kitkatbar said: Correlation does not equal causality!Studies show that people who watch violent porn tend to take a more violent approach with their own partner. And no one said violent videogames and movies don't contribute to a more violent behavior. The correlation is high. It's the same with drawings. They see those children on TV and start thinking it might not be so bad to have a relationship with a little kid. That is why they have child idols in Japan, wearing the same kind of provocative clothing as they do in the depictions of them. "Sorry, but this study is about as good as the studies that 'proved' that the sun revolves around the earth.... i.e. not very legitimate, and not done by the proper scientific method." This guy makes a good point. Oh and dude Japan isn't the only one that has children in provocative clothing. YT link was deleted but here |
GogettersMay 28, 2010 3:59 PM
  |
| I agree with ginger. |
kitkatbar said: Studies show that people who watch violent porn tend to take a more violent approach with their own partner. And no one said violent videogames and movies don't contribute to a more violent behavior. The correlation is high. It's the same with drawings. They see those children on TV and start thinking it might not be so bad to have a relationship with a little kid. That is why they have child idols in Japan, wearing the same kind of provocative clothing as they do in the depictions of them. Yea and that is 2 different things. Your just jumping to conclusions. There is a MASSIVE difference between "rape role play" and actually raping some one. There is absolutely no correlation what so ever. and Child idols in Japan, so what? Not like America doesn't have children beauty pageants with swim suit competitions .. Yea in American with it's super moral high ground, nothing like that could exist. and about violent video games, no one has be even been remotely able to prove other wise either . On top of that Violent Juvenile crimes have been on a down ward trend since the introduction of realistic violent video games. |
JigeroMay 28, 2010 4:38 PM
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
kitkatbar said: Studies show that people who watch violent porn tend to take a more violent approach with their own partner. And no one said violent videogames and movies don't contribute to a more violent behavior. The correlation is high. It's the same with drawings. They see those children on TV and start thinking it might not be so bad to have a relationship with a little kid. That is why they have child idols in Japan, wearing the same kind of provocative clothing as they do in the depictions of them. What studies?!?!?! do you have a link, any sources for these ridiculous, not to mention one sided studies??? Show me some proof, not wild, made-up accusations. Just like it has already been stated: Correlation does not equal causality! |
Yea and that is 2 different things. Your just jumping to conclusions. There is a MASSIVE difference between "rape role play" and actually raping some one. There is absolutely no correlation what so ever. and Child idols in Japan, so what? Not like America doesn't have children beauty pageants with swim suit competitions .. Yea in American with it's super moral high ground, nothing like that could exist. and about violent video games, no one has be even been remotely able to prove other wise either . On top of that Violent Juvenile crimes have been on a down ward trend since the introduction of realistic violent video games. Did I ever say rape roleplay? Violent porn does not equate to rape roleplay. And there is a correlation, like I just stated, as did the studies which you can look for yourself alex. And I am aware that doesn't mean watching violent porn will make someone a rapist, however someone who watches violent porn is more likely to rape someone. Yeah beauty pageants, because those are soooo popular. People hardly watch the Miss USA pageant let alone a child's beauty pageant. Child Idols are more popular in Japan than Child Beauty Contests are in the USA It's not a question of proof but rather one of correlation.And the second part of your statement what is called an illusory correlation. |
 legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
| kitkatbar: Proof, or as Penn & Teller say : BULL***T. It's all yada, yada,yada. I've had enough of moralfags and declarations sounding like facts when they're just statements that amount to nothing more than spurious conclusions. You've made declarations - you provide the proof. Otherwise, it's just BS. |
| kitkatbar said: Yea and that is 2 different things. Your just jumping to conclusions. There is a MASSIVE difference between "rape role play" and actually raping some one. There is absolutely no correlation what so ever. and Child idols in Japan, so what? Not like America doesn't have children beauty pageants with swim suit competitions .. Yea in American with it's super moral high ground, nothing like that could exist. and about violent video games, no one has be even been remotely able to prove other wise either . On top of that Violent Juvenile crimes have been on a down ward trend since the introduction of realistic violent video games. Did I ever say rape roleplay? Violent porn does not equate to rape roleplay. And there is a correlation, like I just stated, as did the studies which you can look for yourself alex. And I am aware that doesn't mean watching violent porn will make someone a rapist, however someone who watches violent porn is more likely to rape someone. Yeah beauty pageants, because those are soooo popular. People hardly watch the Miss USA pageant let alone a child's beauty pageant. Child Idols are more popular in Japan than Child Beauty Contests are in the USA It's not a question of proof but rather one of correlation.And the second part of your statement what is called an illusory correlation. That's nice, but since you have no data what so ever to back any of your claims you're just talking out of your ass. |
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| Malmuth & Check, 1981; Zillmann, 1989. Sources can be searched for on your own, I don't need to baby you. Find the studies yourself. And this shit should be common sense, media influences perception. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
kitkatbar said: Malmuth & Check, 1981; Zillmann, 1989. Sources can be searched for on your own, I don't need to baby you. Find the studies yourself. And this shit should be common sense, media influences perception. No. you're making up shit. You just pulled a random "source" out of your ass and think people will look it up. The burden of proof is on you so I call bullshit on all your claims. Also lol. Even if that "source" is real, 1981 and 1989? It has no basis for anything in modern times. |
kitkatbar said: Malmuth & Check, 1981; Zillmann, 1989. Sources can be searched for on your own, I don't need to baby you. Find the studies yourself. And this shit should be common sense, media influences perception. Actually you do, it's basis of a discussion. But if you weren't just pulling crap out of your ass you would know that. I just hope you never end up as the defendant in a trial, "nah your honor, I don't have an evidence to prove my innocence, I thought the Plaintiff should go find it for me." |
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/81Jrp15.pdf I couldn't find the other paper in question. I can find arguments both for and against banning lolicon. It's true that there is a correlation between being exposed to aggressive media and being more likely to act aggressive. But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. It takes a lot more...effort, or guts, or stupidity, or brutality, whathaveyou, to go outside and kidnap a real child than it takes to download some manga and whack off to it. Ultimately, I think banning lolicon imagery, however, will be pointless. It's a waste of time and money, because it doesn't help anyone. Cartoon children can't feel anything. They are not suffering. The more you focus on them, the less you focus on real kids that need help, which is just stupid. Not to mention, there is a wide range of preferences in the lolicon fandom, so to speak. You'll have the guy who thinks 3D pigs are disgusting and then the spectrum progresses all the way to the guy who lures little kids into his van. The thing is, not everyone in that spectrum is an actual pedophile, and not everyone wants to commit a crime. If you go after people who are into lolicon, you'll be wasting time by arresting people who are otherwise basically harmless and you might miss the ones who will do real harm. I will compare it to video games. There were studies done that show that if you play violent video games you are more likely to act aggressively. But think about it, what was the researchers' definition of aggressive? Yelling at someone? throwing your controller around? Holding a gun to someone's head? If some kid goes on a shooting spree, people jump around blaming it on video games. Except for that one kid that goes crazy there's thousands that don't, which people seem to ignore. For every pedophile, there is a thousand people on 4chan who in real life, could never bring themselves to harm a child. Pedophilia existed before lolicon manga and anime did, so I'm pretty sure that it cannot be the sole cause. Whatever contribution it may have to the problem, it's probably so slim that spending all that effort on getting rid of it is not worth it in the end. So yeah. For the record, I don't find anything appealing about loli porn. I just have an extreme aversion to stupidity. |
     I am the senpai that notices you. |
Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. |
 |
MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. 50/100 people is no where near the number of people needed for a test like this to imply anything. The reason why it hasn't been done should be obvious and you even said it yourself. Tests like this only show that the people who were tested are either pedos or not and doesn't apply to anyone else imo. Also how would we know anything if the room is "unmonitored" eh? |
GogettersMay 30, 2010 1:04 PM
|
Gogetters said: MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. 50/100 people is no where near the number of people needed for a test like this to imply anything. The reason why it hasn't been done should be obvious and you even said it yourself. Tests like this only show that the people who were tested are either pedos or not and doesn't apply to anyone else imo. Also how would we know anything if the room is "unmonitored" eh? It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. |
lonercarrot said: I never knew this many people thought lolicon was so bad Well it is MAL after all. Many ignorant people are part of the site. |
Drunk_Samurai said: lonercarrot said: I never knew this many people thought lolicon was so bad Well it is MAL after all. Many ignorant people are part of the site. True that. |
| Since I registered, I notice a thread of similar topic was created like every week ? |
MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. Probably because there might be some ethical issues with using real children for the experiment. >_> |
I am the senpai that notices you. |
| Actually you're completely wrong, a random sample of 100 people is more than enough to conduct said experiment. The problem; however, would be eliminating external variables. One possibility would take this study in a country where sex with a child is legal and let them watch their loli shit there, and then put them in an unsupervised classroom, or show pictures of children in erotic positions and record their arousal level. |
kitkatbarMay 30, 2010 5:28 PM
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
Drunk_Samurai said: Which is what i'm saying...Gogetters said: MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. 50/100 people is no where near the number of people needed for a test like this to imply anything. The reason why it hasn't been done should be obvious and you even said it yourself. Tests like this only show that the people who were tested are either pedos or not and doesn't apply to anyone else imo. Also how would we know anything if the room is "unmonitored" eh? It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. |
GogettersMay 30, 2010 5:04 PM
|
Drunk_Samurai said: Yeah it would, the purpose of this hypothetical is to determine whether or not causation can be implied between lolicon and pedophilia.It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. Also, given random sampling, 100 or so samples is more than sufficient for a reasonable confidence level |
|
| pedophile is sexual preference in children over adult simply having arousal is Not adequate next |
Gogetters said: Drunk_Samurai said: Which is what i'm saying...Gogetters said: MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. 50/100 people is no where near the number of people needed for a test like this to imply anything. The reason why it hasn't been done should be obvious and you even said it yourself. Tests like this only show that the people who were tested are either pedos or not and doesn't apply to anyone else imo. Also how would we know anything if the room is "unmonitored" eh? It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. You said it right there where I bolded the text. MisterSaito said: Drunk_Samurai said: Yeah it would, the purpose of this hypothetical is to determine whether or not causation can be implied between lolicon and pedophilia.It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. Also, given random sampling, 100 or so samples is more than sufficient for a reasonable confidence level No it wouldn't since it would only prove that people who think they are connected are retards. |
Drunk_Samurai said: lonercarrot said: I never knew this many people thought lolicon was so bad Well it is MAL after all. Many ignorant people are part of the site. Actually it makes even less sense since most of the people here have come in contact with some kind of Lolicon anime, and yet they keep watching. These are the same idiots who argue lolicon is bad and then give Lucky Star a 10. In fact it doesn't even have to be that blatant, almost all anime have under 18 year old girls, if you enjoy those anime then by their fucked up way of thinking you're automatically a pedophile. I'm going to prove right now how fucking stupid this whole lolicon crap is: by American, Japanese, pretty much world standards the following anime girls are under 18: Haruhi Suzumiya, everyone in TMoHS C.C Horo Hitagi Senjougahara, everyone in Bakemonogatari Rei Ayanami Kyou Fujibayashi, everyone in Clannad Mio Akiyama, everyone in K-ON! I could keep going...... If you like any of the above characters you are a pedophile.......now, isn't that fucking stupid?!?!? |
Drunk_Samurai said: Apparently you don't understand me correctly...Gogetters said: Drunk_Samurai said: Which is what i'm saying...Gogetters said: MisterSaito said: Nika-senpai said: But, correlation does not, ever, imply causation. yeah, it can given a controlled experiment. what we need to do is lock 50 random people in a room for a month with some loli porno, and another 50 random people in a room without loli porno and then release each one in an unmonitored kindergarten and then see if there's any correlation there. In this case, a correlation implies causation. Don't know why it hasn't been done yet. 50/100 people is no where near the number of people needed for a test like this to imply anything. The reason why it hasn't been done should be obvious and you even said it yourself. Tests like this only show that the people who were tested are either pedos or not and doesn't apply to anyone else imo. Also how would we know anything if the room is "unmonitored" eh? It wouldn't do shit since reading/watching lolicon does not mean a person is a pedophile. You said it right there where I bolded the text. I am saying that the only thing it would show (only on the off chance someone did do anything) is that that one person who did anything was a "pedo". It wouldn't show anything at all related to loli or anything else... Is that better? |
|
| I love how you told me to back my shit up and then say something like I gave Lucy Star a 10 and then you provide a list of women who are past puberty including two immortals who have lived for at least 100+ years. First of all they aren't children, they are teens, and those shows aren't even 'lolicon' anime like you say. And secondly just because you watch a program doesn't mean you want to bang the characters. And Drunken_Samurai that is bullshit, you have no backings for your claims because an experiment like that has never been conducted, so it cannot be said there is no connection between pedophilia and 'lolicon'. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
kitkatbar said: First of all they aren't children They're definitely lolis, though. I don't care how old they are, a loli is a loli. |
 Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
| No seeing as they have clearly gone through puberty and aren't flat as a board. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
| lolis! Do i win? |
GogettersMay 31, 2010 8:27 AM
|
kitkatbar said: No seeing as they have clearly gone through puberty and aren't flat as a board. Wat.         |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
| What? I think you misunderstood something. You want to provide a explanation for that string of loli filth you just posted? |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
| I'm sorry, nobody ever brought up Lucky Star in relation to you. Of course. |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
| As I figured you misconstrued something. I was talking about the idea that alex presented when he said that people bash lolicon and then give lucky star a 10. I have never even seen the show and never plan to seeing as it looks awful, and in the second part of my statement I was referring to the animes he bolded, Bakemonogatari etc. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
| Either way you said they weren't loli. |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
| No,no,no. I said these Haruhi Suzumiya, everyone in TMoHS C.C Horo Hitagi Senjougahara, everyone in Bakemonogatari Rei Ayanami Kyou Fujibayashi, everyone in Clannad Mio Akiyama, everyone in K-ON! weren't lolis Lucky Star characters are most definitely lolis. With the exception of a couple of them. It's definitely a pedophiles anime. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
| Ahahahaha, you are too much. |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
kitkatbar said: I love how you told me to back my shit up and then say something like I gave Lucy Star a 10 and then you provide a list of women who are past puberty including two immortals who have lived for at least 100+ years. First of all they aren't children, they are teens, and those shows aren't even 'lolicon' anime like you say. And secondly just because you watch a program doesn't mean you want to bang the characters. And Drunken_Samurai that is bullshit, you have no backings for your claims because an experiment like that has never been conducted, so it cannot be said there is no connection between pedophilia and 'lolicon'. No it really isn't. Lolicon is not child porn which is what real pedos like. Though reading your later posts you've revealed yourself to be a troll so this post is pointless. |
kitkatbar said: No,no,no. I said these Haruhi Suzumiya, everyone in TMoHS C.C Horo Hitagi Senjougahara, everyone in Bakemonogatari Rei Ayanami Kyou Fujibayashi, everyone in Clannad Mio Akiyama, everyone in K-ON! weren't lolis Lucky Star characters are most definitely lolis. With the exception of a couple of them. It's definitely a pedophiles anime. You just don't get it, do you?? It's not about being childish looking, it's about being under 18, technically a pedophile is anyone who wants minors!!! and, that's the keyword isn't it, MINORS, ANYONE UNDER 18. oh, BTW, your whole defense of C.C and Horo being "immortals", what the fuck does that have to do with anything??? It's not how old you are, it's HOW YOU LOOK! Here's a perfect example: Konata Izumi (Lucky Star) is 18, I guess she's fair game, right?? I'm 21, if I start to go after 16 year old girls, GUESS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME??? A Lolicon is anyone who likes MINORS, UNDER 18!!!, that includes 16 and 17. OH, and if you don't already know there is a bill in Japan, that will BAN any sexual activity depicting anyone who looks like a MINOR, again that includes 16 and 17. Now, YOU MIND TELLING ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 17 and an 18 YO??? |
 |
 Xiaoling Squirrel; baddest rodent in the forest. |
kitkatbar said: No seeing as they have clearly gone through puberty and aren't flat as a board. How's about we have a little...  ROUND TWO?           |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
alexcampos said: you just don't get it, do you?? It's not about being childish looking, it's about being under 18, technically a pedophile is anyone who wants minors!!! and, that's the keyword isn't it, MINORS, ANYONE UNDER 18. oh, BTW, your whole defense of C.C and Horo being "immortals", what the fuck does that have to do with anything??? It's not how old you are, it's HOW YOU LOOK! Here's a perfect example: Konata Izumi (Lucky Star) is 18, I guess she's fair game, right?? I'm 21, if I start to go after 16 year old girls, GUESS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME??? A Lolicon is anyone who likes MINORS, UNDER 18!!!, that includes 16 and 17. OH, and if you don't already know there is a bill in Japan, that will BAN any sexual activity depicting anyone who looks like a MINOR, again that includes 16 and 17. Now, YOU MIND TELLING ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 17 and an 18 YO??? No it's not. A pedophile is someone who lusts after prepubescent children, and there is such a thing called the age of consent. That being 16 in NY. That means a 16 year old can legally give their consent to have intercourse with anyone they wish. And with depictions the issue is obviously how they look, not their fictional age. And the characters you listed don't look like little girls. And you're saying that 14 year old boys that go for 14 year old girls are 'lolicons'. |
legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus |
kitkatbar said: And with depictions the issue is obviously how they look Not the context of their character's personality and age within the show. Such as maturity, independence, intelligence, experience, ability, and ect. Nope, only looks are important. Because you can only objectify a fictional character and can't like the context of their personality as developed characters within a show. |
Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
alexcampos said: Lolicon is even more encompassing than what you described. That's right - even more encompassing. |
kitkatbar said: No it's not. A pedophile is someone who lusts after prepubescent children, and there is such a thing called the age of consent. That being 16 in NY. That means a 16 year old can legally give their consent to have intercourse with anyone they wish. And with depictions the issue is obviously how they look, not their fictional age. And the characters you listed don't look like little girls. And you're saying that 14 year old boys that go for 14 year old girls are 'lolicons'. The age of consent if VERY loose, it differs from state to state. Also you should know this: (this is straight from Wikipedia) In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is loosely used without formal definition to describe those convicted of child sexual abuse or the sexual abuse of a minor, including both prepubescent children and pubescent or post-pubescent adolescents. The fact is that anyone under 18, is very much protected, this is done to reduce teen pregnancy, rape, and other sexual "immoralities". Therefore saying things like age of consent, and pedophilia is only for prepubescent children WILL NOT CUT IT. |
| That bill isn't going to pass in Japan, some members of the Japanese Government even said that it would harm artistic creativity and expression, there's more opposition to the bill than there is support. I give it a 0% chance, plus what would be done about the current media on the market now, it would be messier than any top secret project gone wrong. @Kitkatbar: With the exception of Konata's mom, all of the characters shown are not lolis, they're drawn in chibi style. |
 |
alexcampos said: You just don't get it, do you?? It's not about being childish looking, it's about being under 18, technically a pedophile is anyone who wants minors!!! and, that's the keyword isn't it, MINORS, ANYONE UNDER 18. oh, BTW, your whole defense of C.C and Horo being "immortals", what the fuck does that have to do with anything??? It's not how old you are, it's HOW YOU LOOK! Here's a perfect example: Konata Izumi (Lucky Star) is 18, I guess she's fair game, right?? I'm 21, if I start to go after 16 year old girls, GUESS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME??? A Lolicon is anyone who likes MINORS, UNDER 18!!!, that includes 16 and 17. OH, and if you don't already know there is a bill in Japan, that will BAN any sexual activity depicting anyone who looks like a MINOR, again that includes 16 and 17. Now, YOU MIND TELLING ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 17 and an 18 YO??? Definitely the funniest post so far ^^. Every second sentence contradicts itself ("It's all about them being MINORS - meaning UNDER18" ; "It doesn't have to do with age (C.C. and Holo) it's only how they look like") and your definitions are, well, YOUR definitions, nothing more. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
ukonkivi said: Oh yay, another chance to turn this into a "is this loli?" thread when all of my other ones failed. You should totally label all those characters with names for me. Will so give you a christian side hug if you do. |
 |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |