Feminists claiming loli manga should be classified as hate speech

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

SzJ said:
Contemporary feminists are right for once, I can't believe it.

Read the posts. They aren't right.

Sep 28, 2014 7:11 AM

#402

kurisubestgirl

Offline

Sep 2014

285

GangstaPriest said:

rederoin said:

Lots of people outside of sankaku are against censorship(banning loli/shotacon).

And likewise, many people outside of feminists would actually support the banning of loli/shotacon content.

Censorship and sexualised depiction of children (fictional or nah) in media are a spiky issue, but regardless of Sankaku's bias towards one or the other side of the argument, using of the actions of a bunch tumblr activists that people can easily rally against is pretty fucking dishonest of them.

Just see most of the posts in this thread: "feminists are fckin ridiculous", when what should be discussed is loli/shotacon and what to do with it.

Suppose "lolicon" is banned. Now define lolicon. Sexualized depiction of fictional children? Just say they are 20 years old. Say they aren't human. Say anything. A character is not a person. A character is a bunch of 2D images that exist on either a screen or people's minds. It is not based on any specific living being and exists in a universe outside of ours, and if it is inspired by an actual person, it's stylized according to the artist's imagination, thus no longer tied to reality. Art does not tell you whether the image is even of a human much less give any indication what age they are. You make that connection. Show an anime character to a dog, or perhaps a toddler. Will they relate that to a person? Art only depicts something when a mind has enough experience to make that connection between fictional and real. Otherwise it is random colors. Even we sometimes can't tell what's being depicted, whether those lines in the corner are an arm or some sideboob, someone's back or a leg or something. Nothing in art has to make sense and yet we ourselves make sense of even the most abstract of it. If you see a picture and it looks like a drawing of an elephant and I tell you it's a penis is it suddenly dirty? This is actually something you've probably seen before in media (WKUK for me). But the toddler insists it's an elephant! You and your dirty mind. Same goes for loli. Look like a naked little girl to you? Then it looks like lines to me. We can keep drawing the same thing simpler and simpler until it is a stick figure. When will it stop being lolicon?

Suppose lolicon is banned. Are we banning things now because people don't like it? Now define the number of people who have to not like it. Just you? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Million? What's the magic number? Suppose there is a magic number. Great, now if something gets enough votes it gets to be banned. Fair enough system. Say I don't like a picture of your mom. I'm disgusted by this picture and other pictures of your mother even though it doesn't break the law in any way, I'm disgusted and think it needs to be removed. I rally a million other people to agree with me. Is it fine now to ban pictures of your mom because I didn't like them? How are people going to know who she is on Facebook now? Yeah you can mention the slippery slope fallacy, but I say if one thing is banned because people don't like it then more will be, even if it's not as extreme as someone's mom. What's something you like? Pictures of puppies? I could start rallying people to ban that. Fk your puppies XD

Suppose lolicon is banned. What exactly does that do for you life? What will the world be like when you wake up tomorrow with less of something you weren't forced to be exposed to the day before? Sure, some anime contain naked lolis that you wanted to see for other reasons. But they're uncommon. And there's plenty of other things in literally everything that someone in the world has objection to despite liking other things about it. Let's use racist people as an example. Some people are still racist. Let's say against blacks. Some movies contain black people. Those racists would still like to see those movies, but unfortunately they contain blacks. Should we ban black people from appearing in films because some people don't want to see them? What about all the people that enjoy black actors? Just because a number of people (number unspecified, as I said before, where do we draw the line on "how many?" because i agree there are more people against loli than there are racists, but the point is that is a non issue) dislike black people, does that mean they all should be banned? Yes that racist person would benefit from no more black actors. But is that neutral for the rest of us? No, I for one would be quite sad if no more movies were made with Will Smith and Morgan Freeman. Same with many people (yes, many) and lolicon.

You might dislike loli. You have the freedom to. Just like people may dislike black people, or to a less extreme extent, other things that are common in media that they don't want to see. But there is nothing at all that separates lolicon from other things certain people dislike. Nothing in the law, nothing in morals, nothing at all. On paper, to a neutral non-human 3rd observer to this topic, there is absolutely no reason why loli should get preferential treatment for being banned over any other media trend.

The most logical reason for not banning lolicon is for the sake of equality and really no other reason. What you dislike and like are not the same as others, and as soon as we start drawing lines in the sand over that is when nothing applies anymore and we might as well ban everything that even one person dislikes. Give me one reason, one reason in the universe lolicon is in any way unequal to anything else from a law-adhering, morally apathetic entity's perspective.

Of course, tragically, sometimes in history the popular opinion prevails and we end up with screwed up laws that are based on fear and disgust rather than logic. Like enslaving African people. So be as fearful and disgusted of lolicon as you want, clearly those two emotions help move society in the right direction. Clearly.

And yes I did say "feminists are fkin ridiculous," you can quote me on that anywhere. Though maybe you could convince me to add the words "some" and "nowadays" to that quote if you gave a good enough argument, as I am aware feminism is *supposed* to embrace equality and not fear and disgust. Which is not what I've been seeing. I've met some okay feminists I suppose, but honestly the majority of women I know even hate the state it's at now.

Sep 28, 2014 7:13 AM

#403

Offline

Jan 2014

10464

Ratohnhaketon said:

GangstaPriest said:

Just see most of the posts in this thread: "feminists are fckin ridiculous", when what should be discussed is loli/shotacon and what to do with it.

What should we do with lolis? That's easy -

Thanks, but I'll pass. I'd rather have some freshly whipped Slaine meat, please.

Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now!

Kellhus said:

GuusWayne said:
there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief

And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat.

Sep 28, 2014 7:16 AM

#404

Loric123

Offline

May 2014

407

kurisubestgirl said:

GangstaPriest said:

And likewise, many people outside of feminists would actually support the banning of loli/shotacon content.

Censorship and sexualised depiction of children (fictional or nah) in media are a spiky issue, but regardless of Sankaku's bias towards one or the other side of the argument, using of the actions of a bunch tumblr activists that people can easily rally against is pretty fucking dishonest of them.

Just see most of the posts in this thread: "feminists are fckin ridiculous", when what should be discussed is loli/shotacon and what to do with it.

Suppose "lolicon" is banned. Now define lolicon. Sexualized depiction of fictional children? Just say they are 20 years old. Say they aren't human. Say anything. A character is not a person. A character is a bunch of 2D images that exist on either a screen or people's minds. It is not based on any specific living being and exists in a universe outside of ours, and if it is inspired by an actual person, it's stylized according to the artist's imagination, thus no longer tied to reality. Art does not tell you whether the image is even of a human much less give any indication what age they are. You make that connection. Show an anime character to a dog, or perhaps a toddler. Will they relate that to a person? Art only depicts something when a mind has enough experience to make that connection between fictional and real. Otherwise it is random colors. Even we sometimes can't tell what's being depicted, whether those lines in the corner are an arm or some sideboob, someone's back or a leg or something. Nothing in art has to make sense and yet we ourselves make sense of even the most abstract of it. If you see a picture and it looks like a drawing of an elephant and I tell you it's a penis is it suddenly dirty? This is actually something you've probably seen before in media (WKUK for me). But the toddler insists it's an elephant! You and your dirty mind. Same goes for loli. Look like a naked little girl to you? Then it looks like lines to me. We can keep drawing the same thing simpler and simpler until it is a stick figure. When will it stop being lolicon?

Suppose lolicon is banned. Are we banning things now because people don't like it? Now define the number of people who have to not like it. Just you? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Million? What's the magic number? Suppose there is a magic number. Great, now if something gets enough votes it gets to be banned. Fair enough system. Say I don't like a picture of your mom. I'm disgusted by this picture and other pictures of your mother even though it doesn't break the law in any way, I'm disgusted and think it needs to be removed. I rally a million other people to agree with me. Is it fine now to ban pictures of your mom because I didn't like them? How are people going to know who she is on Facebook now? Yeah you can mention the slippery slope fallacy, but I say if one thing is banned because people don't like it then more will be, even if it's not as extreme as someone's mom. What's something you like? Pictures of puppies? I could start rallying people to ban that. Fk your puppies XD

Suppose lolicon is banned. What exactly does that do for you life? What will the world be like when you wake up tomorrow with less of something you weren't forced to be exposed to the day before? Sure, some anime contain naked lolis that you wanted to see for other reasons. But they're uncommon. And there's plenty of other things in literally everything that someone in the world has objection to despite liking other things about it. Let's use racist people as an example. Some people are still racist. Let's say against blacks. Some movies contain black people. Those racists would still like to see those movies, but unfortunately they contain blacks. Should we ban black people from appearing in films because some people don't want to see them? What about all the people that enjoy black actors? Just because a number of people (number unspecified, as I said before, where do we draw the line on "how many?" because i agree there are more people against loli than there are racists, but the point is that is a non issue) dislike black people, does that mean they all should be banned? Yes that racist person would benefit from no more black actors. But is that neutral for the rest of us? No, I for one would be quite sad if no more movies were made with Will Smith and Morgan Freeman. Same with many people (yes, many) and lolicon.

You might dislike loli. You have the freedom to. Just like people may dislike black people, or to a less extreme extent, other things that are common in media that they don't want to see. But there is nothing at all that separates lolicon from other things certain people dislike. Nothing in the law, nothing in morals, nothing at all. On paper, to a neutral non-human 3rd observer to this topic, there is absolutely no reason why loli should get preferential treatment for being banned over any other media trend.

The most logical reason for not banning lolicon is for the sake of equality and really no other reason. What you dislike and like are not the same as others, and as soon as we start drawing lines in the sand over that is when nothing applies anymore and we might as well ban everything that even one person dislikes. Give me one reason, one reason in the universe lolicon is in any way unequal to anything else from a law-adhering, morally apathetic entity's perspective.

Of course, tragically, sometimes in history the popular opinion prevails and we end up with screwed up laws that are based on fear and disgust rather than logic. Like enslaving African people. So be as fearful and disgusted of lolicon as you want, clearly those two emotions help move society in the right direction. Clearly.

And yes I did say "feminists are fkin ridiculous," you can quote me on that anywhere. Though maybe you could convince me to add the words "some" and "nowadays" to that quote if you gave a good enough argument, as I am aware feminism is *supposed* to embrace equality and not fear and disgust. Which is not what I've been seeing. I've met some okay feminists I suppose, but honestly the majority of women I know even hate the state it's at now.

^ couldn't say it any better,I wish more ppl were like you

Sep 28, 2014 7:24 AM

#405

Offline

Jan 2014

10464

kurisubestgirl said:

GangstaPriest said:

And likewise, many people outside of feminists would actually support the banning of loli/shotacon content.

Censorship and sexualised depiction of children (fictional or nah) in media are a spiky issue, but regardless of Sankaku's bias towards one or the other side of the argument, using of the actions of a bunch tumblr activists that people can easily rally against is pretty fucking dishonest of them.

Just see most of the posts in this thread: "feminists are fckin ridiculous", when what should be discussed is loli/shotacon and what to do with it.

Suppose "lolicon" is banned. Now define lolicon. Sexualized depiction of fictional children? Just say they are 20 years old. Say they aren't human. Say anything. A character is not a person. A character is a bunch of 2D images that exist on either a screen or people's minds. It is not based on any specific living being and exists in a universe outside of ours, and if it is inspired by an actual person, it's stylized according to the artist's imagination, thus no longer tied to reality. Art does not tell you whether the image is even of a human much less give any indication what age they are. You make that connection. Show an anime character to a dog, or perhaps a toddler. Will they relate that to a person? Art only depicts something when a mind has enough experience to make that connection between fictional and real. Otherwise it is random colors. Even we sometimes can't tell what's being depicted, whether those lines in the corner are an arm or some sideboob, someone's back or a leg or something. Nothing in art has to make sense and yet we ourselves make sense of even the most abstract of it. If you see a picture and it looks like a drawing of an elephant and I tell you it's a penis is it suddenly dirty? This is actually something you've probably seen before in media (WKUK for me). But the toddler insists it's an elephant! You and your dirty mind. Same goes for loli. Look like a naked little girl to you? Then it looks like lines to me. We can keep drawing the same thing simpler and simpler until it is a stick figure. When will it stop being lolicon?

Suppose lolicon is banned. Are we banning things now because people don't like it? Now define the number of people who have to not like it. Just you? A hundred? A hundred thousand? Million? What's the magic number? Suppose there is a magic number. Great, now if something gets enough votes it gets to be banned. Fair enough system. Say I don't like a picture of your mom. I'm disgusted by this picture and other pictures of your mother even though it doesn't break the law in any way, I'm disgusted and think it needs to be removed. I rally a million other people to agree with me. Is it fine now to ban pictures of your mom because I didn't like them? How are people going to know who she is on Facebook now? Yeah you can mention the slippery slope fallacy, but I say if one thing is banned because people don't like it then more will be, even if it's not as extreme as someone's mom. What's something you like? Pictures of puppies? I could start rallying people to ban that. Fk your puppies XD

Suppose lolicon is banned. What exactly does that do for you life? What will the world be like when you wake up tomorrow with less of something you weren't forced to be exposed to the day before? Sure, some anime contain naked lolis that you wanted to see for other reasons. But they're uncommon. And there's plenty of other things in literally everything that someone in the world has objection to despite liking other things about it. Let's use racist people as an example. Some people are still racist. Let's say against blacks. Some movies contain black people. Those racists would still like to see those movies, but unfortunately they contain blacks. Should we ban black people from appearing in films because some people don't want to see them? What about all the people that enjoy black actors? Just because a number of people (number unspecified, as I said before, where do we draw the line on "how many?" because i agree there are more people against loli than there are racists, but the point is that is a non issue) dislike black people, does that mean they all should be banned? Yes that racist person would benefit from no more black actors. But is that neutral for the rest of us? No, I for one would be quite sad if no more movies were made with Will Smith and Morgan Freeman. Same with many people (yes, many) and lolicon.

You might dislike loli. You have the freedom to. Just like people may dislike black people, or to a less extreme extent, other things that are common in media that they don't want to see. But there is nothing at all that separates lolicon from other things certain people dislike. Nothing in the law, nothing in morals, nothing at all. On paper, to a neutral non-human 3rd observer to this topic, there is absolutely no reason why loli should get preferential treatment for being banned over any other media trend.

The most logical reason for not banning lolicon is for the sake of equality and really no other reason. What you dislike and like are not the same as others, and as soon as we start drawing lines in the sand over that is when nothing applies anymore and we might as well ban everything that even one person dislikes. Give me one reason, one reason in the universe lolicon is in any way unequal to anything else from a law-adhering, morally apathetic entity's perspective.

Of course, tragically, sometimes in history the popular opinion prevails and we end up with screwed up laws that are based on fear and disgust rather than logic. Like enslaving African people. So be as fearful and disgusted of lolicon as you want, clearly those two emotions help move society in the right direction. Clearly.

And yes I did say "feminists are fkin ridiculous," you can quote me on that anywhere. Though maybe you could convince me to add the words "some" and "nowadays" to that quote if you gave a good enough argument, as I am aware feminism is *supposed* to embrace equality and not fear and disgust. Which is not what I've been seeing. I've met some okay feminists I suppose, but honestly the majority of women I know even hate the state it's at now.

To clarify my post, the quoting was not necessarily aimed at you but at the majority of the posts that seem to stop at "some other feminist bull" when it's really not a feminist issue.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things I disagree with in your post, and I do believe some of the analogies you use simply don't work at all, I appreciate the fact that there are posters like you who take the time to expose their reasons for being for or against the banning of loli/shotacon; my problem was the fact that there're so few of them on this thread and that Sankaku's basically using a cheap diversion tactic by pointing the finger at a group that is big yet very unpopular on these parts of the Internet.

Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now!

Kellhus said:

GuusWayne said:
there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief

And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat.

Sep 28, 2014 8:35 AM

#406

Nyaa

Offline

Jan 2012

4769

Fuck them.

Lolis FTW!

Sep 28, 2014 11:25 AM

#407

Offline

Dec 2012

900

kurisubestgirl said:

And yes I did say "feminists are fkin ridiculous," you can quote me on that anywhere. Though maybe you could convince me to add the words "some" and "nowadays" to that quote if you gave a good enough argument, as I am aware feminism is *supposed* to embrace equality and not fear and disgust. Which is not what I've been seeing. I've met some okay feminists I suppose, but honestly the majority of women I know even hate the state it's at now.

Once again, the concept of feminism is not owned by anyone. When you pigeonhole it to a group of people you don't like, you are dis-empowering the concept by tainting it with facile, naive people with their own agendas. Just because I've bought bad batches of videogames from one producer, who packaged things in a certain way and lied to me using their brand as a shield against criticism (EA and DLC), doesn't mean I hate videogames.

Who in their right mind would hate videogames over one section of the industry is doing? The same applies to feminists. Feminism is not a group of employees that are actively trying to screw you; it's a concept, like a pro-gay rights group. Even in the case of civil rights, to claim that by the best example, MLK is representation of civil rights (with all his shortcomings) or Gandhi is the representation of Indian independence, is ill-conceived. People can be a symbol for a movement without representing it. The equivalent to a glorified cheerleader that says some statements to rile the crowds up.

MLK is not civil rights. Gandhi is not independence for India. SJWs are not feminism.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 28, 2014 12:03 PM

#408

Zekkenshin

Offline

Dec 2012

16220

GangstaPriest said:

Ratohnhaketon said:

What should we do with lolis? That's easy -

Thanks, but I'll pass. I'd rather have some freshly whipped Slaine meat, please.

Why settle for a mere Terran when you can have a Vers loli maid? She's old enough to drive -

Sep 28, 2014 12:44 PM

#409

Offline

Jan 2014

10464

Ratohnhaketon said:

GangstaPriest said:

Thanks, but I'll pass. I'd rather have some freshly whipped Slaine meat, please.

Why settle for a mere Terran when you can have a Vers loli maid? She's old enough to drive -

I've heard about twelve years-old that learned to drive on their own. Ain't touching that with a ten foot pole until her age is confirmed.

And what can I say, I'm pretty biased when it comes to tortured cutie boys.

SapewlothSep 28, 2014 3:44 PM

Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now!

Kellhus said:

GuusWayne said:
there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief

And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat.

Sep 28, 2014 1:17 PM

#410

Zalis

Offline

Jun 2007

4124

Crimefridge said:

Secondly, the concept of lolis is controversial because while studies show the majority of males prefer a 13-year old girls face as the optimal age, it is illegal to have sex with that age group because of the law. This lolicon-addiction is a result of underlying ephebophelia tendencies given light via a gray-area legal medium.

Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

I do think, however, that it is damaging to women to portray them as stereotypes and damaging to preteen girls to oversexualize them.

Can you point to any specific flesh-and-blood preteen girls that've been damaged because the fictional 2D mediums of anime and manga oversexualized them personally?

People can be a symbol for a movement without representing it. The equivalent to a glorified cheerleader that says some statements to rile the crowds up.

Yet when the radicals say things like "PiV sex is always rape," no one condemns or even disagrees with them, which leads me to believe that the rank-and-file are okay with that kind of representation.

Everything that connects to MAL

Contains Ecchi, but not Tagged Ecchi: Part 1 || Part 2 || Part 3

Sep 28, 2014 2:04 PM

#411

Offline

Dec 2012

900

Zalis said:
Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

Again, you're putting words in the mouths of everyone who is under the ideological wing of feminism. If you're an atheist, and so was a communist dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people, should I associate atheism with him?

My personal belief is more along the lines of "if they can consent, can understand the consequences, and know how to respond to common issues" combined with the sense that there isn't societal pressure to make these girls have sex, then I'd say it's perfectly fine. The problem is more complicated than that though isn't it? We can't measure those things.

Zalis said:
Can you point to any specific flesh-and-blood preteen girls that've been damaged because the fictional 2D mediums of anime and manga oversexualized them personally?

I would rather point to how advertising and objectification of women in media have increased domestic violence, rape, increased teen pregnancy and lowered women's and girl's self esteem. I would advise watching "Killing Us Softly", which is a slideshow presentation on the adverse effects of media on women.

Zalis said:
Yet when the radicals say things like "PiV sex is always rape," no one condemns or even disagrees with them, which leads me to believe that the rank-and-file are okay with that kind of representation.

I'm a socialist, and I hate my democratic representation. Does that mean I should be associated with them because they are "closest" to my view point even when they act out? Should I be associated with crack smoking Mayor Rob Ford because I smoke weed, so we both do drugs? No, this is intellectual laziness.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 28, 2014 2:24 PM

#412

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

The simple answer is support women's rights but don't call yourself a feminist due to shit like this.

Sep 28, 2014 2:27 PM

#413

King_of_Heretics

Offline

Feb 2013

3974

Well......Duh......Lolis are crap that sould be labeled as hate speeches to humanity as a whole

the same can be said about Tsunderes and Imoutos

Sep 28, 2014 10:46 PM

#414

Dcyend

Offline

Jul 2014

437

Drunk_Samurai said:
The simple answer is support women's rights but don't call yourself a feminist due to shit like this.

So is truth! I think - above someone speech about respect upon women, so do I! But the thing is, have they respect upon us! No criticism, only a thought.
When a loli character is depicted I think is unreal, so if there is sexual content I'm against it, so I respect upon the general opinion, but . . . What happen with the non sexual content related series, so a little ecchi is too so bad? And if it's unreal, what's the meaning to say "hating speech, so unrespectecful material. . ." Usually a normal animation/manga serie put a real interest on the respect between male MC about the girl in cuestion Ro Kyu Bu!! i.e. So if a good serie with lolis characters is good an you finally end liking it, this convert you on a lolicom? That's the issue to generalizate. . .
Feminism is no looking for equality so. . . Equality is fair rights to all people so no diference between sex, so sexual tendencies. . . Feminism abogue to determinate females over the rest of people, so I dislike their methods, 'cause I respect women so much, but I'm not a feminist, I'm a legal and democratic person who love respect upon Human Rights, but I think unreal things scapes from this real issue, so not see a true possition all this matter.

DcyendSep 28, 2014 10:51 PM

I'll tell you something, my Tenchi. You know, the carnival comes and goes... if you wait for a while, it'll always come back to you, Tenchi.

Sep 29, 2014 12:07 PM

#415

Offline

Dec 2012

900

Dcyend said:

Feminism is no looking for equality so. . . Equality is fair rights to all people so no diference between sex, so sexual tendencies. . . Feminism abogue to determinate females over the rest of people, so I dislike their methods, 'cause I respect women so much, but I'm not a feminist, I'm a legal and democratic person who love respect upon Human Rights, but I think unreal things scapes from this real issue, so not see a true possition all this matter.

You are incorrect in assuming that because Feminism has the word "fem" in it that means that it puts woman above men. That's the same thing as saying LGBT advocates put LGBT above straight people. They are a collective gathering of people for equal rights for THEIR GROUP. Do you accuse a worker's rights association of not having your best interests in mind because it doesn't say "You-nion"?

People advocate for their own causes. The world isn't about you. Feminism was a movement founded -by- women -for- women, not -against- men. To claim that women, who had to get their husbands to sign their contracts, couldn't work in most types of jobs, were outcasts for not being married or losing their virginity, couldn't vote, got paid a fraction of the amount of men, didn't need a feminist movement is borderline INSANITY.

What the majority of people argue is "it should be egalitarianism because that's what you should be fighting for". I don't see you calling "black rights advocates" racist now, do you? Their name is their struggle, not their sense of superiority. Defending yourself from being oppressed isn't superiority; it's fighting against being treated as inferiority.

"Women aren't oppressed; men are oppressed"

Everyone's oppressed. Every group is treated differently. Stereotypes exist in every person's brains. To claim otherwise is to live in a delusional state. To de-authenticate the feminist movement because you're a guy and women shouldn't fight with women's name in their cause is practically misogyny in itself. "Women shouldn't have their own movement" ...is that really still a thing?

I'm sorry we don't have time travel machines so you can't casually slap completely random women's asses and overall objectify and marginalize them like back in the 40's. Welcome to the 21st century, where women can do what the fuck they want and not beholden to what some random guy thinks.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 29, 2014 12:15 PM

#416

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Crimefridge said:
I'm sorry we don't have time travel machines so you can't casually slap completely random women's asses and overall objectify and marginalize them like back in the 40's. Welcome to the 21st century, where women can do what the fuck they want and not beholden to what some random guy thinks.

So women are allowed to try to ban shit for no reason?

Sep 29, 2014 12:27 PM

#417

Milk_is_Special

Offline

Apr 2014

11203

Drunk_Samurai said:

Crimefridge said:
I'm sorry we don't have time travel machines so you can't casually slap completely random women's asses and overall objectify and marginalize them like back in the 40's. Welcome to the 21st century, where women can do what the fuck they want and not beholden to what some random guy thinks.

So women are allowed to try to ban shit for no reason?

And when a man (for example) tries to ban free! they are screamed at by feminists that we need to have equal rights.

Sep 29, 2014 12:32 PM

#418

Offline

Dec 2012

900

Milk_is_Special said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

So women are allowed to try to ban shit for no reason?

And when a man (for example) tries to ban free! they are screamed at by feminists that we need to have equal rights.

Read my position on the previous page.

Crimefridge said:

I don't think it should be illegal. I also don't think it is hate speech. I do think, however, that it is damaging to women to portray them as stereotypes and damaging to preteen girls to oversexualize them.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 29, 2014 12:40 PM

#419

Milk_is_Special

Offline

Apr 2014

11203

Crimefridge said:

Milk_is_Special said:

And when a man (for example) tries to ban free! they are screamed at by feminists that we need to have equal rights.

Read my position on the previous page.

I'm not English so I didn't understand a few in there like all the words longer then 10 words. But I do kind of agree with you, but it isn't hate speech because it is a drawing style in a art form. When you watch older paintings from the 1700-1900's you see a lot of pictures that don't portray women the way they really are. Shouldn't that be classified as hate speech too. No because it is art. Well Drawing lollicons and anime in general is also a form of art so why hate on Lollicons and not on those old paintings?

Sep 29, 2014 12:47 PM

#420

Offline

Dec 2012

900

Milk_is_Special said:
But I do kind of agree with you, but it isn't hate speech because it is a drawing style in a art form. When you watch older paintings from the 1700-1900's you see a lot of pictures that don't portray women the way they really are. Shouldn't that be classified as hate speech too. No because it is art. Well Drawing lollicons and anime in general is also a form of art so why hate on Lollicons and not on those old paintings?

Like I said, I don't think it should be banned and I don't think it is hate speech. So we aren't disagreeing. I am saying it is morally objectionable(bad) to exploit sexuality by making women objects instead of people, not saying that lolis should be illegal.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 29, 2014 12:58 PM

#421

Milk_is_Special

Offline

Apr 2014

11203

Crimefridge said:

Milk_is_Special said:
But I do kind of agree with you, but it isn't hate speech because it is a drawing style in a art form. When you watch older paintings from the 1700-1900's you see a lot of pictures that don't portray women the way they really are. Shouldn't that be classified as hate speech too. No because it is art. Well Drawing lollicons and anime in general is also a form of art so why hate on Lollicons and not on those old paintings?

Like I said, I don't think it should be banned and I don't think it is hate speech. So we aren't disagreeing. I am saying it is morally objectionable(bad) to exploit sexuality by making women objects instead of people, not saying that lolis should be illegal.

Were you saying that?! I completely misunderstood you, well that completely changes our discussion because now we are on the exact same side xD

Sep 29, 2014 1:27 PM

#422

Salxer

Offline

Apr 2013

645

Zalis said:

Crimefridge said:

Secondly, the concept of lolis is controversial because while studies show the majority of males prefer a 13-year old girls face as the optimal age, it is illegal to have sex with that age group because of the law. This lolicon-addiction is a result of underlying ephebophelia tendencies given light via a gray-area legal medium.

Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

I know right? it's as if kids have rights of their own and don't exist to be exploited by males in order to satisfy their "biologically normal heterosexuality", unbelievable!

Sep 29, 2014 1:34 PM

#423

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Crimefridge said:

Milk_is_Special said:
But I do kind of agree with you, but it isn't hate speech because it is a drawing style in a art form. When you watch older paintings from the 1700-1900's you see a lot of pictures that don't portray women the way they really are. Shouldn't that be classified as hate speech too. No because it is art. Well Drawing lollicons and anime in general is also a form of art so why hate on Lollicons and not on those old paintings?

Like I said, I don't think it should be banned and I don't think it is hate speech. So we aren't disagreeing. I am saying it is morally objectionable(bad) to exploit sexuality by making women objects instead of people, not saying that lolis should be illegal.

Yet it's still a fucking ridiculous position. It implies women don't like porn and that women also don't lust after men.

Salxer said:

Zalis said:

Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

I know right? it's as if kids have rights of their own and don't exist to be exploited by males in order to satisfy their "biologically normal heterosexuality", unbelievable!

Lolis aren't kids. They're drawings.

Sep 29, 2014 1:41 PM

#424

Salxer

Offline

Apr 2013

645

Drunk_Samurai said:

Crimefridge said:

Like I said, I don't think it should be banned and I don't think it is hate speech. So we aren't disagreeing. I am saying it is morally objectionable(bad) to exploit sexuality by making women objects instead of people, not saying that lolis should be illegal.

Yet it's still a fucking ridiculous position. It implies women don't like porn and that women also don't lust after men.

Salxer said:

I know right? it's as if kids have rights of their own and don't exist to be exploited by males in order to satisfy their "biologically normal heterosexuality", unbelievable!

Lolis aren't kids. They're drawings.

What are you even talking about? pretty sure they were talking about real kids and not anime characters (unless it's illegal to have sex with 13 year old drawings,eh what?)
How about you actually read what you're replaying to instead of copy pasting your one or two arguments everywhere in the thread?

Sep 29, 2014 2:56 PM

#425

Offline

Dec 2012

900

Drunk_Samurai said:
It implies women don't like porn and that women also don't lust after men.

In which place did anyone imply that men were not objectified? I already covered this in the:

Crimefridge said:
Everyone's oppressed. Every group is treated differently. Stereotypes exist in every person's brains. To claim otherwise is to live in a delusional state. To de-authenticate the feminist movement because you're a guy and women shouldn't fight with women's name in their cause is practically misogyny in itself. "Women shouldn't have their own movement" ...is that really still a thing?

Yes, porn can be toxic. The kind where you make sex look like it's something it's not is toxic. The false message of fake tits and labiaplasty is toxic. All forms of media can be reprehensible. To point it out is not a pointless affair. To acknowledge the effects it has on our society is not armchair idealism. There are constant messages sent in our media that has bad effects on both sexes, and there's no reason to decry feminism because you feel victimized. Is there a men's rights movement that matches that of feminism? No, but how is that feminism's fault exactly? Put your money where your mouth is and organize then.

But I'll tell you this. If your campaign is anti-feminism, it will fail just like your logic did on this forum trying to attack an idea based on the practice of the extremist minority. If you want to preach acceptance, you're going to have to learn some first.

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 29, 2014 3:30 PM

#426

HandsomeMan

Offline

Nov 2013

2305

zdude18 said:

P.S. How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
Trick question: Feminists can't change anything.

Although I chuckled at that notion, it is actually quite false. Feminism is one of the biggest revolutions the world has seen, right behind the agricultural revolution and industrial revolution. If you honestly think feminists didn't change anything you're deluding yourself. Feminism (the real movement) changed a lot in our society, and even the obnoxious modern feminism presents to make minor changes still.

As for the topic; I didn't click on the link, but it doesn't cease to surprise me to what these modern feminist fuckwits continue to do.

Sep 29, 2014 3:33 PM

#427

Offline

Dec 2012

900

HandsomeMan said:

As for the topic; I didn't click on the link, but it doesn't cease to surprise me to what these modern feminist fuckwits continue to do.

*rad fem*, meaning radical feminists, are those who decry men's very existence and think the world should be nothing but women. This isn't modern feminism: that's insanity.

Language matters. Please don't say "feminists" when you mean "nut jobs".

CrimeIntraSep 29, 2014 5:51 PM

How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored?

Sep 29, 2014 4:06 PM

#428

Zekkenshin

Offline

Dec 2012

16220

Anyone who looks at hentai that came out in 2002 or later is a pedophile, those images are still underage!

Sep 29, 2014 4:38 PM

#429

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Ratohnhaketon said:
Anyone who looks at hentai that came out in 2002 or later is a pedophile, those images are still underage!

Pedophile only applies to real children.

Sep 29, 2014 5:49 PM

#430

Offline

Jan 2009

650

Drunk_Samurai said:

Ratohnhaketon said:
Anyone who looks at hentai that came out in 2002 or later is a pedophile, those images are still underage!

Pedophile only applies to real children.

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

Sep 29, 2014 6:00 PM

#431

Zekkenshin

Offline

Dec 2012

16220

Okiura said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Pedophile only applies to real children.

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

Except the civilized ones.

Sep 29, 2014 9:05 PM

#432

Deliriant

Offline

Apr 2012

2375

So it's acceptable to murder people in video games (which require you to self-insert as a murderer), yet it's immoral to accept 2D lolis being represented sexually, even though they're often 18+, and usually aren't representative of real children? Heck, even lolis that are supposed to be "childish" hardly have any traits that Western children do.

Sep 29, 2014 9:18 PM

#433

Dcyend

Offline

Jul 2014

437

Hey, hey, hey please don't blame on free Crimefridge's opinions, I was the first who put wrong words on a bad way, so sorry!

Yes, I agree the differents collectives do "You-nion" on their prerrogatives, so ideas and, why no desires. But to defend a onesided idea I think is a little selfish, but I understand the situation, so no go to do a quarrel for ideas, I respect.

Well on a time machine you can travel to the ancient Amazones Queendom, I would like, but I'll be a mere slave, so no use . . . Or Lesbos isle, but I think women will throw me to the Aegean Sea. History don't give us pardon, but have it's amusing anecdotes and great females liders ;D

Sorry for my bad words, no bad intentions, but I like true equality, no hate from-equality . . . This is a hate I think we gained all over the eras, but I think things can be done in a cordial mood. And changes have been happening.

All this matter only arouses discomfort between two sides confronted. Many sponsors do sexist advertisement, but nothing occur. So too much scandal for mere animations. But according to my opinion above all sexual explicit or abuse subject referred to childhood - in the wrong way - must be, inexcusably, controlled so punished. This is true civilized rules.

So for Ratohnhaketon WTH hentai from 2002 or later have you seen!! O_O I'll put on a tittle

- sorry for this perv view about my person . . . if you found the pedophile matter explain to me, please. Don't ever do generalization about all the material, like I said above, so if you see an animation where chilld characters appear all these anime are lolicom? Or too we have been speaking about determinated style of drawings . . .

DcyendSep 29, 2014 9:33 PM

I'll tell you something, my Tenchi. You know, the carnival comes and goes... if you wait for a while, it'll always come back to you, Tenchi.

Sep 29, 2014 9:24 PM

#434

Dcyend

Offline

Jul 2014

437

Oddyeus said:
So it's acceptable to murder people in video games (which require you to self-insert as a murderer), yet it's immoral to accept 2D lolis being represented sexually, even though they're often 18+, and usually aren't representative of real children? Heck, even lolis that are supposed to be "childish" hardly have any traits that Western children do.

Yeah! a great truth. Real life give childhood more shit by *** than the damage can do a mere stylized drawings of determinated character. So this is a type of character focused to determinated market, so why this market exist?

I'll tell you something, my Tenchi. You know, the carnival comes and goes... if you wait for a while, it'll always come back to you, Tenchi.

Sep 30, 2014 12:34 AM

#435

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Okiura said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Pedophile only applies to real children.

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

And? The laws are wrong to call it child pornography since there are no actual children.

Sep 30, 2014 12:35 AM

#436

ninjastarforcex

Offline

Nov 2012

3275

Drunk_Samurai said:

Okiura said:

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

And? The laws are wrong to call it child pornography since there are no actual children.

sheddep pedo

IF YOU LIKE DEATH PARADE, GO WATCH BARTENDER!!!
my animesongs chord thread : here bro

Sep 30, 2014 12:40 AM

#437

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

ninjastarforcex said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

And? The laws are wrong to call it child pornography since there are no actual children.

sheddep pedo

I don't like kids so I can't be a pedo. I also don't like lolicon and even if I did I still wouldn't be one.

Sep 30, 2014 1:42 AM

#438

Firelord76

Offline

May 2009

2778

ninjastarforcex said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

And? The laws are wrong to call it child pornography since there are no actual children.

sheddep pedo

You must feel really insecure in your reasoning to attack others based on a (false) presumption. Maybe you should stop mixing up up fantasy with reality and think for a change. Oh, and believing that not everyone who is in favor of a certain controversial thing is also part of said audience.

Real child porn is illegal, because actual children were abused into making it. Lolicon consist of fantasy characters, who may not even be children at all, just very youthful-looking adults. To my knowledge, no actual children get harmed during the making of it.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Sep 30, 2014 3:52 AM

#439

Offline

Jan 2014

10464

Zalis said:
Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

Cause getting off on 2D kids is part of biologically normal male sexuality now.

Yes.

Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now!

Kellhus said:

GuusWayne said:
there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief

And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat.

Sep 30, 2014 4:08 AM

#440

Offline

Jan 2009

650

Drunk_Samurai said:

Okiura said:

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

And? The laws are wrong to call it child pornography since there are no actual children.

You can disagree, but the definition of child pornography is juridical and it's the one that matters.
And as I said, your disagreement is with law, not feminists.

Sep 30, 2014 7:28 AM

#441

rederoin

Offline

Nov 2011

5359

Okiura said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Pedophile only applies to real children.

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

Just because it is, does not mean it should be(drawings)

My Twitter : link
My Last.fm : link

Sep 30, 2014 7:30 AM

#442

rederoin

Offline

Nov 2011

5359

GangstaPriest said:

Zalis said:
Gee, it's almost as if the laws have been designed by feminists with the intent of pathologizing and criminalizing biologically normal male heterosexuality.

Cause getting off on 2D kids is part of biologically normal male sexuality now.

Yes.

That is nor an argument for censoring something.

My Twitter : link
My Last.fm : link

Sep 30, 2014 7:32 AM

#443

ninjastarforcex

Offline

Nov 2012

3275

AO968 said:

ninjastarforcex said:

sheddep pedo

You must feel really insecure in your reasoning to attack others based on a (false) presumption. Maybe you should stop mixing up up fantasy with reality and think for a change. Oh, and believing that not everyone who is in favor of a certain controversial thing is also part of said audience.

Real child porn is illegal, because actual children were abused into making it. Lolicon consist of fantasy characters, who may not even be children at all, just very youthful-looking adults. To my knowledge, no actual children get harmed during the making of it.

hi pedo :)))))))))

IF YOU LIKE DEATH PARADE, GO WATCH BARTENDER!!!
my animesongs chord thread : here bro

Sep 30, 2014 7:37 AM

#444

Offline

Jan 2014

10464

rederoin said:

GangstaPriest said:

Cause getting off on 2D kids is part of biologically normal male sexuality now.

Yes.

That is nor an argument for censoring something.

Never said it was.

Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now!

Kellhus said:

GuusWayne said:
there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief

And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat.

Sep 30, 2014 8:10 AM

#445

Offline

Jan 2009

650

rederoin said:

Okiura said:

Child pornography, including animation and drawings, is illegal in most western countries.

Just because it is, does not mean it should be(drawings)

For legal issues, it's the majority that decides what should be.

Sep 30, 2014 9:26 AM

#446

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Okiura said:

You can disagree, but the definition of child pornography is juridical and it's the one that matters.
And as I said, your disagreement is with law, not feminists.

Nope. I already said what I needed to say. Feminists were also the ones pushing to ban rape eroge. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=702927&show=400#msg34752791

I'm in disagreement with both.

Sep 30, 2014 9:42 AM

#447

rederoin

Offline

Nov 2011

5359

Okiura said:

rederoin said:

Just because it is, does not mean it should be(drawings)

For legal issues, it's the majority that decides what should be.

That does not mean they are in the right, just because its the majority. Those are not arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

My Twitter : link
My Last.fm : link

Sep 30, 2014 11:27 AM

#448

Offline

Jan 2009

650

rederoin said:

Okiura said:

For legal issues, it's the majority that decides what should be.

That does not mean they are in the right, just because its the majority. Those are not arguments

The Law are the rules decided by the majority that govern the society. It's not a poll or a moral issue about right or wrong.

Drunk_Samurai said:

Okiura said:

You can disagree, but the definition of child pornography is juridical and it's the one that matters.
And as I said, your disagreement is with law, not feminists.

Feminists were also the ones pushing to ban rape eroge.

They said also that the sun raises from the east. That doesn’t mean they're talking about child prn and that doesn't mean they're wrong.

OkiuraSep 30, 2014 11:31 AM

Sep 30, 2014 12:12 PM

#449