Forum - View topic

NEWS: Shota Community, Other LiveJournal Accounts Suspended

they realized that if Tarquin's son could rape one of their daughters, what could stop him from doing likewise to others'?

And they knew, in their hearts, that the act was wrong.

By your lights, they should not have raised a finger until it was them or their daughter who were assaulted.

by not taking others into account with your lolicon enthusiasm, you will be infringing on others

Then what were 40,000 people doing last year at AX? Just coincidentally milling about in the same place?

non-loli anime fandom, distance yourself from the loli crowd, or loli crowd, have the good sense to at least camouflage what you're doing, and, for god's sake, publishers, don't go selling this loli garbage in bookstores, because it will tear down anime fandom if the pundits see it

make sure it's very damn'd private and divorced from anime fandom as a whole

I believe that your mode of living is corrosive to society.

Self-restraint is a sign of strength.

dormcat wrote:

abunai wrote: Steroid wrote: Privately, I have an obligation, if one can call it that, not to exceed the speed of light or produce a triangle whose angles do not add up to pi. Angles of a triangle, adding up to pi? Would you like to take a moment to revise that sentence? He used radian unit (which is much, much more useful in calculus and analytical geometry) instead of the more common but less useful degree unit (180°). One can always create a triangle with angles don't add up to pi by making it on a curved surface instead of a plane.

Actually, I'm well familiar with the radian unit. That wasn't what made me kvetch, but rather the unspoken assumption that this hypothetical triangle was necessarily in a euclidean plane. As you mentioned, triangles on a curved surface will violate the angles = π radians "rule", as will triangles in curved, non-euclidean space (say, near an event horizon).

- abunai

But I guess screaming about it like you've just been denied the right to vote and singing protest songs you got from last weekend's box office champ is more effective.

And, funny you should bring up nature. To Cicero, nature holds the ultimate obligation -- though it is not the one that you would recognize, as to you nature is an impersonal thing that you just exist in. Instead nature, to him, was the rational thought of society, one that had the power of promoting good and forbidding evil, even above and beyond written law.

(forgive the religious portions of the passage, I do not necessarily agree that reason/rationality/virtue/self-control/what-have-you has to be bound up with God(s) or that athiests cannot be as virtuous or reasoning as believers, but this was written at a time when religious feeling was higher than it is today -- in the interest of full disclosure, I am an agnostic)

Cicero, again, this time from The Laws wrote:

From our childhood we have learned, my Quintus,(Quintus Tullius Cicero -- Marcus' brother --ed.) to call such phrases as this "that a man appeals to justice, and goes to law," and many similar expressions "law," but, nevertheless, we should understand that these, and other similar commandments and prohibitions, have sufficient power to lead us on to virtuous actions and to call us away from vicious ones. Which power is not only far more ancient than any existence of states and people, but is coeval with God himself, who beholds and governs both heaven and earth. For it is impossible that the divine mind can exist in a state devoid of reason; and divine reason must necessarily be possessed of a power to determine what is virtuous and what is vicious.

For instance, he relates that the city of Rome had no laws regarding rape early in its history. Yet, when Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the Etruscan king of Rome Tarquinus Superbus, raped Lucretia, the city's populace realized that the act was viscerally wrong and followed Lucius Junius Brutus to right matters by overthrowing the Tarquins. They did this because they had an obligation to each other -- they realized that if Tarquin's son could rape one of their daughters, what could stop him from doing likewise to others'? And they knew, in their hearts, that the act was wrong. By your lights, they should not have raised a finger until it was them or their daughter who were assaulted.

And, bringing us back to the argument at hand, I still vehemently argue that by not taking others into account with your lolicon enthusiasm, you will be infringing on others. I have stated my case, as has the publisher of Seven Seas, who said much the same as I have constantly said in his long statement explaining the cancellation of "Nymphet."; That even if you believe yourself to be an individual, we are in the same boat with you as anime fans, and that should a panic ensue, it will reflect on all anime fans.

This leads in to your next point:

Quote:

But I am not part of a formal group called manga fandom. I am a manga fan, but that does not make me part of a group.

Then what were 40,000 people doing last year at AX? Just coincidentally milling about in the same place? There is, true, no FORMAL group, but fandom is still a community. Human existence is bound up in communities. . . .

It is the same with anime and manga fandoms. You and I, Steroid, disagree vehemently, passionately on this philosophical point. However, by dint of being both fans of anime and manga, we have that common frame of reference. We "know the lingo." Like it or not, you and I are members of a wider community just by that simple criterion.

Quote:

The only way it does is when I contract with a seller to buy a manga. That transaction is a closed circle between me and the seller; it morally affects no other sellers or buyers. I see no responsibility to make sure that you get your non-loli manga or that LJ stays familty-friendly.

Again, the good old cry of "The KKK took my loli away, my loli away, away from meEEEeee..." (that was by Pat Payne and the "Please, Last Remaining Member of the Ramones, Don't Sue Us" Singers ). Again, no one is saying to you "don't read/download/buy lolicon." I am saying "non-loli anime fandom, distance yourself from the loli crowd, or loli crowd, have the good sense to at least camouflage what you're doing, and, for god's sake, publishers, don't go selling this loli garbage in bookstores, because it will tear down anime fandom if the pundits see it."

In that, I do believe that it affects other people ( I don't buy this "buyer-seller" terminology, as if all humanity is is one big market where the purpose of life is to push little green pieces of paper around, but I digress).

Quote:

My best course of action is to find a series of other private parties that celebrate pedophila.

Fine. Well and good (that is not my actual position on those groups, but c'est l'debate.). But a) don't go shouting it to the rooftops and annoying those of us who find it to be abhorrent and aberrant and b) make sure it's very damn'd private and divorced from anime fandom as a whole and c) be aware of the personal risk you run should the laws suddenly change, or you run afoul of current law and are caught.

Quote:

Not anarchy, as this is not a question of government, but one of customs. I do want unfettered thought. Anything thought by a human being is sacrosanct to me, even if it is the desire to rape or kill or enslave.

But we get back to another point of mine. Yes, you cannot go policing others' thoughts. It is impractical, absurd and thouroughly unethical. We all have thoughts pop into our heads that the better angels of our nature soon sweep away. No one should be punished for those. However, at the same time, as I said once before, "Ethics do not stop at the limit of the cranium." You can have a thought, but it does not always follow that you have to commit it to paper or a computer screen, particularly if it is the desire to kill or rape or enslave. If one writes a treatise on "here's the best way to shoot someone in the back and make it look like an accident" or "here's the preferred method of kidnapping, raping and killing a 6-year-old girl and making it undetectable," then hell yes the writer should be punished, because that writing has put other people in danger, even if the author had no intention himself of acting on it -- others will.

Quote:

If all they are doing is talking and writing, then morally there is no difference between philosophers and pedophiles.

I disagree, because one group is discussing political theory, or the nature of the universe and man's place in it, while the other group is leering over accounts of young children being sexually abused.

Quote:

Again, when it comes to private parties, everything is fine. If a group wants to contact LJ and demand takedowns, they can do so. If LJ wants to accede, it may do so. If I want to rant at them and call them wrong, I may do so. If I turn around and found a site that allows pedophilia groups but bans discussions on enforcing moralities I do not agree with, I may do so also.

In this, we're in imperfect agreement. You do have those rights, just as I have the right to disagree and take issue with the lolicon community because of my own beliefs.

Quote:

I would not suffer such a person to stay in my home, or in any territory I controlled.

Likewise, I would deny fire and water to one who believes as you do. I believe that your mode of living is corrosive to society. We do not need (nor would it be desirable) to live in a dictatorial regime, which are as destructive to humanity in a different direction as a completely chaotic "Individual rights over all, and screw others so long as I have mine" would be. Both show a lack of moderation. The former is parochial and soul-crushing, the other is so random as to be unconducive to a fnctioning society. Under your mode of life, I believe society would shatter.

Quote:

What is the benefit that accrues if steadfastness and self-restraint emerge?

The benefit is a strong society, one that respects individual freedoms but tempers them with a commitment to the whole as well. Along with that is the fact that steadfastness and self-restraint also breed harmony, honesty and peace (our current president, I would argue, has no self-restraint).

Quote:

I do not hold them as self-evident goods, indeed, I hold self-restraint as a nearly self-evident evil. Self-restraint is a confession of impotence and a complaint of poor providence by nature.

I strongly disagree. Self-restraint is a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness to give in to every impulse, to allow one to be buffeted by the winds of desire, jealousy, anger and lust (I , myself have to raise my self-restraint a bit, as I, more times than I'd like, let those winds move me, as does everyone -- that, too, is human nature).

And I think you are thinking of DearS, which had a very horny teacher who apparently had her own section in the porn section of the video store. Unlike the teacher from Mahoromatic, who was just interested in the main character, the teacher from DearS seemed to be just plain horny and not interested in any particular individual. That's about all I remember from that abysmal show. I don't recall any characters like that in Midori Days.

I could turn it around, though. Your actions would result in anime fans being considered easy marks, who will cave in to societal pressure. I would say that's a worse reputation than being called pedophiles.

I cannot be kicked out of the anime fan community, no matter what I do. I have no contract. Therefore, my actions and preferences do not reflect on the community.

But this too is an example of our differing metaphysics: I tend to see discreteness, you tend to see continuity.

And what benefit does it accrue to a loli fan to cover up his loli manga? Yes, it might save the general manga industry from a firestorm, but it reduced the chances that the loliconner will convince the world of the rightness of his views, or at least the right to share them.

B is your responsibility, not ours.

A and C are contradictory.

We can best manage our personal risk by asserting our rights to read from the rooftops, not by presenting a claim of societal benefit

which would be seen thought in a heartbeat.

And so, ad infinitum. The question is who will take the first action against the other, if any?

Not sure you're accurately representing my view. It's more, "Individual rights over all, and others must fend for themselves so long as I have mine." My view depends on people being strong and focussed enough to get what they want. The view of moderation says that those who are not should still get what they want. Which strikes me as assigning value to the valueless.

But self-restraint would be ultimately dishonest. It would mean not saying what one thinks out of respect for the community. Which would mean disharmony and strife with those like me who do not follow the code.

Self-restraint applied consistently and ethically, would mean that declining a morsel more than the calories needed to survive. It would mean naught but survival and procreation. Self-indulgence, applied consistently and ethically, would mean consuming only what one has produced, but no less, which means producing to one's desires. It takes much more strength to build and consume than to abstain from building and consuming.

Quote:

I could turn it around, though. Your actions would result in anime fans being considered easy marks, who will cave in to societal pressure. I would say that's a worse reputation than being called pedophiles.

And that's your opinion, to which you're certainly entitled. I personally, if I were to be forced to be falsely and groundlessly tarred with one of the two brushes, would rather be considered a fool than a pedophile. Fools, at least, have the luxury of not being considered coeval with or even just below criminals on the societal ladder.

You're right -- no governing body can expel you from anime fandom. If you are in an anime club, they may have anti-loli rules, but that is a slightly different matter. However, I still believe that if loli material ever is offered on open sale and it is discovered by the media, that we will all be thrust into the same one-size-fits-all stereotype by an overzealous, bottom-feeding, ratings-at-all costs media. I can see the TV headlines: "Are Japanese Comics Turning Your Kids into Future Child Molesters? Film at 11"

There is a principle that at least in the eyes of the law, blessedly, is discounted, discredited, and dismissed -- the principle of guilt by association. That if I travel in the same general circles with someone, even if I do not subscribe to their beliefs, by dint of being in the same social grouping I'm tarred withtheir crime. Muslims are feeling this right now, as the moderates are trying to explain that they cannot be held responsible for 9/11 and other terror attacks. Yet they are lumped in with radicalized Muslims who were responsible.
In much the same way, what would happen to anime fandom is this -- They'd see: A. This is a comic showing little girls/boys being molested. B. It's Japanese. C. We know that the Japanese have exported videos of women being raped by tentacles. D. This must mean that all Japanese cartoons are porn and their fans should be censured.

That's something of an oversimplification, but you see how from a small seed a horrible overarching animus might spring?

In this you speak truth. I tend to see us all as passengers on a ship or airplane, where the actions of one can severly impact the rest, but at the same time, making for a cohesive society. You see us, as I discern, all as if we are solitary wanderers who sometimes interact for good or ill, meaning more freedom but also more isolation (please correct me if I got your side wrong on that.)

Quote:

And what benefit does it accrue to a loli fan to cover up his loli manga? Yes, it might save the general manga industry from a firestorm, but it reduced the chances that the loliconner will convince the world of the rightness of his views, or at least the right to share them.

In the slim chance you could achieve that feat, it would most likely be a Phyrric victory. Well before that happens, I still believe that a good-sized moral panic would hole the boat of the anime industry and fandom, severly, perhaps irreprably damaging anime's reputation in America. And pushing for acceptance of Lolicon at this historical moment is an unwise choice of plan.

There has to be some sort of consensus of merit towards societally controversial movements. Abolition had fundamental merit -- people were being held in bondage. The Civil Rights movement had fundamental merit -- people were being denied essential rights because of their color. The gay rights movement I do (within certain limits -- I don't yet agree that gays have an unlimited right to marry when I can be denied marraige to a woman for any number of criteria) believe has fundamental merit -- consenting adults who choose to engage in sexual activity should not be impeded on the basis of their orientation. At this time, however, lolicon does not have merit in the minds of most Americans. Above all else, the public has said, loud and clear that you do not mess sexually with children, even if it's only fiction. Messing with children, or writing fiction that heavily plays on the explicit abuse of children is not going to gain sympathy points with the public, particularly in this day and age of fears over sexual predators.

Right now, In North Carolina (where the movie was shot) there is a bill wending its way through their legislature that would mandate prior review and approval of film scripts before the state would grant production incentives to any film production company. This occurred because of the anger over Hounddog.

I see it differently. I argue "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and you counter that "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many." It is your responsibility, because even though you do not believe it, collective guilt and guilt by association does exist. It shouldn't, but it does.

Mind telling me how they are contradictory? I merely said that on the one hand, you would be better served, if you are going to persist, in keeping a low profile --and that on the other, that you should go into what you are doing with a clear appreciation of the risks as they now stand, and a realization that obscenity law is a quicksand that can drop out from under you in an insant.

Let me put it this way -- at this moment, you can run afoul of the law as a loli. Let's say you post a scanlation of a loli manga. Let's say a postal inspector in Tennessee or Tennessee state policeman or an overzealous Tennessee state or US prosecutor happens across your scanlation in a random sweep (they are known to do this). You can be ordered arrested and extradited to Tennessee for violating Tennessee's obscenity laws, even if you have never in your life set foot in the state, because someone accessed your material in the state. This is not a hypothetical matter. Producers of legitimate porn and even BBS operators have been hauled in front of Tennessee judges for obscenity proceedings (and, as the cited case shows, they might try to additionally entrap to sex up [pardon the expression] the charges) that the state may very well win.

It's a near-impossibly tough road to hoe. If people on this board (who, in theory, should be a bit more sympathetic, just by dint of being otaku) have a fair likelyhood of being repelled by loli (myself included), what chance do you realistically have with the general American public? Some of whom burn Harry Potter books for being "satanist?" As I said, They're not going to understand or tolerate "We're here, we're loli, get used to it." You may find yourselves as Icarus...going for an impossible goal, and crashing back to earth as your reward.

Quote:

which would be seen thought in a heartbeat.

This typo makes it hard for me to understand what you were trying to say here. Sorry.

You seem to mistake self-restraint for self-censorship. There is a difference between saying "I believe that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents we have ever had -- I repent of having voted for him as he has been a thourough disaster in office and will vote for anyone who promises to correct his egregious missteps and catastrophes" or "I never liked that moron Bush -- good riddence to him once he finally leaves office" and standing out on a street corner screaming death threats against the President at the top of your lungs. The former is self-restraint without being self-censoring. The latter is fully unrestrained. Ideas expressed with self-restraint can be debated and theirn merits weighed. Unrestraind ones cannot, as they are often so violently passionate that they end up less tools of inquiry and more battering rams.

People can still disagree and exercise self-restraint. We are saying what we both think while still being respectful of the community. I am not calling you any of a miryad of obscene names, and you are not doing likewise. We are having a sedate, if passionate, discussion, one that could not happen without some measure of self-restraint. Self-restraint simply does not mean a lock-step hive mind.

Again, you seem to mistakenly argue that self-restraint and self-indulgence are completely and utterly mutually exclusive, or that self-restraint necessarily means self-denial and ascetism. All I said was that self-restraint is not allowing your lusts to rule you -- you rule your lusts and strive for the things you desire, but in an ethical and restrained manner. Me? I love books. I cannot have a large enough library. I am, to put it bluntly, a bibliophile. Does that mean that I go out to the local Borders and shoplift? Certainly not. I earn my money and buy those books that are within my means, growing my library while not cheating me of the things I need for survival. The same with anime, or music, or RPG items, or good clothing, or good food or good sake or any of the other things I enjoy. I enjoy, but in moderation. Just as I would not want to drink to excess, neither would I want to deny myself.