First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Crunchyroll for Adults
Posted 8/30/12
If there is anything more annoying than a fundamentalist theist it is a zealot atheist.
34724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

The_Meta wrote:



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.


Totally off subject but I just had to point out that while the pill is a "new invention" birth control has been around since prehistory. Although the herbal stuff they would have gotten, from whatever medicine person they revered, was more likely to cause miscarriage and permanent reproductive damage. And they didn't just use animal intestines for food storage either.

I really wasn't following some of your logic on the rest of that argument but sometimes stuff makes more sense in our heads then when we try to type it out for others to understand. I get the hypothesis that glorifying violence makes people like violence but I don't think that really leads to military service. But limiting the availabilty of sexual imagery to get people to not have unwanted babies, that they may kill or abandon...Kinda lost me. Sexual urges are are force unto themselves, but sex and morality aren't mutually exclusive.

53898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
Ignoring all other post besides the OP's cause odds are religion and anti-religion flame wars have sprunge up. I'm pretty sure most of the censoring comes from the source in Japan. While Japan does occassionally do after night uncut showings of particular shows, they always have the censored version shown and I think that's what CR gets most of the time when they simulcast because its the quickest to get and probably cost less to license then the uncensored versions. If they grab an older show then they will try to grab the DVD releases.

Also in terms of volume of shows that are uncensored, there really isn't that many at this point and probably won't justify an additional membership nor is there really that much added to a series when uncensored for a majority of a series to justify the added cost. Like I assume you would get a lot from Queen's Blade but probably not as much from like Demon King Daimo or that Nobuna series. Maybe like an average of 2 - 10 secs of nipple or panty shot per episode.
11587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / I'm Lost
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
I believe the issue with "So I Can't Play H" is that the uncensored episodes are offered on some sort of premium Pay-Per-View channel, while general television gets the episodes with black shading/bars/ect. CR got those general TV episodes. At least, this is my understanding. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! My apologies if this has already been stated, I skimmed the posts once they started delving into religious banter.
7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

AshRandom wrote:


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.


You know, religious arguments are pointless on the internet because you can't change someone's religious beliefs so easily. That's why I wasn't having one. I was just trying to show you how you were being intolerant of another group of people because your hatred was making you irrational. But I can see that didn't get through to you. I can also see how, once again, you cut out most of a post to only respond to what you could respond to. Which is a trick used by yellow journalist in the mainstream media to further their own goals at the cost of the truth.

I have more in me: I can tell you that the Big Bang Theory was developed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest, and it was accepted by the Pope while Einstein denounced it (At least until Hubble's Discovery of the Red Shiftiness of Galaxies). I could tell you about that to remind that history is not black and white and things blur when you go far enough back so blaming anyone one group or person for an entire macro scale problem is a convenience made due to human laziness and intolerance. I can tell you how, from personal experience, I know people from many different religions, including atheism, who are friends and do not come into conflict. I can tell you that as a sign that people with different beliefs can co-exist.

I could tell you how your entire response was irrelevant here because I was disusing the holes in your logic and not trying to prove the logic of theists. I did so later on to show you how theists rationalize some of the problems to their faith you proposed as way of showing you that they could have considered and kept their belief. I suppose this should be expected, your statement, upon even further study, was designed so no one who argues with you can win because they automatically become irrational because they disagree with your opinion. So you were just trying to show me how your logic really works: you automatically think I'm irrational, unintelligent and even illiterate -- despite the fact I can write with decent spelling and grammar-- and that your clearly my superior in all regards. Thank you for the first hand demonstration on that.

But all this has been pointless: you will just think I'm trying to convert you to Christianity or some logic barrier along those lines when I'm just trying to tell you not to be a bigot. Hell, you will just devolve into an Ad-hominem argument on a snippet of my post despite how flimsy that is and proves your own inability to face arguments when posed to you. If all that time I spent writing that logic to show you the holes in your own mindset wasn't valuable to you and all that evidence you didn't read couldn't be made valuable to you, then your mind is unreachable as long as it reminds as closed and bigoted as it is. So I won't bother you any more.

Have a good day. Wish you the best in life.

And don't forget to smile. I heard that simple act of smiling can make someone happy. It's some psycho-somatic stuff, apparently.
39072 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12
not that i am all that interested in seeing the girl in 'so i cant play H' naked i do find the black bars really annoying. couldnt they be clever and use objects in the room to hide behind. or just put a little black bar on the naught parts and not cover half the screen. i think one scene was completely black and it just had audio. its sooo annoying that i stopped watching that anime. i watched the anime for a few lauphs, not nudety and not for a half black screen.
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

The_Meta wrote:


AshRandom wrote:


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.


You know, religious arguments are pointless on the internet. That's why I wasn't having one. I was just trying to show you how you were being intolerant of another group of people because your hatred was making you irrational.


The reason religious arguments don't work, is because religious people ignore logic, ignore how to build proper logical arguments, and even ignore which party the burden of proof rests upon when making a claim. And the best part is, when you explain it to them, they're so self-righteous, they think they can continue to act like they still have a leg to stand on. Like in your case.

Enough from you about who is rational. You have already proven the fact that you don't understand logic, who are you to determine who is rational? You are unworthy of using the word. Learn what logic is, before you claim to be able to employ it.

The only clear thing about religious claims of a prime motivator is that people have been pretending to know the mind of the unknowable and exactly what it wants for thousands of years. These people are the most successful charlatans who have ever lived. They create circular arguments and oppress everyone by telling them it's wrong to even question it. Shame on them and shame on you for believing such a thing even possible. Shame on you for thinking a being of omnipotent power lacks the power to speak for itself.

As for why scientific proofs always win in religious debates, it's because they use both logic and evidence. Two things religious claims always lack. You don't get to put your groundless delusions up on the same shelf with our proven conclusions. Religion gets its observations from the eyes of madmen. Science gets its observations from the eyes of electron microscopes. billion dollar orbital space telescopes and autonomous robots sent to the surface of worlds no prophet will ever set foot.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
AshRandom, The_Meta

...This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think you two are destined to do this forever. :)






2sinxcosx wrote:

I am not a mod


This must mean you ARE a mod!
7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

Winterfells wrote:

AshRandom, The_Meta

...This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think you two are destined to do this forever. :)






2sinxcosx wrote:

I am not a mod


This must mean you ARE a mod!


Nah, not really. He didn't read it all the way through. If he did, he'd realize how funny I think his reply is. The reason of which -- because I understand you didn't read because you have no involvement in this -- is in both my first paragraph of the reply he was responding to in the last two lines as well as the entire fourth paragraph. It also confirms he's not really reading my posts so I'm not wasting my time.

That being said, did you see what I said in the spoiler tag a few posts back? You weren't the first one to think changing the color of blood was a way of censoring violence.


DeviantBehavior
Totally off subject but I just had to point out that while the pill is a "new invention" birth control has been around since prehistory. Although the herbal stuff they would have gotten, from whatever medicine pony they revered, was more likely to cause miscarriage and permanent reproductive damage. And they didn't just use animal intestines for food storage either.

I really wasn't following some of your logic on the rest of that argument but sometimes stuff makes more sense in our heads then when we try to type it out for others to understand. I get the hypothesis that glorifying violence makes ponies like violence but I don't think that really leads to military service. But limiting the availabilty of sexual imagery to get ponies to not have unwanted babies, that they may kill or abandon...Kinda lost me. Sexual urges are are force unto themselves, but sex and morality aren't mutually exclusive.


You know, I found out about that while researching last night about the Witch Trials of Early Modern Period. I was quite surprised to find out birth control exists as far back as the middle ages. I'm also not surprised to find out it was ineffective. After all, if it was good, we'd still use it. But still, I really underestimated our ancestors.

To respond to your second paragraph, yeah I guess some of that came off a little muddled. I think I broke the golden rule of persuasive dialogue by assuming you knew you couldn't have know like the connections I was making in my head. For example, I should have mentioned that I thought people who glorified violence, war and death might go into the military since there they would be allowed to take life to hearts content and, in some societies, obtain glory. I should have also clarified that meant the demonizing of sex in general, not censorship of pornography. What I mean is, they demonized sex -- made it "dirty," if you would -- in the hopes it would limit those who did it to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies. As an extension, the societies that use this solution find it as a taboo and censor it in the media because of it's taboo nature. So I wasn't saying censoring sexuality was to stop unwanted pregnancies, I was saying demonizing sexuality was and by extension of making that a taboo, it lead to sexuality being censored in the media. I should have made that more clear.
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

The_Meta wrote:

Nah, not really. He didn't read it all the way through. If he did, he'd realize how funny I think his reply is. The reason of which -- because I understand you didn't read because you have no involvement in this -- is in both my first paragraph of the reply he was responding to in the last two lines as well as the entire fourth paragraph. It also confirms he's not really reading my posts so I'm not wasting my time.

That being said, did you see what I said in the spoiler tag a few posts back? You weren't the first one to think changing the color of blood was a way of censoring violence. :lol:


Oh yeah, I didn't think I'd be the first one. I remember playing games like Onimusha, etc. and there being options in those videogames to change the blood color to something else (like green) because it supposedly makes it "less" graphic.

I wasn't surprised that anime also do that. But at the same time, I guess I was kind of mocking it because I feel it's not really a good way to censor. Does the presence of blood define the act of violence? Or the act of violence itself? To censor just the blood and still have people chopping each other's heads off and slitting throats, shooting holes into one another, I think is pretty double standard.
jree78 
58901 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Houston, TX
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

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.


So I can't play H -- has two versions one an uncensored version on AT-X and the censored version on broadcast Japanese tv. AT-X is a premium channel like HBO here, it costs about 25 dollars a month. For Crunchyroll to get the uncensored version would possibly be cost prohibitive the amount AT-X would have wanted probably would not have been in Crunchyroll's budget. So Crunchyroll has the Japanese broadcast version.
Crunchyroll has stuff from Media Blasters that are uncensored like: Queens Blade, Mouse, Ikki Tousen, some Japanese live action movies. Generally these things are censored to sell dvd/blu rays.
7235 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

Winterfells wrote:


The_Meta wrote:

Nah, not really. He didn't read it all the way through. If he did, he'd realize how funny I think his reply is. The reason of which -- because I understand you didn't read because you have no involvement in this -- is in both my first paragraph of the reply he was responding to in the last two lines as well as the entire fourth paragraph. It also confirms he's not really reading my posts so I'm not wasting my time.

That being said, did you see what I said in the spoiler tag a few posts back? You weren't the first one to think changing the color of blood was a way of censoring violence. :lol:


Oh yeah, I didn't think I'd be the first one. I remember playing games like Onimusha, etc. and there being options in those videogames to change the blood color to something else (like green) because it supposedly makes it "less" graphic.

I wasn't surprised that anime also do that. But at the same time, I guess I was kind of mocking it because I feel it's not really a good way to censor. Does the presence of blood define the act of violence? Or the act of violence itself? To censor just the blood and still have people chopping each other's heads off and slitting throats, shooting holes into one another, I think is pretty double standard.


I agree entirely, it's ridiculous. I'm just bring it up because I think it is hilarious people think making some one have fluorescent, green blood makes it any less visceral.

Well, actually, it might work a little bit. But not too much. I am willing to say that seeing blood that is not red makes it seem less like the person being attacked is human. To some people, that lack of connection to humanity might be enough to separate them from the violence of the moment.

Or, perhaps, it just looks so stupid that people just end up making jokes about it that they don't acknowledged the violence. In my spoiler, I mentioned a person who was saying it was proof of his joke theory about the main character being a robot the whole time because his blood looked like oil.
25261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 8/30/12
I thought alot of these "echii" shows where shown at ridiculous times in japan. like between 11-3am. surely they wouldn't need to sensor stuff at that hour ? i could be wrong though.
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/30/12

The_Meta wrote:
He didn't read it all the way through.

If you turn in a paper where you demonstrate incompetence in the very first paragraph, any professor worth his salt would just flunk you. Learn what the word rationality means, then come back and write me an essay on how to apply the laws of thought and why the fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based NEED TO APPLY.

Otherwise, carry on being deluded and not understanding why your fallacious arguments are inherent failures.
maffoo 
66807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / England
Offline
Posted 8/30/12 , edited 8/30/12

AshRandom wrote:


The_Meta wrote:
He didn't read it all the way through.

If you turn in a paper where you demonstrate incompetence in the very first paragraph, any professor worth his salt would just flunk you. Learn what the word rationality means, then come back and write me an essay on how to apply the laws of thought and why the fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based NEED TO APPLY.

Otherwise, carry on being deluded and not understanding why your fallacious arguments are inherent failures.


If you didn't read the post, how can you say that the arguments are fallacious? Shouldn't a rational person actually think about arguments before dismissing them?

The way I just read your post is "I didn't need to read it as my mind was already made up that you were wrong."

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.