokitty
Posts: 106 |
|
|||||
The dues were variable from one age to another and one country to another. In addition to tithes, which despite their name could vary from less than 1% to a little more than 10%, there were also rents, taxes, and other dues owed to local parishes (since tithes often went straight to Rome), landowners, nobility, and government. That's why I included the nobility in my statement and not just the church. The other key difference between then and now is that in general, the taxes/tithes/dues paid by peasants in the pre-Revolutionary days got them nothing in return. They mostly paid for the rich to get richer and the king to maintain a military that took their sons away by conscription to fight far-away wars. Come to think of it, that does sound kind of familiar these days, but at least now taxes also fund things such as social security, infrastructure, and emergency services. In any case, it was a general statement made with irony, designed only to highlight the sheer ridiculousness of people suggesting that we need to[selectively] "revolve" back to the "common knowledge" of times long gone. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group