Forum - View topic

NEWS: Seven Seas Cancels Nymphet Release in North America

Zac wrote:

ZaWarudo wrote: No, I believe mt-i was pointing out that calling everyone who reads Kodomo No Jikan a potential child molester and worthy of derision is needlessly insulting and baseless. Way to miss the point. Well I never called anyone a potential child molester and neither did anyone else in any of these threads so that sounds a bit like a persecution complex to me.

Mohawk has equated posters with the people who kidnapped Maddy McCann several times.

It's easy to go with the child innocence defense, but I think Golding was more accurate with the innate seed of evil thing in Lord of the Flies, which he wrote after WWII because, like many others at the time, he believed people had to be innately evil to commit such acts. Just look at school ground bullies, not all of them come from bad homes, but rather several of them come from well off families, and their not told their limits. Rather than every child being initially innocent, I personally think they start off with no boundaries and are then taught those boundaries later.

Daemonblue wrote:

It's easy to go with the child innocence defense, but I think Golding was more accurate with the innate seed of evil thing in Lord of the Flies, which he wrote after WWII because, like many others at the time, he believed people had to be innately evil to commit such acts. Just look at school ground bullies, not all of them come from bad homes, but rather several of them come from well off families, and their not told their limits. Rather than every child being initially innocent, I personally think they start off with no boundaries and are then taught those boundaries later.

Good lord! I was mistakenly getting slammed for thinking a work of fiction was suppose to be like real life a few posts back and here you are telling me that all children are born the clones of satan, because "Lord of the flies" showed us so, when what Golding was actually portraying was that innocence left to its own devices, devoid of any authoritive guidance, will break down into primative chaos. Rin is another example of this.
Bullies aren't bullies because of social position. Just about every bully is so because somewhere in their own lives they are, or have been bullied themselves, either at home, or somewhere else. Again that too is down to experiences received by examples given by those in charge of said persons.

okay, I think weve gone massively off topic here. My original point was simply that despite the whole freedom thing, there are still rules. Though most of these tend to apply to simply WHEN you can print/say certain things, there is still some stuff that is altogether not allowed. These rules are created by the majority. I was saying this in response to someones complaint that "they didn't like other people deciding what they could read". My point being, thats the way it works even in a democracy.

ikillchicken wrote:

okay, I think weve gone massively off topic here. My original point was simply that despite the whole freedom thing, there are still rules. Though most of these tend to apply to simply WHEN you can print/say certain things, there is still some stuff that is altogether not allowed. These rules are created by the majority. I was saying this in response to someones complaint that "they didn't like other people deciding what they could read". My point being, thats the way it works even in a democracy.

And I've been saying over and over that no, that's not what a democracy is. A democracy is not supposed to decide what people can do on that level. If in a democracy the majority were allowed to decide what the minority could do then they could restrict them to not being allowed to do anything. That's not how a democracy works, stop claiming that.

[Edit: And I'd say this is relevant, because frankly SS's own statement that it was not public opinion which made them decide, but they looked at later volumes and decided on their own, it just doesn't hold.
So what they're saying is that not only did they license something without even checking the content, but even when people started complaining and they initially stood by their decision, they still decided that there was not need to check out the later volumes to see what people were actually talking about?

They realized that there were alot of people who didn't like it and succumbed to not publish it to protect their sales. Then they make some stuff up to cover their asses so that people won't say they succumbed to public pressure.

What's wrong with just.. you know.. not reading the manga if you don't like it? That's what I normally do.

They did review the first couple volumes of it. Those were the only volumes out at the time. They didn't and still don't find anything wrong with those volumes. Uppon conterversy arising, they explained their initial oppinion but would look into it in more detail. went and reviewed the now released later volumes which they did find to be innapropriate.

IWell, theres a number of reasons. Firstly, theres the issue of it causing damage to Manga's reputation or causing a scandal.

The main reason though is just human nature. If we feel that something is really wrong, we usually feel that it shouldnt exist. Again, Im not commenting on how things should be, just how they are.

Quote:

2) As graduate student in japanese language & culture (major) I happen to have lived for two years in Japan, and you Sir, you're lame flamer.

So why did you go back to Switzerland?

ikillchicken wrote:

IWell, theres a number of reasons. Firstly, theres the issue of it causing damage to Manga's reputation or causing a scandal.

Firstly, you cannot say for certain beforehand what the reactions would be. Secondly, are we banning things because we're afraid of what other people will think of us as a community? Because that feels rather sad to me.

ikillchicken wrote:

The main reason though is just human nature. If we feel that something is really wrong, we usually feel that it shouldnt exist. Again, Im not commenting on how things should be, just how they are.

I am aware of the difference between "should be" and "is". Unlike you however I am able to question that maybe the way things are is wrong. I'm saying that people should not be allowed to ban things they disapprove of, when they could just avoid reading it. You saying "well that's the way it is" is not much of an argument against that. I am fully aware that is how it is, I'm making a point that it should not be like that.

Also, as previously said by people above me, later volumes aren't really any worse. Since they were so sure and stood by their decision after having read only the first volume, they couldn't possibly consider the third volume that much more controversial when it really isn't any worse than the first volume. It's a poor excuse.

Ignorantman wrote:

Quote: 2) As graduate student in japanese language & culture (major) I happen to have lived for two years in Japan, and you Sir, you're lame flamer. So why did you go back to Switzerland?

Because I was constantly harassed by 3rd grade girls

Great, you think thats how it should be. Now go out and change the world! cause thats not how it is now. The same think youre saying applies to your arguement as well. Im not arguing against (or even commenting on) how things "should" be. If you can't stop getting hung up on how things should be, then you shouldnt bother posting on this discussion about how things are.

I wont comment on wether the later volumes are worse or not. I haven't read them. Again, I found their explanation satisfactory.