Ranting corner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2017, 10:01 PM
RE: Ranting corner
Weeping

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2017, 10:51 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2017 10:57 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Ranting corner
(05-10-2017 02:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 11:30 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Sorry mate but no, the objectification of child like characters in cartoon pornography is wrong regardless of clever caveats about age or the obfuscation of genitals, its illegal in Britain and Europe for all the right reasons and should be in the USA Japan and all other countries also. Tentacle porn is weird but if it involves obviously 18 plus characters I've no problem, cartoon characters don't suffer harm but can give legitimacy to activities that do do harm and should be stopped.

Dude, cartoons don't actually have ages. Cartoons aren't alive. Depending on the particular art ascetic, there may be little (if any) discernible features to indicate age. Being 4 feet tall with A-cups can fit a large age range, and that's before you get into samey doe-eyes and anime hair. Plus, at the end of the day, it's fiction. You're a vampire away from from explaining why the seemingly little girl is in fact a centuries old woman. It's fiction, context can be whatever you write it to be.

Case in point, Yoko Littner (redhead) and Shinobu Oshino (blonde). Are either or both of them 'obvious 18' adults? Between the two, which one looks older?

[Image: vFaQ1RG.jpg][Image: Shinobu-oshino-bakemonogatari.jpg?982602]

Yoko starts out her adventure in the animated series (Gurren Lagann) at age 15, complete with daisy dukes, bikini top, and sniper rifle. Shinobu (from Bakemonogatari) on the other hand is one of those centuries old vampires; 598 years to be exact.

Between the two, which one's sexual objectification bothers you more? The much older looking teenager? Or the centuries old vampire who just looks like a middle schooler?

Cartoons no more legitimize non-consensual sex than video games legitimize non-consensual murder. If you play Call of Duty, and it fuels your desire for a killing spree, you have much bigger problems than just playing Call of Duty; and it would be both unfair and disingenuous to lay the weight that responsibility at the game's feet. I've killed battalions worth of digital Nazi's, and I've killed just as many sperm wanking off to pornography; and not only have I yet to rape or kill anyone, I have no desire to. I have a healthy respect for what is, and is not, fantasy.


As a further follow up, just in case I hadn't made my point enough already. I'd ask anyone that agrees with adey67 to follow me on a mental exercise. Let's first look at real pornography...


Bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM). From the outside looking in, that is some fucked up shit. But, so long as it's two or more consenting adults? I have no problem with it. If ball-gags, riding crops, and being verbally abused get you off? So long as you're not hurting anyone, it's not my business. That being said, they do film it and turn it into pornography. Now in context, it's okay, right? But if anyone participating did not consent to it? Then that would be rape, and possibly torture given the circumstance. Clearly both rape and torture are illegal, and indeed I'd agree in labeling them immoral. But would you support banning BDSM porn for the same reasons that loli hentai makes you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

Let's take it a step further, what about simulated rape? This is not just a (disturbing) niche of pornography, but also appears from time to time in cinema as well (such as 1988's The Accused, where Jodie Foster gets raped on top of a pinball table in a bar). But for as disturbing as those scenes can be, they often get away with an R rating in the United States; clearly legal, but just age restricted, not unlike pornography. Again, would you ban The Accused or A Clockwork Orange because they have portrayals of rape in them? If not, what meaningful difference is there between the fictional portrayal of non-consensual sex between adult actors, and the same act but with drawn/animated 'minors'? If you can distinguish the two, why and how? Does the same reasoning work with violence?

Now let me be crystal clear, I am in no way advocating in favor of sexual abuse of minors. What I'm calling into question is the censorship of a medium. I just do not see an intellectually consistent argument you could make to justify drawing a line in the sand at 'fictional minors' that doesn't also toss out all explicitly sexual or violent content. Media has a long history of depicting some really awful fictitious shit. Along with that history is the cornerstone of consent, that so long as everyone involved with the product is old enough to consent to the actions therein, then let the buyer beware.

Stephan King wrote a scene in at the end of IT where all of the children lose their virginity with one another to escape the clutches of Pennywise by becoming 'adults'. All the consent needed was the author's will to write it. No actual children were trapped by an otherworldly evil clown, nobody was harmed in the creation of King's words. So how do you justify the a line in the sand where adding pictures to that (e.g. comics and magna) is somehow a bridge too far? I don't think you can. Now animate those pictures and add sound, and you've got animated hentai; and once again, I don't think you can justify that simply adding animation and sound goes too far without inditing all of animation.


Fantasy and fiction can be as sick and depraved as it's creator's desire, which is good as it can allow us to explore concepts that might otherwise be unavailable to us in the real world. You do not need to be pro-genocide to entertain the plot of the video game Mass Effect 2, where you are placed in a situation to decide the fate of a race of AI (the Geth); to destroy them outright, or release a virus that would alter their thinking and turn them into allies? It's a situation none of us will ever encounter in our lifetime, but fiction allows us to explore it; and I think there is far more to be gained in unfettered creative control over censorious restrictions.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2017, 11:22 PM
RE: Ranting corner
Mmm. Not sure EK. How about creating materials that propagate e.g. racial hatred? Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, rightly so IMO. Creating materials that normalise child pornography and hiding behind artistic licence... would also be problematic in my view. On the other hand, I personally don't feel any desire to go and kill people no matter how much I enjoy playing counter-strike. It's kind of weird that we have more taboos about depictions of sex, even consensual sex, than depictions of violence and murder. Also the Stephen King scene... yeah, I can see that the power of the story would be affected if you bound the author by rules about what was acceptable to write.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-10-2017, 12:06 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 12:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Ranting corner
(05-10-2017 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mmm. Not sure EK. How about creating materials that propagate e.g. racial hatred? Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, rightly so IMO. Creating materials that normalise child pornography and hiding behind artistic licence... would also be problematic in my view. On the other hand, I personally don't feel any desire to go and kill people no matter how much I enjoy playing counter-strike. It's kind of weird that we have more taboos about depictions of sex, even consensual sex, than depictions of violence and murder. Also the Stephen King scene... yeah, I can see that the power of the story would be affected if you bound the author by rules about what was acceptable to write.

Well, that is the interesting grey area, isn't it? Does just depicting it count as incitement? Is normalization something worth banning over?

There's a difference between talking about beliefs, endorsing said beliefs, and calling others to action on behalf of those beliefs. You can talk about fascism, you can be a fascist, you can parade about and demonstrate on behalf of fascism; but we draw the line at violence. You can believe and say that Jews and blacks are subhuman, but so long as you don't incite a crowd to act on it, you're protected under the First Amendment. So if you follow that framework, hentai shouldn't run afoul until it is inciting actual sexual abuse of actual minors, until it is explicitly saying to the viewer 'you the viewer should be doing this right now'. As pervy and gross as some of the stuff coming out of Japan can be, I've never seen it cross that line.

Likewise, should normalization be a ban-able offense? If so, then can you make an argument to only ban sexual abuse and not violence and murder? I don't think you can. Clearly, content involving non-consent and actual minors already is illegal (and rightly so), so we're still talking about works of fiction here. So if normalizing sexual abuse is ban-able, then by rights so should violence and murder; and there goes half the entertainment industry.

I'm not saying that I like it or endorse it, but if we can survive KKK rallies, we can survive some depraved cartoons; and it's okay to be uncomfortable with that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 03:17 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(05-10-2017 02:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 11:30 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Sorry mate but no, the objectification of child like characters in cartoon pornography is wrong regardless of clever caveats about age or the obfuscation of genitals, its illegal in Britain and Europe for all the right reasons and should be in the USA Japan and all other countries also. Tentacle porn is weird but if it involves obviously 18 plus characters I've no problem, cartoon characters don't suffer harm but can give legitimacy to activities that do do harm and should be stopped.

Dude, cartoons don't actually have ages. Cartoons aren't alive. Depending on the particular art ascetic, there may be little (if any) discernible features to indicate age. Being 4 feet tall with A-cups can fit a large age range, and that's before you get into samey doe-eyes and anime hair. Plus, at the end of the day, it's fiction. You're a vampire away from from explaining why the seemingly little girl is in fact a centuries old woman. It's fiction, context can be whatever you write it to be.

Case in point, Yoko Littner (redhead) and Shinobu Oshino (blonde). Are either or both of them 'obvious 18' adults? Between the two, which one looks older?

[Image: vFaQ1RG.jpg][Image: Shinobu-oshino-bakemonogatari.jpg?982602]

Yoko starts out her adventure in the animated series (Gurren Lagann) at age 15, complete with daisy dukes, bikini top, and sniper rifle. Shinobu (from Bakemonogatari) on the other hand is one of those centuries old vampires; 598 years to be exact.

Between the two, which one's sexual objectification bothers you more? The much older looking teenager? Or the centuries old vampire who just looks like a middle schooler?

Cartoons no more legitimize non-consensual sex than video games legitimize non-consensual murder. If you play Call of Duty, and it fuels your desire for a killing spree, you have much bigger problems than just playing Call of Duty; and it would be both unfair and disingenuous to lay the weight that responsibility at the game's feet. I've killed battalions worth of digital Nazi's, and I've killed just as many sperm wanking off to pornography; and not only have I yet to rape or kill anyone, I have no desire to. I have a healthy respect for what is, and is not, fantasy.
Perhaps I should clarify, I've no problem with cartoons that depict underage looking girls so long as there's no sex or nudity involved. Its one of the few issues / legislation of the British government that I approve of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(05-10-2017 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mmm. Not sure EK. How about creating materials that propagate e.g. racial hatred? Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, rightly so IMO. Creating materials that normalise child pornography and hiding behind artistic licence... would also be problematic in my view. On the other hand, I personally don't feel any desire to go and kill people no matter how much I enjoy playing counter-strike. It's kind of weird that we have more taboos about depictions of sex, even consensual sex, than depictions of violence and murder. Also the Stephen King scene... yeah, I can see that the power of the story would be affected if you bound the author by rules about what was acceptable to write.

That would depend on where the words are coming from. If from a Nazi, it is unacceptable. If from the racist known as Al Sharpton, the words are glorified by the media. Bill Cosby is a notorious racist, but nobody seems to be faulting him for that. You disagree so it must be banned. You agree, so it must be allowed. What a shitty way to decide things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 06:18 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:06 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mmm. Not sure EK. How about creating materials that propagate e.g. racial hatred? Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, rightly so IMO. Creating materials that normalise child pornography and hiding behind artistic licence... would also be problematic in my view. On the other hand, I personally don't feel any desire to go and kill people no matter how much I enjoy playing counter-strike. It's kind of weird that we have more taboos about depictions of sex, even consensual sex, than depictions of violence and murder. Also the Stephen King scene... yeah, I can see that the power of the story would be affected if you bound the author by rules about what was acceptable to write.

Well, that is the interesting grey area, isn't it? Does just depicting it count as incitement? Is normalization something worth banning over?

There's a difference between talking about beliefs, endorsing said beliefs, and calling others to action on behalf of those beliefs. You can talk about fascism, you can be a fascist, you can parade about and demonstrate on behalf of fascism; but we draw the line at violence. You can believe and say that Jews and blacks are subhuman, but so long as you don't incite a crowd to act on it, you're protected under the First Amendment. So if you follow that framework, hentai shouldn't run afoul until it is inciting actual sexual abuse of actual minors, until it is explicitly saying to the viewer 'you the viewer should be doing this right now'. As pervy and gross as some of the stuff coming out of Japan can be, I've never seen it cross that line.

Likewise, should normalization be a ban-able offense? If so, then can you make an argument to only ban sexual abuse and not violence and murder? I don't think you can. Clearly, content involving non-consent and actual minors already is illegal (and rightly so), so we're still talking about works of fiction here. So if normalizing sexual abuse is ban-able, then by rights so should violence and murder; and there goes half the entertainment industry.

I'm not saying that I like it or endorse it, but if we can survive KKK rallies, we can survive some depraved cartoons; and it's okay to be uncomfortable with that.

Well, we believe that anyone that would put their mouth on the penis of a small child is subhuman. Yet the jews do it to infants on a regular basis. So, would you call them subhuman? Nope, you give them a religion pass. But if someone draws such activity, it is just plain wrong. Right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 06:18 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 06:14 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mmm. Not sure EK. How about creating materials that propagate e.g. racial hatred? Incitement to violence is not protected as free speech, rightly so IMO. Creating materials that normalise child pornography and hiding behind artistic licence... would also be problematic in my view. On the other hand, I personally don't feel any desire to go and kill people no matter how much I enjoy playing counter-strike. It's kind of weird that we have more taboos about depictions of sex, even consensual sex, than depictions of violence and murder. Also the Stephen King scene... yeah, I can see that the power of the story would be affected if you bound the author by rules about what was acceptable to write.

That would depend on where the words are coming from. If from a Nazi, it is unacceptable. If from the racist known as Al Sharpton, the words are glorified by the media. Bill Cosby is a notorious racist, but nobody seems to be faulting him for that. You disagree so it must be banned. You agree, so it must be allowed. What a shitty way to decide things.

Just, ya know, fuck off Birdy. Why're you suddenly such a delicate flower? You're the prick who spends your time talking about following Indians home to prove they're committing food stamp fraud. That's racism, snowflake. Sorry you don't like being called what you are.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-10-2017, 06:20 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 06:18 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Well, we believe that anyone that would put their mouth on the penis of a small child is subhuman. Yet the jews do it to infants on a regular basis. So, would you call them subhuman? Nope, you give them a religion pass. But if someone draws such activity, it is just plain wrong. Right?

Oh, wow, look at that, I don't even need to tell you what my opinion is as you've already supplied it for me.

Dipshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 06:21 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 06:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 06:14 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  That would depend on where the words are coming from. If from a Nazi, it is unacceptable. If from the racist known as Al Sharpton, the words are glorified by the media. Bill Cosby is a notorious racist, but nobody seems to be faulting him for that. You disagree so it must be banned. You agree, so it must be allowed. What a shitty way to decide things.

Just, ya know, fuck off Birdy. Why're you suddenly such a delicate flower? You're the prick who spends your time talking about following Indians home to prove they're committing food stamp fraud. That's racism, snowflake. Sorry you don't like being called what you are.

It is only racism if race is why they are targeted. It happens to be their actions and using foodstamps for illegitimate things that makes me want to target them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: