Forum - View topicNEWS: Canadian Arrested for Importing Loli-porn Manga
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
|
But in the illustrated Bible. . . ba-bump chawackawaaaa.
|
||||
|
||||
spider-moose
 Posts: 137 Location: Ontario, Canada |
|
|||
I got one of those hehe |
||||
|
||||
|
bigbigtruck
Posts: 12 |
|
|||
what |
||||
|
||||
|
bigbigtruck
Posts: 12 |
|
|||
|
I understand that most folks in this thread are arguing that loli manga should not be illegal - and I reluctantly agree. Making lolicom materials a legal offense would require governmental intrusion into private life.
HOWEVER - just because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is right or acceptable. In most states, you can not be arrested for cheating on your spouse or beating up your dog - does that mean that these things are acceptable? Of course not. It is not up to the government or law enforcement to provide moral or social guidance; that is what a community is for. Like many of you posting here, I also regard anime fandom as a community of sorts (though, in recent years, it has become more fragmented as anime has become more widespread). The anime fan community has shown through its words and actions that some things are simply not acceptable - for example, character name changes, poor translations, bad DVD transfers, etc. So why not lolicom and child porn? Why does something this egregious slip by unnoticed, while something like the licensing of Naruto raises so much ire? I can't in good conscience support a police raid on a mangaka's house, but then again, if Joe Blow down the street has a side gig drawing Sakura Does Dallas, would you trust him to watch your kids? |
||||
|
||||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||
 The bloke who got raided wasn't a "manga-ka". He was that bloke down the street in Edmonton who got nicked at the airport for bringing in Japanese kiddy-porn drawings. 
|
||||
|
||||
hkrok76
 Posts: 118 |
|
|||
|
seriously, if you let people you don't know too well take care of your kids, you're asking for trouble. As much as it would be nice to, you can't really trust your fellow man(or woman). Hell, it's hard to trust the people you know too. Most molestations are done by people the child knows. Generally a relative, family acquaintance or caretaker.
God...I actually looked up some sites with statistics to check up if what I said was true...I think I'm going to cry....people are f#$ked up. Anyway, morals are relative. I think it's morally wrong to molest children. I think it's fine to look at lolicon manga and art. Ofcourse my morals are jacked up, but they are my morals.. But the first set is stronger than the second, so I don't really have any problems. Keep it drawn, and keep your hands to yourself. http://www.cgecwm.org/art/this-is-not-a-pipe.jpg |
||||
|
||||
|
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
Well yeah. I'm not passing judgement on anyone for passing judgement on anyone else for their reading of Lolicon. That's between you and whatever diety you answer to (for example, if you worship the Christian God then you obviously wouldn't pass judgement on them, because that's up to God to decide). My position in the matter was only that there shouldn't be any laws that would abridge your RIGHT to read them, regardless of how that effects your standing in the community.
Have you even HEARD the 4Kids version of Sanji? |
||||
|
||||
|
bigbigtruck
Posts: 12 |
|
|||
. <---- point  <---- yer head
|
||||
|
||||
|
Doddler
Posts: 20 |
|
|||
|
Well, all the rambling aside, the guys court date is supposedly today, the 15th... maybe we'll learn more about whats going to happen.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
See, if morals are relative then what you are saying is that there is no moral compass, that what is right and wrong is up to the individual am I correct? So who are you to judge a child molester since his moral values may say that to him that what he's doing is perfectly okay? See, here is the flaw in moral relativism. If moral relativism is the way to go, thus leaving no room for moral absolutes, it has to leave the door open for everything to come in since we cannot judge right from wrong since your statement suggests it's up to the individual. It would also mean there is really no such thing as a war atrocity since we cannot truly judge whether what another person did was morally right or wrong. This would also mean that what the Nazi's did in WWII weren't wrong, it's just they did what they felt was morally right in their own eyes. It says that rape isn't wrong. It can't be afforded to be morally right either - since it's all relative. Helping others can't be the "right" thing to do and it also means that the individual helping is imposing his own wishes on to another. "As long as it isn't hurting anybody else." That's a moral value as well. What about those who don't adhere to that moral value? Are they wrong? Are there some things that are wrong no matter what? Rape, murder, child abuse... not wrong? Those things are morally "ok" under some circumstances because morals are relative? I just can't live like that. Or are you trying to state that only some morals are absolute and some aren't? Who then determines those moral values to be absolute? The government? If Hitler had won, the history books would be different and the government there would have been able to state that what they was "ok." Nope, I can't give it to the government or the individual to determine what is morally right. If morals are relative, I want off this rock. |
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
That's a big misconception (and frequently misquoted). There are many instances in the bible that call for judgement. It does say however (in effect, I'm too lazy to go look up chapter and verse ATM) judge not with condemnation, lest you be judged with that same condemnation. You see, it's possible to judge sin, and not the sinner. I can tell somebody what they are doing is wrong and that they should repent of it. But I can't condemn them to go to hell for it. I can judge the action, I cannot judge the consequences. In a manner of speaking, it's not that different than the justice system. A police officer can see a crime and make an arrest - but he can't convict and sentence the criminal. That's up to the judge. Does that help to make sense? |
||||
|
||||
|
Mr. Panda
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
|
Lolicon art (and hentai in general) has produced a great deal of "squicky" material, but I've also seen works (tho' it's debatable whether it would count as "loli") that can be quite cute and heart-warming (tasteful nudity, no sex or abuse--wish I could give examples). I always wondered if banning the hardcore stuff would also affect otherwise tasteful works "just to be safe." (much like how parents can be accused of producing CP by taking pictures of their 2-year old daughter in the bath). There's a big grey area where we can't tell whether the artist's intent was "pure" or not.
Basically, would Ichigo Marshmallow or the works of Kazuhiko Tsuzuki be concidered pedophilic material? (Although I'm pretty sure people would tell me that's neither here nor there) |
||||
|
||||
|
hkrok76
Posts: 118 |
|
|||
To the victor goes the spoils. The majority rules. Morals are relative, but that doesn't mean the majority has no say. What was morally right in one society might not be morally right in another. Who are we to say what is right or wrong, only god can decide, but then which god? Or perhaps you don't even believe in god? We're only human, we make mistakes. Moral relativism exists because we believe in things. Not everyone believes in the same things. To say what I believe is the one and only truth is being a jackass. The moral compass is the morality of the society and majority of its inhabitants. What the Nazi's did was morally wrong, because we won. We get to say what's right or wrong. Disagee with this if you want, but you would be in denial. We're a lot more complicated than everyone would like to think, and we're not perfect as everyone knows. People make mistakes, and people think differently. The more powerful will be able to control the less powerful, whether the power comes from size, strength, wealth, or anything else. The lesser power will have to subjugate themselves to the higher power, whether their morals are the same or not. |
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
So you are saying that if the Nazi's had won, the deaths of six million Jews, the concentration camps, etc would have been morally just - all because they say so? You know, rape is often based on a power trip. So taking your examples to a personal level, (assuming he's not caught, no bigger fish feeds on him etc.) the rapist gets to call himself morally right because he was able to exert his power over someone lesser? Tell that to the victims. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group