Poll: underage animated female characters...

[Jegsimmons]

my answer, no......doesn't mean it isn't shifty you looney lolita lovers

(yes i really wanted to use the alliteration.)

 

[duowolf]

This kind of thing is actually Illegal in the UK, but I think its a stupid law.

Fictional animated characters are much better than the alternive *Shudders*

I've lived in the UK all my life and never heard of such a law. They talked about it for a while but it was never actully passed into real law. Or if it did the government never actully bothered to tell anyone.

 

[Gigano]

When it's clearly fictional, absolutely anything goes.

Restrictions on public marketing can be fine and all, but the product itself should never be censored or banned. Only discernible harm to actual persons can warrant that, and there is none to be found in fictional depictions.

That such ban befall a game featuring exceedingly busty women is of course even more retarded, as it doesn't even make sense from that worthless "please think of the children" point of view it originated in. Full retard x2.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I've lived in the UK all my life and never heard of such a law. They talked about it for a while but it was never actully passed into real law. Or if it did the government never actully bothered to tell anyone.

It's the UK. Do you honestly think the government here would tell you anything? No, just sit back and binge on the latest celebrity twaddle on the telly.

Also here's a link for your convenience [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_Kingdom].

 

[CrystalShadow]

Eh, it doesn't exploit anyone per se, but it encourages pedophile behavior.

That's quite the statement to make, any factual evidence (Study showing correlation) to back the claim? I got curious about that, and never found evidence pointing to it. If anything it would curb an urge for some.

No, I don't have any factual evidence (I'll look for some in a second), but it seems logical.

If you let someone with anger management issues lose control constantly in harmless ways (punching inanimate objects), it doesn't curb their desire, it just gets them in the habit of giving into it. Eventually, these habits could manifest less harmlessly.

The same could be true for pedophiles, but, like I said, I don't have any studies showing correlations.

The inverse seems equally logical to me, actually, and there's a fancy name for when people get told things and go "Oh, that makes sense" - then they also get told something that's clearly "common sense logic" which contradicts the first, and that makes sense too. Which is why throwing assertions as facts is very risky indeed.

Did I do this?

My first assertion was that it could encourage pedophiles. My second assertion was an slightly more fleshed out form of this; in that I said it could get pedophiles into the habit of giving into their desires and therefore cause them to eventually act on their desires in more drastic ways, ie: actually abuse a child, or view actual pornography involving minors (I said "manifest less harmlessly", so maybe I was a bit unclear).

Those don't contradict each other in my opinion.

I don't think you're following through the logical chain of thought you're being presented with.

Your reply suggests you think it's about you contradicting your own statement, but the point being made about treating assertions as facts, which has to do with situations like the following.

Person A makes an assertion that seems logical, which person B reads and agrees with.
Person C makes another assertion which seems logical, but completely contradicts the assertion made by person A. Person B then reads this, and also agrees with it.

Yet, in having agreed with both person A, and person C, who hold mutually exclusive ideas, person B is now left with the knowledge that they cannot both be true, irrespective of how they seem logical, and a product of common sense.
If one is true, the other is not. - Therefore, 'common sense' isn't a good measure of anything at all, and assertions shouldn't be accepted as true just because they seem like they make sense.

That's something quite different from what you seem to have inferred from that explanation.

You never said there were three persons involved and were somewhat vague in your wording, which led to confusion.

Plus, I never said this was "common sense", I just said it was "logical". I also implied that it was speculative, as I fully acknowledged my lack of actual evidence. Also, I never made a statement on whether or not arguing by assertion was non-risky (it can be, as you showed).

Look,I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but you just did it again.

I made a clarification about something, but I'm not the same person that you were originally referring to.

That you refer to 'my' wording shows you're again not really paying attention.

I saw the discussion between you two, and it was perfectly clear to me what the other person was saying, but it evidently wasn't clear to you, so I thought I'd help explain it more clearly. (That's a little arrogant of me perhaps, but what's done is done.)

 

[duowolf]

I've lived in the UK all my life and never heard of such a law. They talked about it for a while but it was never actully passed into real law. Or if it did the government never actully bothered to tell anyone.

It's the UK. Do you honestly think the government here would tell you anything? No, just sit back and binge on the latest celebrity twaddle on the telly.

Also here's a link for your convenience [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_Kingdom].

Well they really should tell people. It's pretty unfair to do someone for breaking a law like that when almost noone knows said law exsists.

I don't watch TV by the way so I have no idea what you mean by that last comment.

 

[Leg End]

Victimless crimes should go unpunished.

My philosophy for virtually everything. Thank you.

OT: *Checks if rule is still in place*
*Is still in place*
Cannot discuss this matter further.