To all lolicons, what about real life loli?

Sugoi-otaku said:


is that the same way theres no such thing as darkness?

ukonkivi said:
lol, Freud was a pedophile.

Zetsubou1117 said:
Raz, I never said you had to be an English guru or master debater, or whatever it was you called it. I'm 16 and plan to become a doctor, diagnostician to be exact, which I'm sure you'll agree has nothing to do with knowing proper grammar. I just feel that it's sad that people haven't even come close to mastering their own original language, but still feel they should be taken seriously in arguements. =/

khorven said:
1,070,000 hits on Google is hardly a spelling fallacy, that's just a new spelling evolving, the same gave rise to things like awful, formally aweful, which is now redlined on my spell-checker.

pulverkaffi said:


arguement: 2,270,000 hits
argument: 136,000,000 hits

First hit on arguement brings up http://arguement.net/, a site devoted to the single message that

"Arguement is a common misspelling of argument:"

So there you see, it's completely inaccurate and I... wait, there's more:

Misspellings like mispellings and misspelings, are so benign that usually they serve only as a criticizing point for people who cant argue arguments, but are switching their focus to these 'fundamental' flaws in your character. "

SHIT I GOT SERVED.


...damn you, internet.

khorven said:
octopodes

Siing said:
Can't believe i'm posting in this thread, but whatever. Take note that if you read this, i have not read all 11 pages of this shit, but a few posts every now and then, mainly from the first couple of pages or so.

Spoiler for giganticness

khorven said:

Yap, and then wait a couple of years, language præscriptivism is stupid and meaning is use. Did the site also give some clear scientific arguments as to why it is a 'misspelling' and not an 'alternative spelling', what the hell is a the difference 'common misspelling' and an 'alternative spelling' any-way? Formalize the fucking difference, they are the same thing, the latter just has more positive connotations. It's 'He is no longer under the living' versus 'He's dead'. language evolves, so does spelling, the people that say 'alot' is wrong but still use things like 'whatever' and 'another' are hypocrite. There is no such thing as 'incorrect spelling' there is merely 'obscure' spelling and some spellings tend to be really obscure. And oh:

86,900,000 for connexion
361,000,000 for connection

'Connexion' was the original spelling, 'connection' arose from confusion with 'correction' and 'refraction' et alia. Same for inflexion / inflection (hint: flexible).

I take spelling 'correctly' a lot further than you do, I write connexion, inflexion, iland, realize, program, octopodes, aeternal however I also realize that there exists no difference between an alternative spelling, and an incorrect spelling formally, I am not a language præscriptivist

Plate said:


There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes.

pulverkaffi said:
I'M PWNED LIKE HAVING BIRD FOR HAIR.

Defiance said:
last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish.

Defiance said:
well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish.

Kaiserpingvin said:


No, majority doesn't rule. Fact does. Define innocence in this context, prove that it exists, and prove that it matters. You know, proper argumentation. Not value-statements and argumentum ad populum.

Kaiserpingvin said:


No, majority doesn't rule. Fact does. Define innocence in this context, prove that it exists, and prove that it matters. You know, proper argumentation. Not value-statements and argumentum ad populum.

khorven said:
penulicompensationem

Sohei said:


uhhh...

Plate said:


There should be an organization of People Who Say Octopodes.

pulverkaffi said:

Prove that fact rules

khorven said:
Hell yeah. compensation of a small penis (accusative).

Iri said:


That's kids' stuff. You haven't arrived until you start using "Platypodes" in public.

Sohei said:


stay away from philosophy pl0x



what a way of putting things..

anyhow, lolicon triumphs again over the nonbelievers.

khorven said:
Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win.

An argumentum ad penulicompensationem just means saying 'You're just trying to compensate for the size of your small penis.'

khorven said:

Coining Latin phrases to make appear internet phænomena as sophisticated: win.

Defiance said:

well guess what, me and 99% of the rest of the world believe that they ARE innocent, and last time i checked, majority rules. all i see is somebody trying to make an excuse for their sick sexual attraction to little children so they don't feel bad about having a disgusting fetish.

pulverkaffi said:
For the record, I completely agree with your statement, but for the sake of being an ass;

Prove that fact rules, argument properly for the supposed correctness of your statement.

khorven said:
An argumentum ad penulicompensationem just means saying 'You're just trying to compensate for the size of your small penis.'

Iri said:

Well, props for correct usage of the dativus auctoris; one doesn't normally see that employed properly on anime boards.

Kaiserpingvin said:


Prepare for massive sophistry and illogical wordplay. We cannot know with certainity, well, anything. We cannot know if there is a fact or not. But we'l assume there is one because a) it seems like it, the world appears coherent (so we assume that if "facts" exists they are in the world we percieve too - mainly because assuming that they don't makes the concept useless) and b) it's useful. If we assumed the contrary it'd be on the basis of strong skepticism and it would be useless; the choices have equal validity but unequal benefit. So we go for the one we percieve as better.

So now that we assume there is factuality, or consistence, in the world we percieve. Now, what does this consist of? We need not go further in this case; because now "majority rules" becomes a subdivision of "fact rules", and as such both can be true simultaneously.

This is of course not what I meant; fact as a visible phenomena which can be tested and verified is, of course, what I were getting at. The reason I think this is the basis for reality is because it's what everyone can agree on without consulting eachother, without soiling our experiences of the external world with semiotic garbage. Assuming that majority rules would, well, make it possible for us to totally change how the world looks: we could somehow make surte that everyone thought humans were immortal, or whatever. Indeed; there are several insatnces of this being disproven - when new things were discovered. How would observations of quantum fluctuation ever have been possible if majority rules - and they, if I'm to extrapolate from what I know of common scientific knowledge at the time, agreed that we were made out of atoms (and how would the shift to atoms have been possible?).

My weltanschuung is made out of game theory.

Kaiserpingvin said:
TRYING AND FAILING SPECTACULARLY! :D It's so tiny, I should really speak in sanskrit, or maybe in musical notation coded like Elgar would have had it.

pulverkaffi said:
thank you.

khorven said:
Studying Sanskrit for me was bested by lack of discipline but dayumn what a classical language it is. All I've done was translate stupid Shakespeare quotes into it. 'Romea, Romea, Kásmin tvam, Romea?' No, I do not read the nágarí script yet even.

khorven said:
I'm talking about 'argumentum'. There is no need to make all other than the head noun plural.

Kaiserpingvin said:
I've learnt a bit of it through plowing through a parallel text Bhagavad-Gita; wouldn't be able to create a sentence for the life of me.

khorven said:
You're correct, sir. I am still amazed I got top grade in latin.

Drunk_Samurai said:
I got a news article but its about "CP" so it would still be off topic and send the topic in a new direction if I post it. Anybody want me to anyway?

Sohei said:
If i was in japan, people would laugh at this.

Drunk_Samurai said:


99%? Yeah, you obviously don't go to /B/

Baman said:

We'd do that in Norway as well. That would be perfectly legal here.

"There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this," Oswalt told ABCNews.com. "That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If a picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever."

I agree with that quote, but if some girl decides to send the pictures, she's accepting the risk and must accept whatever happens in the future. It's her own body after all, but I guess some people doesn't understand such a concept. Look at all the anti abortion people.

Defiance said:


Since when does /b/ represent the general population? lol

/b/ is populated(primarily) by a bunch of 16-26 year old dudes that sit on the computer all day that scream "moar"

Now if you walk out into a populated area, ANYWHERE(besides San Fransisco) and try to make this argument, you'll probably get punched in the face(probably by me), matter of fact, the only reason half the people here even TRY to make the argument is because there are no repercussions for promoting pedophilia under an anonymous name on the internet.

Now if you believe it was MORALLY right to do it, you would say it irl, but im pretty sure you don't. You know its morally wrong, but you want to do it anyways and are just trying to find a justifiable meaning to being a sick and twisted individual.

So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia.

GOOD DAY SIR

Drunk_Samurai said:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1

I don't see how I'm at risk. Anyway I think this is just stupid.

Drunk_Samurai said:


It was a joke, moron.

Defiance said:
So yea, go back to /b/ with the pedophiles and enjoy the exploitation of children and bring me(which there isn't) a justifiable meaning to pedophilia.

Baman said:

How do you know there isn't a justifiable meaning hmm? I grow weary of people flaunting their moral views as the one and true "RIGHT".

Defiance said:


i wonder what you would do if your 8 year old child was molested by some 20 year old dude, i really wonder

Plate said:


Molestation =/= consensual relations

I'd be pissed off if my 8 year old child was raped, but not if she had sex.

Defiance said:


fixed*
please dont bring me out of context