Soo.... Now that we've heard from all sides, what do you think of the controversy going on at Nintendo of America?
Narmy said: The paper in question was written in 2011. There may be newer, stricter laws that weren't in place at the time. NeoVolt said: She upholds and defends Japanese right to self-govern regarding child pornography. So what's her problem then? According to an actual Japanese person, that's exactly what they were doing. https://twitter.com/mombot/status/716207147806117888 In regards to the domestic specifics referenced by Saddest_Gamer, as I read her position, they aren't really relevant. It is the "Cultural Imperialism," as she puts it, of the US and others that she is arguing against. And I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with her conclusions. In fact it's a little unfocused as an academic treatment of the subject. She may very well be a "half-informed outsider." I'm just pointing out (having read it without bias) that her paper does not advocate child pornography. EDIT: In fact, in my opinion, it appears that her entire sub-textual position and purpose for the article is to argue against the censorship of anime, manga, VN's, etc....that would be based on the cultural bias of America. |
NeoVoltApr 2, 2016 5:52 PM
NeoVolt said: Of course her main conclusion is her upholding and defending Japan's right to self-govern regarding child pornography, that's the most obvious one, but she makes other conclusions in her paper and that's what I'm making my inference on. They are not mutually exclusive.@TR-8RCaim OK. I guess I need to be way more concise because you are missing the forest for the trees. Nothing you've said shows that she advocates child pornography. She does not "uphold or defend" child pornography as "valid or right." This is a simple fact. She upholds and defends Japanese right to self-govern regarding child pornography. THESE 2 ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You could argue that she goes beyond and actually supports and defends the laws themselves. But even then, in order to make your point, you would first have to prove that the Japanese laws themselves "uphold or defend child pornography as valid or right." And then you could maybe say that she indirectly advocates child pornography. But this would be very difficult considering that Japan's refusal to litigate (negative premise), logically, can not be used to prove advocation (positive conclusion). "Alison Rapp advocates child pornography" is a false statement. I suggest re-reading what you quoted under the assumption that it is intended to prove what she actually said she was trying to prove. One of Rapp's driving points is censorship and the importance of free speech and artistic freedom. And supporting free speech and artistic freedom also means supporting the hateful and obscene material that comes with that freedom of speech and artistic creativity. In this case, Alison Rapp speaks for the rights of Japan to self-govern their laws for child pornography, opposes the censorship of media that includes child pornography as stated multiple times in her article (but is most explicitly stated in her conclusion), and upholds the idea of how a link does not exist between the effects of intense media and criminal thought so technically speaking, she does advocate child pornography. I've reread her academic paper enough times to understand her point, but if you're saying I'm missing "the forest for the trees" then maybe it's the article itself? Where is this "90 page" paper you read when the one I've found and linked is only 16 pages long? |
 |
| The thing about her supporting child porn isn't my issue with her, my issue is how can she be ok with that but want censorship of fictional young game/anime characters. |
| She deserved to get fired because she breached the contract. Anyone saying "Oh, they did this only to not talk about the Gamergate bullshit." clearly has some insider information that would want to share with us, right? I thought so. If you're going to claim that their statement is wrong, base it on something. You literally quoted THE PERSON THAT WAS FIRED for information about how Nintendo sees moonlighting, when they stated that she was fired because of that, so she is wrong. Nintendo isn't the first company to have moonlighting as a breach in contract, it's not even an odd one since pretty much most companies have it. In Japan they see it as even worse because by moonlighting, you're basically saying they're not paying you enough, but that's besides the point, as long as there's a breach in the contract, they have every right to drop her, and I agree with her being fired. I also agree with her firing because she was a dick towards customers and mocked rightful complaints when she made the same rightful complaints in other cases, e.g. XCX. She COULD have been rightfully fired for her "wrong think" even if I don't agree with that, since making those claims ON YOUR WORK ACCOUNT is BEYOND RETARDED. She would have deserved to get fired for muddying their reputation, since they're trying to keep their "children-only" image, which has nothing to do with "child pornography" when it comes to most people in the west. I'm sorry but, if "wrong think" wouldn't be a thing, we wouldn't need PR in the first place. As for people arguing if she indeed supports child pornography. Yes (from my perspective, to support it, you need to support the producers, then again, for arguments sake), she argued for possession in her papers, I won't be bothered to look through the whole thing again, but I'll try and find the images with the highlights. She muddies the two, virtual and real. But if you read it carefully, you'll see that in some cases she makes clear distinctions. She's all for attacking the producers but not the consumers. And you all know my position on that matter. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
TR-8RCaim said: This is the same mistake you keep making. You need it to be true to prove your point. But it's ridiculous that you think this statement is true. It is internally self-contradictory. supporting free speech and artistic freedom also means supporting the hateful and obscene material that comes with that freedom of speech and artistic creativity. This is your argument: Premise 1: Alison supports A Premise 2: A = B (statement above) Conclusion: Alison supports B The argument is valid, but in your case, the conclusion is false because one of your premises is false. Example of your argument in practice with an additional premise: Premise 1 (True): I support the statement that "The earth is round" should be protected as free speech. Premise 2 (True): I support the statement that "The earth is flat" should be protected as free speech. Premise 3: "supporting free speech and artistic freedom also means supporting the hateful and obscene material that comes with that freedom of speech and artistic creativity." ----------------------------------------------------------- (If premise 3 is true then the following conclusion must be true) Conclusion 1: I support that the earth is flat AND round (necessarily false) And the logic doesn't magically change just because you are referring to something "hateful or obscene." Example: "If you support the KKK's right to free speech then you support racism" is clearly false. I don't know what else to say at this point. If you state it like you did before with negative premises supporting a positive conclusion (Rapp advocates not banning CP = Rapp advocates CP) then the argument is invalid. If you state it like you do above, the argument is valid but the conclusion is false. I'm sorry but you're just completely wrong. The statement "Alison Rapp advocates child pornography" is false. I'm not going to waste any more time stating the obvious. |
NeoVoltApr 3, 2016 6:43 AM
| @NeoVolt Again, do you think that advocating for possession of CP is supporting CP or not? If you think it means you support CP, then yes, she supports CP. Otherwise, no. |
ImmahnoobApr 3, 2016 6:11 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: She doesn't advocate for possession. @NeoVolt Again, do you think that advocating for possession of CP is supporting CP or not? If you think it means you support CP, then yes, she supports CP. Otherwise, no. -She advocates for lesser penalties for possession relative to creation and dissemination. -She advocates Japan not banning CP. These are not the same things as advocating for possession and they certainly aren't the same as advocating CP itself. I feel as if I'm coming across as some kind of huge Rapp supporter. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the statement in the OP that "Alison Rapp advocates Child Pornography" is a false statement given the evidence. |
NeoVoltApr 3, 2016 6:45 AM
| This isn't even a semantics argument though, you are just wrong: In page 44 of the academic journal, Rapp suggests this: "The same idea can theoretically be applied to child pornography. Those who possess and view child pornography (of any kind-that involving real or fictional children) may not necesssarily become child abusers-though they may increasingly believe that the sexualization of children is a frequent occurence in the world, and possibly that others are likely to feel as positive as they do about child pornography. It could be argued that a correlative link is not grounds enough to ban even just the possession of a kind of media. If it was considered adequate grounds, then it would be socially acceptable for governments to censore movies, pieces of art or literature, or video games, because there's substantial evidence to suggest that movie, television, and video game violence correlates with violent acts against others, and that adult pornography correlatives with sexual behavioral deviancy and acts of sexual violence, abuse, and rape. Yet it is usually not socially nor societially acceptable to censor those media, because the general public, as well as most legislators, seem to understand that a correlative link is not the same thing as a casual link (or more people would be rapists and murderers). The same idea should apply to child pornography, especially in terms of allowing individual countries to legistlate (or not) as they wish)" Lesser penalties being NO PENALTIES. As for the second point, if you're talking virtual, then yes, she does that, but she also talks REAL. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Now you're making the same mistakes This isn't even a semantics argument though, you are just wrong: In page 44 of the academic journal, Rapp suggests this: "The same idea can theoretically be applied to child pornography. Those who possess and view child pornography (of any kind-that involving real or fictional children) may not necesssarily become child abusers-though they may increasingly believe that the sexualization of children is a frequent occurence in the world, and possibly that others are likely to feel as positive as they do about child pornography. It could be argued that a correlative link is not grounds enough to ban even just the possession of a kind of media. If it was considered adequate grounds, then it would be socially acceptable for governments to censore movies, pieces of art or literature, or video games, because there's substantial evidence to suggest that movie, television, and video game violence correlates with violent acts against others, and that adult pornography correlatives with sexual behavioral deviancy and acts of sexual violence, abuse, and rape. Yet it is usually not socially nor societially acceptable to censor those media, because the general public, as well as most legislators, seem to understand that a correlative link is not the same thing as a casual link (or more people would be rapists and murderers). The same idea should apply to child pornography, especially in terms of allowing individual countries to legistlate (or not) as they wish)" Lesser penalties being NO PENALTIES. As for the second point, if you're talking virtual, then yes, she does that, but she also talks REAL. TR-8RCaim did, though one of them to a lesser degree. First, a semantic one. Arguing against a ban is not the same thing as advocation. I don't believe the bible should be banned. That doesn't mean I advocate Christianity. What I am advocating is free speech. Rapp is doing the same thing. Also she is arguing that CP is free speech, which I don't agree with. But it does not equal advocation. This word is an important one and it is inaccurate in this situation. Second, it is unreasonable to take individual quotes out of the context of her stated thesis/conclusion. In context, the point of passage is: "a correlative link is not the same thing as a casual link (or more people would be rapists and murderers)." Which she then relates back to her thesis: "The same idea should apply to child pornography, especially in terms of allowing individual countries to legistlate (or not) as they wish)" So you could argue that she supports no ban for CP (which is the same thing as no penalties for possessors), but it is because she believes a correlative link is not the same thing as a causal link. As in the position that SHOULD be inferred here based on the context is just that she doesn't believe that possession of CP causes violence/abuse of children. Rapp is saying "Possession of CP does not cause violence/abuse of children" (a logically a negative premise). Arguing that this means she is saying "Possessing CP is valid/right" (an affirmative conclusion) is invalid. You can't prove an affirmative conclusion with a negative premise. Alison Rapp does not advocate child pornography. Alison Rapp does not advocate the possession of child pornography. The other mistake I'm seeing (though not from Immahnoob yet) is treating this article as if it were an editorial. It isn't. It's a semi-poorly written academic argument. As such it is additionally unreasonable to loosely infer her personal opinions on the subject matter out of the context of her stated thesis. |
NeoVoltApr 3, 2016 12:40 PM
| I think that Nintendo is a dumbypants and they shouldn't have taken that nice ladies job away. |
| @Immahnoob I thought about it a bit and I'm going to clarify. We are in agreement that "Alison Rapp advocates CP" is false, yes? So on the matter of "Alison Rapp advocates the possession of CP" I'm going to split the statement. To me it seems to mean "Alison Rapp believes people should possess CP." This statement is inaccurate. However, I concede that one could argue that "Alison Rapp believes people have the right to possess CP." In my opinion, I don't believe that is what she is saying. I feel she is just being a little heavy-handed in trying to argue her main thesis. But I may be mistaken on that point. |
| @NeoVolt I won't be bothered to actually answer your other post since you've "clarified". But you're just trying to run a semantics argument here with Caim (and with me, you know fully well what people mean). No, I don't believe she advocated for "child porn" per say, since the main issue is actually making such material, more than consuming it, and this is a data based statement. To me "advocating for child porn" means enabling the making and the distribution of such material, not enabling possession. And no, I'm not saying that she says that people should possess CP, that's retarded and I never came up with such a thing. What I am saying is that she believes people should have such right and her personal opinion can be seen here: http://imgur.com/a/uGLHz Although the one who made this album is a retard, his information is useful. She sides with the camp for less strict legislation for possession, she says so in her conclusion, and her personal statements on the matter seem to support that. The issue is that all of this ties perfectly with why her being a PR for Nintendo is a bad idea. She talked about it on her work account knowing fully well how people see this shit, besides how she herself muddies terminology in her own thesis (e.g. personal statements tend to bring up "adolescent" instead of "child", she uses "child" but I did not read "adolescent" in her thesis). I know exactly why she was targeted by a specific group. That's because they went on a moral crusade to garner some Internet brownie points. That's literally the reason. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: A pointless semantics argument would be over a word used incorrectly/unclearly where a gross approximation of the authors meaning can still be implied AND there is no argument with that meaning. As such I have no intention of arguing semantics with you. @NeoVolt I won't be bothered to actually answer your other post since you've "clarified". But you're just trying to run a semantics argument here with Caim (and with me, you know fully well what people mean). However, this was TR-8RCaim's OP: TR-8RCaim said: I'm just gonna state the facts. ... *Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography ... It's pretty clear what Caim is stating. It has been made additionally clear as he's continued to support and argue it as stated in the OP. I have every reason to believe that he meant it word for word by their actual definitions. My problem with TR-8RCaim's position is not one of semantics. My problem is that "*Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography" is FALSE. This a problem that can significantly impact the rhetoric on the subject of Alison Rapp. Also, TR-8RCaim should care because it calls into question his credibility. If he didn't mean it as he wrote it, he should just come out and say so. |
NeoVolt said: Except I do mean it. Immahnoob said: A pointless semantics argument would be over a word used incorrectly/unclearly where a gross approximation of the authors meaning can still be implied AND there is no argument with that meaning. As such I have no intention of arguing semantics with you. @NeoVolt I won't be bothered to actually answer your other post since you've "clarified". But you're just trying to run a semantics argument here with Caim (and with me, you know fully well what people mean). However, this was TR-8RCaim's OP: TR-8RCaim said: I'm just gonna state the facts. ... *Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography ... It's pretty clear what Caim is stating. It has been made additionally clear as he's continued to support and argue it as stated in the OP. I have every reason to believe that he meant it word for word by their actual definitions. My problem with TR-8RCaim's position is not one of semantics. My problem is that "*Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography" is FALSE. This a problem that can significantly impact the rhetoric on the subject of Alison Rapp. Also, TR-8RCaim should care because it calls into question his credibility. If he didn't mean it as he wrote it, he should just come out and say so. You maintain the belief that I'm using the statement "Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography" in the sense that I'm saying she publicly recommends it but I'm not. I'm using the other definition, the other meaning; (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right. In her paper she establishes that there is no link towards child pornography and child abuse, asks for the reduction of legal penalties for possession of child pornography, and maintains the idea that child pornography should not be censored. She defends child pornography's right as artistic media and in a way, that means she advocates for child pornography. If you don't see my point on this because your meaning of "advocate" is different from mine, then it literally is an issue of boring meaningless semantics. |
|
TR-8RCaim said: It's not semantics. I suppose I haven't made it clear that the real word I have a problem with isn't "advocate." It's your use of "fact." There isn't sufficient evidence to conclude your statement is fact. And so you shouldn't have said it was a fact. I've already made my points. But a brief summary:She defends child pornography's right as artistic media and in a way, that means she advocates for child pornography. If you don't see my point on this because your meaning of "advocate" is different from mine, then it literally is an issue of boring meaningless semantics. -To arrive at your conclusion you would need to use an affirmative conclusion with a negative premise (invalid), or use a false equivocation (untrue). -This is not an editorial, it's an academic article. As such it's unreasonable to infer any unstated conclusions about her personal stance from her premises, especially given her stated conclusion. That being said, you are welcome to you opinion, or your interpretation. However, (what follows is opinion) I still don't think your interpretation is accurate. There IS a sub-textual perspective present on the pages of her article. This is one reason why it is a sub-par academic paper. Immahnoob said: Also this. And another misleading thing she does is brief differentiation (ex: real vs. virtual CP) and then she appears to equivocate by applying her arguments to both. Reading these carefully, I don't believe she ever intends to equivocate. In fact she appears to specifically avoid explicit equivocation. Anyway, because she isn't the best academic writer, it's important to read carefully and not take her individual statements out of context if your intent is an unbiased evaluation.she herself muddies terminology in her own thesis (e.g. personal statements tend to bring up "adolescent" instead of "child", she uses "child" but I did not read "adolescent" in her thesis). |
NeoVoltApr 3, 2016 9:40 PM
You didn't read the album I gave you though:  She doesn't do this only in her thesis. She is constantly surpassing the line in her own personal statements. Vague as it is, I understand why the normies would raise their concern over this. And I would have also understood Nintendo firing her over this (they didn't fire her over this). |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| It's refreshing to see some justice served. |
Immahnoob said: Vague as it is, I understand why the normies would raise their concern over this. And I would have also understood Nintendo firing her over this (they didn't fire her over this). I did read it. And I completely agree with This-^ I don't think she has a complete logical foundation or a strong grasp of effective communication. That's why it's important to read her statements carefully and not take anything out of context in order to understand what she is trying to say. Having read everything, she seems to have strong feelings that there should be open dialogues about "deviant" sexuality and sexuality of adolescents. But I see no reason to conclude that she would ever advocate the abuse or exploitation necessary for real child pornography to exist. This is one of those unclear but present differentiations she makes in her 2011 paper. I believe the listener/reader is just as responsible for effective communication as the speaker/writer. So that disagreements can be reasonable and we can all avoid unnecessary conflict. That being said, given the Twitter statements, she is failing her half of the responsibility. Making it not impossible, but difficult to ascertain the core belief. The 2011 paper had some academic value. But it seems as if she's given in to the "I'm an activist!" delusion where a strong statement is more important than an accurate one. Or maybe she is just trying to defend herself? Either way using Twitter this way on a complex social issue is a really bad idea, unless you can be very concise AND very accurate. |
NeoVoltApr 4, 2016 11:16 AM
| Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention, Nintendo told her to shut the fuck up several times about her "feminist" activism, and she refused... |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| At least in her thesis, you can construct a reasonable position via context. Twitter as a medium makes it impossible. I'm terribly disappointed that she's tried. I'm too old. That's why I didn't see it before. But it all makes sense. The unnecessary conflict on a lot of different subjects can be traced back to vague, unclear, misleading, or out of context Twitter posts. Twitter is the cause of all the ills of the world including the unnecessary polarization that I hate. Now where is the "delete Twitter" button on this typewriter.......? #NoOneShouldEverTryToLimitRationalDiscourseTo140Characters #EspeciallyIdiots #DeleteTwitter |
I made up my miind on this after someone leaked the part of Nintendo's basic policies reffering to moonlighting and freelance work. I'll let you figure out which clauses she broke (Spoiler alert: she broke clauses 4 and 5). |
 |
| It seems she might have been a prostitute too... I doubt I can post the shit that was found out here though. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
» What are your PC specsST63LTH - 1 hour ago |
1 |
by deg
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» School Days HQ Install ProblemsBurningFlame08 - Oct 28, 2013 |
21 |
by dickwadd456
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Stellar Blade Preview: Sekiro Meets NieR: Automata?deg - Feb 1 |
31 |
by Citrone39
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What are you playing right now? (v2) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )anime-prime - Oct 4, 2020 |
3529 |
by BookBirdie
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Last game you purchased ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Completely_Numb - Mar 15, 2014 |
529 |
by Lunyfreya
»»
3 hours ago |