First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Crunchyroll for Adults
Posted 8/29/12
Yeah, just pirate your hentai like you do any other type of pornography.
7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/29/12 , edited 8/29/12

Winterfells wrote

I can't say I ever had a great understanding of the logic behind how shows go about censoring "explicit" nudity.

Is it really censoring at all if you show two full tits with no nipples? Are nipples really that dirty, compared to the rest of the boob? Does removing the nipples really make the situation less "sexually-charged?"

Why isn't violence held to the same standards? I don't see bars popping up everywhere when anime dudes are shooting fireballs at each other, blowing each other up with shotguns, and slicing one another with swords. Why not turn the blood green instead of red? Does that make the violence any less clear?


My theory on this is that it solves two problems. The problems are having soldiers to defend a group and the other problem is ensuring that children are well raised and that there are not too many abandoned children. In reference to the former, war is something nations, tribes, etc. are always at risk of becoming involved in. Therefore, it makes sense to have people willing to fight: a standing army. Or, at the very least, have people willing to enlist in war time. A good way of ensuring that is to glorify battle and conquest. Even glorifying violence in general can have that effect. Some societies, like Sparta, even went so far as making death on the battlefield the preferred method of passing on. If people are into the idea of fighting and warfare or feel that defending their nation is their duty, they will fight to protect the nation. In short, glorifying violence is a method, not the only method of course, but is a method of ensuring we have soldiers to fight.

In reference to the later, promiscuity has a lot of risk. Birth control is a relatively new invention especially when you consider that, for example, my society -- the U.S.A -- has been around for about three hundred years and alot of its culture comes for even older societies. So people having sex has a high risk of them having children. This is very much evident because, in the modern day with birth control being well-marketed, you still hear of people having unwanted children. Some people have the unwanted kid put into adoption agencies. Others have been know to literally throw them into the garbage or even have them drowned. Others raise the child. I'm excluding abortion because I don't know if it was a viable option to the people of even my societies past. So, this leads to societal problems on different levels. Of course, the moral level with the risk of the children being killed or left to die. An economic since numerous children being put up for adoption can be a burden on the agencies who care for them. Now, the parents raising them, however, doesn't necessarily lead to problems. However, an unwanted pregnancy has an increased likelihood of a parent abandoning the other partner. Now I'm not insulting single parents, but people back then likely did not see a single parental unit as sufficient, at least I believe. Many societies thought the raising of a child is primarily the mother's responsibility because they were adept at it so a single father would seem unskilled. Men are also the bread winners of most ancient societies so it would seem to many they shouldn't have enough time to raise a child around the clock. At the same time, many societies had limited women's right so a single mother would have trouble making a living. Not to mention the risk of one turning to the oldest profession for income which is often looked down upon by society.

Long story short, one method to ensure they are soldiers is to glorify war and one method to lower the births of unwanted children is to demonize sex. They are simple solutions that I think many can find fault with, but that is there purpose and reason for being and is why we are more concerned with images of sex being censored than images of violence.

As an addition, I've also heard argument that say our reason for being so concerned with censoring sexual imagery is the fear of children seeing these images of sex attempting to reenact them. Monkey see, monkey do, I suppose and kids are very impressionable so I can see that being a reason. Not to mention if that kid is young, but old enough to reproduce, you can end up with a child raising a child which I think people can admit is a problem.


Kagerusui
This question is mainly buy not limited to the Admin/Mods of Crunchyroll but all members as well.

After researching a little about laws in the US I learned that foals sex is illegal in the US. (Hentai)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foal_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States
However I failed to find anything regarding Ecchi.

I opened this topic after watching some of the shows hosted here being censored to the point I grew tired of it or annoyed. I know that every mod so far have strictly said "NO TO HENTAI!" pretty much all over.

But what about Ecchi?
I understand that there are some Ecchi stuff on the site, but most of them are bashed with a black frame across my screen.
Why? >_<

So my main question would be, are we ever going to get an adult Crunchyroll or is there one already?
Is it being considered?, maybe Premium Users only?

If you are an admin or mod please reply with a better answer than "NO AND NO!"

The rest of us can discuss on this :)

Just to be clear, Hentai means animated porn, tentacle rape, etc.
Ecchi means perverted, boobies, etc.

I can't say I really mind the censorship. Honestly, I'm tired of anime relying on TNA to make up for lack of plot, character development, etc. On top of that, I was never really into anime nudity or semi-nudity. To me, they're just drawings of imaginary people so it just doesn't "get my rocks off." I can very easily download a porno for free to see nudity so it's not something I really need from my television broadcasts anyway. Compounding all this is moe. I just can't stand the character archetypes it set up and, especially for the ones involving lolitas and cat people, get me disinterested when they try to sexualize them.

Of course, I have to admit the point that some people will actually buy the dvd just to see the nudity. Which means more money in the pockets of people who use TNA to make up for not making a good show which means more shows like them. Sometimes it just feels like you just can't win, you know?

Finally, if I was into hentai, I know there are thousands of places other than crunchyroll I could get my fix for free so I wouldn't really mind the fact CR doesn't carry it.


AshRandom
Your statement suggests only that you have yet to read it yourself.

That is very much a cop-out response. You might as well have said "you're not as knowledgeable on the subject as me therefore your argument is invalid." I'm sorry for singling you out like that, but I never let people get away with that in real life discussion. It's one of my pet peeves. I'm not trying to start anything and it's definitely not something personal, I just can't stand it when people argue using that technique.

Edit:

Winterfells
Why isn't violence held to the same standards? I don't see bars popping up everywhere when anime dudes are shooting fireballs at each other, blowing each other up with shotguns, and slicing one another with swords. Why not turn the blood green instead of red? Does that make the violence any less clear?

LOL

You know, I just have to add a funny fact about what you said: some animes have done that. I know for fact
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/29/12

The_Meta wrote:


AshRandom
Your statement suggests only that you have yet to read it yourself.

That is very much a cop-out response. You might as well have said "you're not as knowledgeable on the subject as me therefore your argument is invalid." I'm sorry for singling you out like that, but I never let people get away with that in real life discussion. It's one of my pet peeves. I'm not trying to start anything and it's definitely not something personal, I just can't stand it when people argue using that technique.


Agreed. It was a cop-out on my part, but there are some arguments which aren't worth making, and not because of the argument, but because of the audience. He had already demonstrated a fundamentally deluded world view. There is no rational person on earth who has objectively analyzed Christianity without drawing the exact same conclusions as I. Old dead men who wrote books long before I was born destroyed Christian dogmatic assertions without managing to hamper their progress, so they live on. They feed off new crops of ignorance in every generation and plague mankind with their dogma like parasites. I cannot imagine a future age of enlightenment will ever banish the demons completely, no candle in the dark will ever illuminate willfully blindfolded eyes.

Regardless of poetic application -- I think the record stands for itself. The religion is synonymous with public witch burning, torture, murder and all manner of atrocities carried out in the name of Jesus. But it wasn't done "in the name of religion," they weren't misinterpretations, they were dutifully carrying out the explicit instructions given to them by their scripture. Instructions which are still unchanged.

As a direct result of the tenants of their religion they have murdered their own sisters and mothers aunts, cousins and nieces having called them out as witches. Good Christians have stood up and testified one after another against their own loving kin, in the light of day, under the watchful eye of heaven. They killed and killed and killed until after more than 500 years it was shown that there were no witches. None. They were a myth all along. So, what did our good Christian brothers do? Did they repent? Did they turn away? No! They swept it under the rug. Ignored it. Pretended it never happened and to this very day plug their ears and sing LaLaLaLa whenever anyone brings it up.

They can't stand the idea that their loving God, and their compassionate Jesus never said a thing. Never lifted a finger or whispered a word from on high. Heaven watched, arms folded, for hundreds of years while families ignorantly murdered themselves in an attempt to appease their blood thirsty biblical overlord. And yet the church still makes claim to have an ear to God. Do they? Could they? After all of this? The biggest cop-out is pretending any churchman has ever heard the word of God, when even a hallmark card could have prevented the Christian Holocaust of women.

From their very first prophet on, it's nothing but sadism. Abraham was a madman intent on murdering his son. And God is a mafia boss, so sadistic he would actually force you to not only contemplate the choice to do it, but to in fact do it, to go ahead and murder your own baby. Nevermind his intervention --- the sadistic choice itself is wicked! Oh but not to worry all of this barbaric old testament stuff can be redeemed through a torturous and prolonged act of human sacrifice!!! Well now, if that won't make people act civilized I just don't know what will.... Maybe peeling the skin from infants on the Sabbath? This is a monstrous bronze age cult of stupidity and wicked barbarity whose only true miracle is in the fact that anyone still believes it.
56311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32
Offline
Posted 8/29/12

AshRandom
And God is a mafia boss, so sadistic he would actually force you to not only contemplate the choice to do it, but to in fact do it, to go ahead and murder your own baby. Nevermind his intervention --- the sadistic choice itself is wicked!


Best thing I've ever read, hands down. As much as I'd like to join in the religious fun that has popped up in this topic I'll stay out of it. I'm already shunned in the bible belted camo wearing town I live in because I'm not in the Military nor do I attend the convention to speak in tongues at the mega-church down the street which will eventually be larger than any sports stadium. I've learned from living here it's an endless argument and my breath and time are wasted on those who cover their eyes and ears and spout rhetoric because I said something that contradicts their very old book.

Back on topic... I would rather not have Hentai here at Crunchyroll, or least if they did decide to get into the tentacle business that it would be at another site entirely.

As far as the black bars go, they probably don't have the rights to play the uncensored version of So I Can't Play H and the other titles that have the same censoring. I don't remember which channel it is in Japan that typically plays the uncensored versions, but I think they air a few days after the censored version does, and I thought it was a pay channel. This other channel though most likely pays more to air the booby filled version.

To be honest the ta-ta's are usually these types of shows only saving grace as their is usually no plot, or the writing is done in assembly line fashion taking elements from the last larger hooter fighting harem anime, similar to how they used the same plot from "The Hangover" to write "The Hangover 2" and just changed some lines.
66790 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / ???????? ?? ?????
Offline
Posted 8/29/12
CR showing Hentai would be opening a very bad can of worms.

The majority of users who are"18+" on here are actually under 18 but put that status up so they can access mature groups (cybersex groups), etc.

If I had a dime for every underage user with a status of 18+, I'd be able to take a few months off from work.
Posted 8/29/12 , edited 8/29/12

Kagerusui wrote:

This question is mainly buy not limited to the Admin/Mods of Crunchyroll but all members as well.

After researching a little about laws in the US I learned that children sex is illegal in the US. (Hentai)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States
However I failed to find anything regarding Ecchi.

I opened this topic after watching some of the shows hosted here being censored to the point I grew tired of it or annoyed. I know that every mod so far have strictly said "NO TO HENTAI!" pretty much all over.

But what about Ecchi?
I understand that there are some Ecchi stuff on the site, but most of them are bashed with a black frame across my screen.
Why? >_<

So my main question would be, are we ever going to get an adult Crunchyroll or is there one already?
Is it being considered?, maybe Premium Users only?

If you are an admin or mod please reply with a better answer than "NO AND NO!"

The rest of us can discuss on this :)

Just to be clear, Hentai means animated porn, tentacle rape, etc.
Ecchi means perverted, boobies, etc.


The answer is simple...
because this is not the place for that sort of thing.

This is a 13+ site and due to having younger members we aspire to
appeal to everyone not just adults.

If you want that stuff, it's not hard to find.
You just won't find it here.

7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/29/12 , edited 8/29/12

AshRandom wrote:


The_Meta wrote:


AshRandom
Your statement suggests only that you have yet to read it yourself.

That is very much a cop-out response. You might as well have said "you're not as knowledgeable on the subject as me therefore your argument is invalid." I'm sorry for singling you out like that, but I never let people get away with that in real life discussion. It's one of my pet peeves. I'm not trying to start anything and it's definitely not something personal, I just can't stand it when people argue using that technique.


Agreed. It was a cop-out on my part, but there are some arguments which aren't worth making, and not because of the argument, but because of the audience. He had already demonstrated a fundamentally deluded world view. There is no rational person on earth who has objectively analyzed Christianity without drawing the exact same conclusions as I. Old dead men who wrote books long before I was born destroyed Christian dogmatic assertions without managing to hamper their progress, so they live on. They feed off new crops of ignorance in every generation and plague mankind with their dogma like parasites. I cannot imagine a future age of enlightenment will ever banish the demons completely, no candle in the dark will ever illuminate willfully blindfolded eyes.


This first paragraph is filled with a lot of rhetoric that makes me a little worried. Your criteria, for example , for a rational person is anyone who agrees with you and vice versa for irrational. I get this feeling because your own criteria inherently excludes the people your arguing against. That's a logical trick so you don't have to even acknowledge their opinion. It's been used by many men to destroy an opposing opinion without having to do so. It's equivalent of saying "homosexuality is unnatural" because, if the homosexual tries to argue back, then his argument is invalid inherently because he is "sub-human." In this context, if a christian argues back, then his argument inherently invalid, following your system, because he is "not a rational being."

Compounding this is your claim they are parasites and a plague to mankind. This gives me the impression you view them as inferior and view yourself as the intellectual and moral superior. By making them "irrational" under your criteria, making a plague on mankind parasites of the human race and even claiming their demons, you have made them "sub-human" in your rhetoric. That is a very dangerous road to walk down and one that many who have done great atrocities have done so. It is a pathway to hell, is what I mean.

I also notice you claim the man who was only asking for understanding and thinks that guilt by association is flawed has a deluded world view. Admittedly, his argument, at points, commits the logical fallacy of rash generalization, but that hardly invalidated his point: not everyone is the same just because they carry the same title. I can't help, but shake the feeling your saying he has a deluded world view because he is Christian. After all, you already claimed they are --your words -- parasites, ignorant, demons, a plague and even implied they are inherently irrational. I think I will leave this point where it is.


AshRandom
Regardless of poetic application -- I think the record stands for itself. The religion is synonymous with public witch burning, torture, murder and all manner of atrocities carried out in the name of Jesus. But it wasn't done "in the name of religion," they weren't misinterpretations, they were dutifully carrying out the explicit instructions given to them by their scripture. Instructions which are still unchanged.

As a direct result of the tenants of their religion they have murdered their own sisters and mothers aunts, cousins and nieces having called them out as witches. Good Christians have stood up and testified one after another against their own loving kin, in the light of day, under the watchful eye of heaven. They killed and killed and killed until after more than 500 years it was shown that there were no witches. None. They were a myth all along. So, what did our good Christian brothers do? Did they repent? Did they turn away? No! They swept it under the rug. Ignored it. Pretended it never happened and to this very day plug their ears and sing LaLaLaLa whenever anyone brings it up.

I'm not familiar enough with every tenet of the religion, but I would like to hear which tenets and how those tenets came into the religion. That being said, I know what you are referring to: you're referring to the belief that magic came from the devil. Well, that's a simplification of the entire thing as you will read shortly.

I think it is at this moment I would like to say that nothing occurs in a vacuum. What I mean by that is that, when it comes to events this big, one factor is never the primary cause. In all honestly, there are numerous theories on what caused mass hysteria that lead to these trials and, in my mind, they all seem to people using religion for their own goals. Very little of it, for that matter, had to do with the tenets of the Christian religion. As a matter of fact, originally christian tried to stop witch hunts.

Originally, Christians did not believe in witches. Early Christian missionaries stopped the traditional pagan witch hunts and removed the previous European laws that were in place that made witchcraft illegal. The church condemned the traditional pagan punishments for witchcraft. For example, in the year 643, the law code of Lombrody in Italy stated "Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female slave as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds." However, those who believed in witches began to merge the idea with the idea of Satan to expand upon the Christian idea that all evil comes from the devil. In other words, they used christian dogma to their own end and continued a flawed belief in witches that Christianity was trying to remove. I suppose the old adage "when you go to fight monsters..." is appropriate.

Now I want to ask you, who has more control over what the next generation learns: the level headed church and government telling people that witches don't exist or the parents of the children who say they do? Consider how important tradition was in that time period as well.

Now I'll ask who controls the future? The establishment who have a few decades left in them or the children who will grow up one day and have children of their own?

Moving along, those who merged the belief of christian and pagan folk belief of witches began to individually start their own trials. The first witch trials that really started the phenomenon were held by individuals not the government or the church. In other words, kangaroo courts. This happened around the middle of the 15th century. For those who don't their European history, that was after the Black plague. People in that time were changed after such a sweeping wave of death had rolled over them and taken numerous loved ones. Some had become convinced their enemies did it. Other drew their eyes to witchcraft.

Now remember when they said those children would grow up one day? Well, the did. When the church council began to discuss the trials, notable anti-witchcraft figures (in that they were against witch-craft), attended. They reinforced their beliefs of witchcraft and how it mingles with Christianity through use of Satan. It became much more widespread as a result of "learned men" advocating it. This started a mass of writings that spread throughout Europe. Eventually, the Pope was convinced and witchcraft was made a crime in the year of 1484 under the "Witch-Bull." Personally, I'd like to take a moment to laugh at that name.

Now were the witch hunts themselves all about religion? Well, there is a few theories on that. Some more strange than others. It's at this time I'd like to remind of a prior statement where I said nothing occurs in a vacuum. My post starting to get long so I'll proceed to list a few them: climate-induced crop failures leading to fear of outside causes, an attempt to create a population boom by destroying all information of midwifery (there was, by the way, population boom during his time period), a scapegoat of the current economic troubles of the time (think Roman coliseum), etc.


AshRandom
They can't stand the idea that their loving God, and their compassionate Jesus never said a thing. Never lifted a finger or whispered a word from on high. Heaven watched, arms folded, for hundreds of years while families ignorantly murdered themselves in an attempt to appease their blood thirsty biblical overlord. And yet the church still makes claim to have an ear to God. Do they? Could they? After all of this? The biggest cop-out is pretending any churchman has ever heard the word of God, when even a hallmark card could have prevented the Christian Holocaust of women.


No single man could of stopped mass-hysteria of that level. Not even a large group of men. The people of that time were so convinced in their beliefs that even if God had spoken directly to all of them they would have wrote it off. Think about it this way; in a time when witches were believed to exist and had fantastical powers, one man, even a priest, claims that a voice in his head told him not to persecute them and that they are mistaken in their belief. They would claim it was witches trying to protect themselves or right him off as insane. Even if God had openly spoken through the sky to all of the men who were persecuting the witches, they would have claimed witchcraft was to blame and that is was just witches trying to trick them. There is also the possibility they could blame it on mass delusion. There an old Christian adage for this metaphor, actually, it goes "Their minds were closed to God" and it means their minds were closed to reason. It's used to describe when people are so absorbed with an idea or by an emotion that you can't reach them with anything and, to Christians, the words of God are absolute. So it's a way of expressing how closed minded they are. I will admit that my metaphor was a bit of an in-your-face, but I think it got the point across.

As a brief thought exercise, I'd like you to consider how mass-hysteria of this level can be created by other means. Think of the Red Scare of the 1920s and the Red Scare of the 1960s. The government was a factor in its creation: an institution that a lot of people trust and is lead by men who, unless under the effects of a disease of the mind, will act in their own rational self-interest. Just felt like adding that in there. Another large factor was the people themselves who began seeing red in their own shadows, if you'll excuse the metaphor. Just felt like adding that.

Plus, I don't think many of them did it because the accusers honestly believed the accused were witches. I'm not saying this for every trail, but I very much think that these trials had another element to it. I think many of these trials were caused by people trying to use mass hysteria to take vengeance on other people, remove certain people to obtain a goal or item, to have power over someonelse's life, etc.

I want take a moment to directly respond to your last line: The Christian Holocaust of women. While I can see how one can assume that this was a result of misogyny of the ancient world, I would like to propose some opposing data. First off, just because they were called witch trials does not mean only women were accused. There is some statistics on this that shows that, in some regions, a majority of the accused were actually male. Iceland accused, out of their 22 trials, 92% had a male accused. In Estonia, out of their 100 trials, 60% had accused males. Those statistics come from an article titled "Recent Developments in the study of the Great European Witch Hunts" and was written by Jenny Gibbons. I would take those statistics with a grain of salt as we do know Mark Twain's famous line: "There are three kinds of lies in this word: lies, damned lies and statistics." But I think the general nature of them are true and they do show that men were also accused. Secondly, women were accused by other women quite often. I don't have enough to data to say how often, but it was far from rare.

I just felt like point that out because I feel you included that title to create another angle to this and I felt, if I'm doing a proper retort, I should respond to that.


AshRandom
From their very first prophet on, it's nothing but sadism. Abraham was a madman intent on murdering his son. And God is a mafia boss, so sadistic he would actually force you to not only contemplate the choice to do it, but to in fact do it, to go ahead and murder your own baby. Nevermind his intervention --- the sadistic choice itself is wicked! Oh but not to worry all of this barbaric old testament stuff can be redeemed through a torturous and prolonged act of human sacrifice!!! Well now, if that won't make people act civilized I just don't know what will.... Maybe peeling the skin from infants on the Sabbath? This is a monstrous bronze age cult of stupidity and wicked barbarity whose only true miracle is in the fact that anyone still believes it.


This last paragraph is mostly just playing with adjectives though some points I will concede, but not the wording. I never did like the story of Abraham and Issac and don't get me started on the book of Job.

Moving along, the martyrdom of Jesus. I notice how you're claiming that the new testament is just as barbaric because of the human sacrifice. Well, and I'll get into more into my next point, but, for that time period, that was to expected. Cruicxfication was how Romans dealt with rebels since leaving the rebel hanging for all to see after torturing and beating him and ensuring a painful death would ensure any who looked upon him would not attempt to oppose the Roman Empire. Since many called Jesus the King of the Jews and there were many Jewish groups trying to rebel against the Roman Empire, Jesus was a rebel to the Romans as far as they were concerned despite his advocacy of non-violent solution and what could even be described as civil disobedience. Then again, considering those principals brought down future empires, I suppose they were right to be afraid.

What I am getting at here is that, if Jesus did exist in that time period, it is logical for such barbaric things to have been done to him.

Though I feel I must add this quote: "the thing to take away from the story of Jesus is not how died, but how he lived as it is with all men."

Moving along, I see how your claiming how intertwined with violence the bible is, but I think you seem to forget that one of the overarching themes of the Christian holy book is non-violence. Sometimes even advocating leaving justice to God and nature. In other words, in violent, barbaric times were such cruelties, like stoning women, were common place, this holy book was trying to tell people to turn away from such acts. Just like how the, aforementioned, original Christian missionaries who came to Europe tired to stop pagan witch trials.

If you want to know why I responded so thoroughly it is because I didn't like the prevailing theme of your post: intolerance. It very much felt like you were calling for intolerance against a group of people and asking for their end. Not to mention implying them as inferior, irrational and blaming the modern day Christians for problems you felt their ancestors committed. I find that is a mindset that creates violent conflict. Not that I think you are a violent person or that your rhetoric was directly calling for it, just that the prevailing thought behind it, I believe, is linked to violent conflict.

It's at this moment that I would like to apologize to the original poster for hijacking his thread. I spent enough time writing this where I am still going to post this, but I feel as I should feel bad for setting all of this into motion. What I am getting at, is that it wouldn't have continued if I had not called out Ashrandom on a cop-out. So I feel responsible for all of this hijacking that's already occurred and the reply that I feel I might recieve.
21503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/29/12
I doubt anyone would take the time to read your post. Interesting read, though.
Posted 8/30/12
oh there's a new lord of the rings book out.


jk calm down.
7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

thefinalword wrote:

oh there's a new lord of the rings book out.


jk calm down.


Yeah, sorry about that. I have a tendency to ramble on. I mean every post, for the most part, that I've made here tends to be pretty huge. But this one takes the cake. Not to mention I hijacked the topic. So, once again, sorry about that.
31067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

Winterfells wrote:

I can't say I ever had a great understanding of the logic behind how shows go about censoring "explicit" nudity.

Is it really censoring at all if you show two full tits with no nipples? Are nipples really that dirty, compared to the rest of the boob? Does removing the nipples really make the situation less "sexually-charged?"

Why isn't violence held to the same standards?

LOL


DONT GIVE THEM IDEAS!
Posted 8/30/12
i thought this site had the genres of ecchi and Seinen/Mature tho the list just isint that big yet
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

The_Meta wrote:
Your criteria, for example , for a rational person is anyone who agrees with you and vice versa for irrational. I get this feeling because your own criteria inherently excludes the people your arguing against. That's a logical trick so you don't have to even acknowledge their opinion.


Wow, look at all that Christian apologetics. Despite your attempt to sound like an intellectual, you've betrayed both your incompetence and your obvious bias.

I'll explain it to you like you're a child. Logical statements are true, or false. Without evidence we can not know the difference. You're talking about "holy" books which repeatedly contradict themselves like as if they could ever stand on equal footing with philosophy. They aren't equivalent. Anyone can easily prove them out as logical fallacies through the principle of non-contradiction, just using the scripture alone.

Furthermore, they have absolutely no observable evidence to back up their claims which rules out any hope of an evidentiary proof. And at that point you're done, the only way to continue accepting a baseless, groundless, unproven, logically contradictory series of claims -- is to delude yourself into thinking that it's true anyway. That's wishful thinking. Not rationality.

Yes. Religions are irrational by nature. I didn't even think I needed to assert something so glaringly obvious, but apparently you aren't aware of the second of the three classic laws of thought. As I said, you're no intellectual. I doubt you're even fully literate. No, I have no intention of dignifying any of the nonsense past this point. You've already proven I don't need to.
Posted 8/30/12
I am not a mod, but NO AND NO!
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
I hate censorship with a passion. However given the current social climate of tiptoeing around anything deemed, "not politically correct" I can't blame CR for doing so. There are plenty of other resources in which you can get your fill of uncensored Ecchi/Hentai so I don't feel like it's fair to expect a site like CR to jeopardize the very good thing they have going here just so you can find your masturbatory material more conveniently. As far as an "adult CR" goes if we had one of those it would be called...4chan.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.