Should any underage material be allowed on the Theater?

[Celtic_Emperor]

We won't leave.

Were we seriously asked to?

We know the score, don't worry about it.

 

[Zeratul1]

As I mentioned before, while I don't care much about Vlad - you can punch him to you heart's content

And there is no need to be rude to Vlad. That's really uncool.

...Okay, what?

 

[Kalamos]

...Okay, what?

Dunno, have some icecream.
Watch a manga. An anime maybe. I head Gasaraki is fun.

Just don't be a bully to Vlad.
You can hit him, but don't talk him down: he squeals louder when you do.

 

[Zeratul1]

Dunno, have some icecream.
Watch a manga. An anime maybe. I head Gasaraki is fun.

Just don't be a bully to Vlad.
You can hit him, but don't talk him down: he squeals louder when you do.

He doesn't squeal so much as he just drones oooooooooon and oooooooooon and ooooooooooooooooooooooooon. 🙁

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

It was presumptuous of me to point out that you're strutting around here like you run the place?

Because I know you're not a moderator and don't control anything beyond your little artist forum.

There's no question of what I want to hear or not. I'm just stating what's obvious. You can either keep complaining to no avail, shut your mouth and ignore policy you disagree with, or go somewhere like TT, which has a policy you agree with.

I don't see how my posting my opinions on the matter mean I'm strutting around. Everyone has their opinion and is posting it. So, either I'm not strutting around or everyone is.

I didn't say I was a moderator, Kalamos did. I also didn't claim to have any control over anything other than my little artist forum.

Everyone else is complaining and voicing their opinion. Theres no reason for you to single me out other than its convenient to your not liking me. Personally, I haven't treated you wrongly here, and this grudge or whatever it is you choose to hold (apparently over multiple sites) is not my concern any longer.

I hope you can find it in yourself to work it out.

 

[Kalamos]

He doesn't squeal so much as he just drones oooooooooon and oooooooooon and ooooooooooooooooooooooooon. 🙁

Yeah. He does.
I still dislike lolis.
But he does. Definitely.

...

Seriously, my point stands.
Not because I find lolis disturbing. But because I am scared some stick-in-the-mud might do.
And come over, pull the plug, leave us in the darkness, and I'll be cold, lonely, and all I'll be hearing will be Vlad droning on and on an on.

...

So, please, before inviting somebody out of the neighbourhood, consider my words.
It's not about you.
But you can't act as if lolis were ok to everybody.

 

[Zeratul1]

I've been reading most of the posts here, including yours, so what you're saying is really just a repeat to me, and I don't have anything to say about it, that I haven't already to other people.

I'm interested in hearing something new or different, and you're not providing it. So, you're just wasting your time with me.

Translation: "All I'm hearing is blah-blah-blah."

What I did was to attempt to point out flaws in your long diatribe, which is pretty standard debate procedure. You then turned around and told me I wasn't saying anything new (las if you were to begin with), completely dismissing what I had just said.

See, to me, this is rather pompous of you and forgive me if it rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Journia]

But it's a site within the US so it has to abid by the US laws (hence all the copyright problems etc)

Precisely what I was going to say.

 

[nessonite1]

Okay I shouldnt have to come in here and tell the lot of you to cool down but I guess I do.

If youre going to discuss in here please let it be about the topic and not the people involved.

 

[chicag0]

As I said, being a paedophile does not make me a monster who wishes to harm kids for my own pleasure. What it means is that I am preternaturally attracted towards children (by attracted, I mean sexually AND romantically as well), and it is because of this attraction that I would *never* harm a child for any reason.

While most child molesters are paedophiles and are sexually attracted to children, they certainly by no means love children. If they did love them, they wouldn't harm them so readily, eh?

I don't see this as a mental disorder, it's just another facet of my personality, like anything else. As that quote above says, it can be considered an "anomalous" or abnormal sexual preference. It's not doing anyone else any harm, it doesn't do me any harm....so please, kindly save the therapy for someone who needs it. 😀

Your definitions of "love" and "harm" may not exactly be the same as mine, someone else's, the child's, the child's parents, or the police's.

 

[Kalamos]

Hey Ness. How ya doin'.
Long time no see.

 

[Zeratul1]

Your definitions of "love" and "harm" may not exactly be the same as mine, someone else's, the child's, the child's parents, or the police's.

I think that by general consensus, having sex with a child is "harm."

Doing that is not so good. :umm:

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Okay I shouldnt have to come in here and tell the lot of you to cool down but I guess I do.

If youre going to discuss in here please let it be about the topic and not the people involved.

THANK YOU.

 

[Journia]

Reminds me of something I hear from racists alot.

"I'm not racist, I swear! I like black people! I have black friends! I like Michael Jordan!"

That was absolutely stupid of you.

What's a matter? never had any childhood dreams? Might explain the pedopheliac tendencies. 😉

Sickening what venom Viper. You should be drained. You use the same ideals over and over again, while using different words. But you antagonize and express your disdain for someone. I am sure you would be offended if someone said that men who have hair that look like run away cowlicks are pedophiles. You see? It is a generalization, a stereotype, that persons who have interests in children are pedophiles. Just like those males who have feminine tendencies, are thought by the majority to be homosexual. Silly little man...do you know who I am? I am the Juggernaut Twitch!!!

 

[nessonite1]

Hey Ness. How ya doin'.
Long time no see.

Doing well. Had a bit of a vacation and this isn't really a nice thing to come back to. T_T

Im really happy though to hear that youre producing stuff again. Even published! I'm proud of you <3

I feel I should add that byt his point every argument presented has been presented at least 20 times. I invite anyone who has something NEW to offer to the original topic to please do so. If this thread keeps running itself around in circles I'm going to do the same thing we always do in situations like this and assume the discussion has run it's course and is over. I see no point to keeping it open long past the point of no return.

Have fun, ya'll ^^

 

[Kalamos]

THANK YOU.

So it was you!
Tattler.

 

[Zeratul1]

That was absolutely stupid of you.

This would have been the exact point at which Viper ran out of relevant things to say. :umm:

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Translation: "All I'm hearing is blah-blah-blah."

What I did was to attempt to point out flaws in your long diatribe, which is pretty standard debate procedure. You then turned around and told me I wasn't saying anything new (las if you were to begin with), completely dismissing what I had just said.

See, to me, this is rather pompous of you and forgive me if it rubs me the wrong way.

It is your interpretion that all I'm hearing is blah-blah-blah.

Not once did I say your didn't have points, not once did I dismiss what you said, and not once did I say you could not voice them. Not once did I tell you to shut up or get out, and not once did I tell you weren't allowed to attempt to point out flaws in this or that.

All I said, as a fact, is that you are repeating yourself in similar ways you did with others. All I'm saying is that I'm not interested in that. Its my right to not be interested in hearing you quote the law repeatedly. Because thats all you had to say on the matter to me, the references to the technicalities are things we've all already read by other people.

Note that I responded to you because you responded me. Thats the way I've treated my responses with everyone here. If I had something to say then I quoted someone and said something. What you're doing and what others are doing are no different. I don't see what the problem is here, other than the interpersonal remarks you're making towards me, which Kalamos, myself, and now Ness are saying are unnecessary.

 

[Kalamos]

I don't see what the problem is here, other than the interpersonal remarks you're making towards me, which Kalamos, myself, and now Ness are saying are unnecessary.

...

Well, on a second thought, they are funny.

 

[Journia]

This would have been the exact point at which Viper ran out of relevant things to say. :umm:

Thank you. Finally, I am getting seen!

 

[nessonite1]

It is your interpretion that all I'm hearing is blah-blah-blah.

Not once did I say your didn't have points, not once did I dismiss what you said, and not once did I say you could not voice them. Not once did I tell you to shut up or get out, and not once did I tell you weren't allowed to attempt to point out flaws in this or that.

All I said, as a fact, is that you are repeating yourself in similar ways you did with others. All I'm saying is that I'm not interested in that. Its my right to not be interested in hearing you quote the law repeatedly. Because thats all you had to say on the matter to me, the references to the technicalities are things we've all already read by other people.

Note that I responded to you because you responded me. Thats the way I've treated my responses with everyone here. If I had something to say then I quoted someone and said something. What you're doing and what others are doing are no different. I don't see what the problem is here, other than the interpersonal remarks you're making towards me, which Kalamos, myself, and now Ness are saying are unnecessary.

Actually, Vlad, I was talking to everyone when I asked that people not add anything to this thread unless it was in some way new or relevant. That means Zera, Kal, you, and anyone else who happens to be here.
We do not need another 5 pages now of posts about who told who to stop bickering first. We just need it to stop.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I talked about how japanese culture has influenced the age ranges of fictional characters in anime and manga, and how westerners assimilate that into their styles, and how there is the ill effect/combination in drawing that way and sharing it on a site like this.

I was hoping that, for those adults among us who are ignorant of the anime and manga genre, it would help explain why the characters are younger and not older in the art.

What we have here is a deadly cocktail mixed drink. We have the culture of the japanese, the taboos of loli, and an adult website meant only for adults and adult material.

Thats just not a good combination, and its hard, very hard for the adults here to legitimize it in light of the legalities surrounding it, and that they're children. Its not like some new fetish that includes adults and only adults that look adult. Its about kids that look like kids, that act like adults or kids.

 

[Zeratul1]

Varicose Dumbledore, allow me to start over.

You claim that what we NEED to do, for the good of the forum, is disallow the posting of fetish-oriented lolikon-type art.

I claim that it would be unnecessary because no government agency would classify it as illegal (thus alleviating any legal reasons for getting rid of it), and because the forum's administration seems to think there's no problem with it, mostly because of the afforementioned lack of legal repercussions from letting it stay.

On top of that, a majority of people who actually give a shit (i.e. the people who voted) agree with me that it should stay.

Now, you can either dismiss this again (because apparently, the fact that a number of people have said something makes it less valid) as you did before, or you can actually try and refute it.

 

[Kalamos]

That means Zera, Kal, you, and anyone else who happens to be here.

Heya Ness.

 

[U.N.Owen]

Maybe it's time for the mods to lock this thread? The last hundred posts or so just seem to have turned into endless repetition and name calling. Contrary to what people on both sides of this argument seem to be saying, this forum does NOT allow pics of minors in sexually explicit situations (i.e., no nudity, or harder fetish situations). The current rules are a compromise which seems to be working adequately. Whether the policy stays there or is tightened is up the site owner and the mods. Is there really anything else left to be said?