Forum - View topicNEWS: Crunchyroll Simulcasts Lotte no Omocha!/Astarotte's Toy
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||
There's also the camera point of view ~ I do not believe that there quite so many long lingering shots of AstroBoy's AstroPackage. edit: quoteblock fixed Last edited by agila61 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Cecilthedarkknight_234
 Posts: 3820 Location: Louisville, KY |
|
|||||
|
[quote="agila61"]
true enough but there are still the creepy creep doujins out there that should be burned in holy fire. I know some girls that like the show because they think the girls alone are cute but honestly i watched it for the story and just mellowed out. |
||||||
|
||||||
egoist
 Posts: 7762 |
|
|||||
I don't know if that's just hilarious or ignorant. Probably both. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
 Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||
You have some serious problems at reading comprehension, or do you think using the term "elderly republican" is equal to "lumping all people even remotely considered to be elderly as republicans" |
||||||
|
||||||
|
egoist
Posts: 7762 |
|
|||||
|
Oh, yeah, come here little animated girl. I'm gonna eat ya. Yummy yummy! Tastes like first grade ink!
We had better create some laws to protect them virtual lolies. Oh, wait.
So much for predatory creatures that feed on ink and imagination. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||
*facepalm* predatory lolicon = pedophile. Man, I really thought I only required to use apples to teach addition in my own country. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||
I would concur, but the statement wasn't nearly as ridiculous as the statement one's obsession with lolicon be the reason they not supervise children, leaving open the door to the true predator statistics state are more familiar to the child. Perhaps the girls of Strike Witches be defended by the ASPCA over the blatant Stop laughing, egoist. This is serious. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||
Lolicon is a lolita complex ... and most often in the Japanese context not finding the sexually mature but legally underage hot, as in the hit French song by Alizee (and, indeed, the original book), but rather prepubescent children or youngsters just on the edge of pubescence. A lolicon predator would be a predator with a loli complex. Its absurd to read "lolicon predator" as saying all lolicon are predators, when it directly means those predators who are lolicon, and if someone cannot be a predator of a drawn figure, then it directly implies preying on real children. Pragmatically, the question is whether lolicon anime/manga is or is not a risk factor in sickos acting out in RL. That could be 0.1% of the lolicon anime/manga audience, but if its a risk factor, the entertainment enjoyment of 99.9% vs the increased risk of 0.1% preying on children would normally be decided based on the 0.1%. That's an empirical question requiring psychological study ~ indeed, one that I do not know the answer to ~ and one that it is highly unlikely an ANN forum is going to settle to anyone's satisfaction. |
||||||
|
||||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 24124 |
|
|||||
I wasn't even really considering strangers at all when I stated the obvious - I would not be comfortable knowing that somebody who enjoyed sexualized lolicon had unsupervised access to children. Let's take a hypothetical example of Uncle Georgy, whom I have known for 30 years, and whom I know enjoys watching animated representations of children characters in sexualized situations - yeah, no way would I feel comfortable if I knew he was babysitting some underage relatives of his. This is just common sense. If you were hiring somebody for a position in a daycare, or a volunteer for Big Brother/Big Sister or for the Boy Scout/Girl Scouts and you knew they enjoyed watching animated representations of child characters in sexualized situations, that wouldn't give you any pause for concern at all? Really? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||
I can understand this based on your feelings, but I hope you understand this statement differs than the one I attacked.
Would this be the same common sense which states people shouldn't be attracted to cartoon characters to begin with? Or is it the common sense that sits under the sink until it's time to be used? Realize, Blood-, my position is not against your belief but in that it seems too narrowly focused over the scope of the issue. Your own quote says it again: rather than block the male family member who is statistically more likely to abuse the child, you narrowly focus the threat down to what the family member enjoys. This failure to understand the threat you wish to protect children from literally just gave Uncle Georgy the access he needed to get to the child, all because you knew him for 30 years.
No, it wouldn't. I know this is hard to believe, but again, I'm relying on the information provided me by those who are paid to know where those predators exist, and if the statistics show this threat is minimal compared to others, then it's absolutely unjustifiable to treat someone a predator without proof, regardless what they watch or listen to. Christopher Handley is a perfect example of this (who was accused of being a pedophile before an ounce of fact was present, and this literally ruined his life). Again, using this application you validate your feelings, you should also prevent such people from watching your children if they do nothing but play violent video games in their off time. However, for some inexplicable reason, this is waived by you, and this defies common sense. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 24124 |
|
|||||
|
PJ - much of your post simply makes me go, "huh" because I genuinely don't understand what points you are trying to make. So I'll just concentrate on the very little I could decipher:
I've already explained in this thread why I don't believe the "enjoying playing violent video games -> red flag for violent tendencies in real life" is an apt analogy for "watching animated representations of child characters in sexualized situations -> red flag for real life pedophilia." The reason for this is that playing violent video games is something done by a large world wide audience made up of a broad range of ages from all walks of life. Sexualized lolicon is narrowcasted at a very particular niche audience. So let's say 1 person in 50 who enjoys playing violent video games is violent in real life, I would guess that 1 person in __ (where __ is < 50) who enjoys watching sexualized lolicon is a pedophile. Further, I believe the stimulus of sexualized lolicon may act more strongly on a would-be pedophile in terms of encouraging him or her to act upon his or her fantasies than violent video games may encourage a would-be killer to act upon his or her fantasies. I feel on more solid ground with my first contention than I do my second - they are merely beliefs of mine. Any interest in ANY representation of sexualized activity involving child characters has to be considered a red flag. As I've said before, it is not absolute, concrete proof that such a devotee is a pedophile, but it seems ludicrous to me that anybody would consider such a thing to have the same weight as something obviously unrelated like whether that individual prefers the taste of apples to oranges or parts their hair on the left or right. |
||||||
|
||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||
The answer to this question ought to be determined by a personal trait distinct from, but perhaps related to, the single one you cite. The agent's inclination to harm the children in question — in view of (e.g.) their morals, their understanding of laws and their conceptual capacity to distinguish the fictions that gratify them from the children they serve — would be of more importance than their fetish. Now, it could be said (as you seem to assume) that this inclination to harm is itself influenced by the agent's unusual interests. It may be a fact, albeit a probabilistic one, that a certain response to the material in question is causally sufficient to increase the chance of the subject performing certain harmful acts when in certain environments. It would seem odd to suppose, however, that inward reflection would illuminate this psychological tendency in such a way as to free us from doubt on the matter. If it cannot be concluded a priori that a person's actions are influenced by the material in question to this extreme, we must turn to the pragmatic consideration agila61 mentions. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 24124 |
|
|||||
I disagree. Knowledge of this proclivity, as far as I'm concerned, brings with it an unacceptable level of risk associated with that individual. I do not need to be "free from all doubt on the matter." I acknowledge this means that I may be precluding a very qualified individual who would do an excellent job and pose no risk to his or her underage charges, but that risk has to be balanced against the possibility that the individual has unhealthy urges with respect to children. Can you imagine the guilt you would feel if you ignored the sexualized lolicon proclivity and that person later went on to molest a child? Try explaining your fairness doctrine to an outraged parent then. This really is a silly conversation. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
mangamuscle
Posts: 2658 Location: Mexico |
|
|||||
If you are ever in the position of firing an employee for your suspicions (as in, no hard evidence) born from his/her reading habits I would like to see you explain it to the judge when said individual brings on a demand for unjustified sacking. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group