— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
← darkroom
do you think lolis/shotas are wrong?
what do you think?
Oh boy, i can feel a shitstorm happening
6 hours later; Well...i suppose i was correct.
[Removed]
The answer for fiction is always Yes, and I don't even care if I don't like it or not: the moment you "no" one thing, you carry that weight on to the next objectionable topic, and then the next, so on and so forth. "Blasphemy/Heresy" for depicting religions and Gods in a light that does not follow their rulings and teachings: Religious fiction and surmising BANNED! "Killing of humans in any form, real or otherwise, is immoral! It also causes violence!": Video Games BANNED! Music with violent lyrics? Influencing children into antisocial activity, we say! BANNED, and we'll find your Pirate Radio ship next! (These are all based on real world examples, btw)
It's called a Slippery Slope for a reason, and moral busy bodies have been doing this shit since the dawn of time: I don't like it, I proclaim that it causes this problem that has existed before the object of my ire existed, other morons agree with me, BOOM: BANNED and on to the next until only OUR truth remains and all focus and follow only what we have to offer..."the 'Truth'".
In the U.S. Loli/Shouta and other forms of crafted (I'll say, from the mind, although using real-world inspirations is not illegal unless -> read on) fiction, while objectionable, is protected under law because something being objectionable doesn't mean someone is being hurt to produce it, or being hurt because it was consumed. The moment a REAL person is used as a source, standin, or creative focus for a fictional creation it becomes abuse (I assume this breaks off if the person cannot be identified with the work) and they're going to come knocking on your god damn door.
Basically, the stupid fucking movie on Netflix: it's Fiction, but the fucking morons actually filmed, in real life, with real children, with real adults present, objectionable content that could pass for soft-core pedophilia simply because the content as presented is sexual in nature (where as child-prostitutes in other movies, while being presented with the title, do not act as the title implies...so not in nature, and only as a plot device | Note: I get the feeling that some European countries may have different laws regarding this, and some level of non-sexual acting within a sexual nature may be allowed). They're deserving of the hell they're catching; Loli/Shouta, however, is a god damn sheet of paper with flat-chested drawn on top...may as well draw stick figures with arrows saying "5y/o" pointing at them and conjure the argument that it should be banned...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita
you know that "slippery slope" is often considered a logical fallacy and therefore not an argument, right?
[Removed]
it's only not a fallacy when there is evidence of a slope in question, i.e. a causation is already self-evident. in which case, you don't need to invoke the "slippery slope" because the causation isn't what would be in question. so no, you don't know what you're talking about, otherwise you would've pointed this out and not played vague word games. in this case, there is no evidence that banning such imagery would lead to a "slippery slope," if you think there is, show me that it exists in Australia. don't bother, because it doesn't, ergo this application of "slippery slope" is indeed fallacious.
blocking me won't change the fact that you got wrecked hard.
no
lock this man up
Nah it's a fucking drawing.
[Removed]
Showing your own superiority by not responding anymore, a very healthy and grown-up attitude.
Yes because having keyboard wars on the internet is a very healthy and grown up thing to do after all
They already wasted time by replying to the original comment. And if you just throw out a claim like that, you should be prepared to get replies. Categorically saying "won't respond winkyface" therefore seems very immature to me, yes.
continue this thread →They clearly speak from personal experience and you should respect that ;)
Lolis and shotas arent wrong.
Lolicons and shotacons are wrong.
Thank you for listening to my TED talk.
They are drawings, not real people.
Usually, I don't think it's wrong to like those stuff. The reason why I don't think it's wrong is that the anime/manga style is very very simplified and for that reason in most cases, the anime/manga doesn't look real and you can't tell the age by looking. But in some rare cases, it does look somewhat realistic, and in those cases, I don't like it.
It's a simple fucking drawing that doesn't try to represent the human appearance in a realistic way.
I am not gay but I think traps are fcking hot, it should be the same with loli/shota they are just fictional.
yes
Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon) is Japanese discourse or media focusing on the attraction to young or prepubescent girls.
Shotacon (ショタコン, shotakon) is a Japanese slang describing an attraction to young boys.i've never been comfortable with the idea of this, at all.
i truly don't understand how it's suddenly seen as acceptable to openly enjoy erotic images of young / prebubescent children as long as it's in anime form.
"but they're 500 years old!" if someone said they were attracted to a baby but used this logic, you would probably still feel uncomfortable with that, right? just because they appear a couple years older than a baby/toddler doesn't make it suddenly okay."but it's just an image! it's not like i'm attracted to lolis/shotas in real life!" if you went round to an old man's house and he had naked drawings of little girls in his room, you would find that suspicious, wouldn't you? but why? it's just drawings, it's not like he's attracted to them in real life. the same logic could be applied here.
i dunno... i just have pretty strong opinions about it haha. there are lots of lolis/shotas that clearly aren't children and are just immature / small-chested / short, in which case they're probably just categorised wrong and aren't actually lolis/shotas. it's okay to be attracted to these traits, it's not okay to be attracted to young children in any form of media imo.
Yeah, at least the hentai and romance aspect makes me uncomfortable, but what makes me even more uncomfortable is how many people sexualize drawings of kids. Just because it's an abstraction of the real thing doesn't mean it's right, if anything I think it promotes pedophilia and so can be easily labeled as immoral.
Molesting a child is wrong, having an outlet to live out whatever fantasy may be enough for some people or it might push them to do something reprehensible. Depends on the person, you spank to what you spank to at the end of the day, moral conundrums are irrelevant.
Yes, of course it's wrong, no questions asked :)
