First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
BBC unaired interview: Anime is pedophilia and should be illegal
28250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MidoriNoTora wrote:

You don't have to pay if you can prove you don't watch television


And if you can't prove it and don't pay you get guys in suits knocking on your door, right? Sounds a bit like taxes to me.



That's hilarious
edit
This is some dystopian shit


LOL That cannot be real.
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/9/17

MysticGon wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MidoriNoTora wrote:

You don't have to pay if you can prove you don't watch television


And if you can't prove it and don't pay you get guys in suits knocking on your door, right? Sounds a bit like taxes to me.



That's hilarious
edit
This is some dystopian shit


LOL That cannot be real.


Why wouldn't it be? Maybe I am missing something but all that this seems to prove is that you're not allowed to do stuff illegally in the UK.

Hardly "dystopian shit"
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 3/9/17
Maybe this goes against Midori's point, but Midori does appear to live in the UK. What the hell do you know Amyas?
mxdan 
11246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/9/17 , edited 3/9/17
Banning artistic expression because it displays something illegal. Hmm. I can remember a couple books that look like this...

I think in context, yes, it is something some people get gratification out of and as such it increases demand for such content which in turn makes something perhaps 'ban worthy'. But we wouldn't ban the classic book Lolita because it depicts things that are uncomfortable, no? Even though there are surely some that derived pleasure out of it. And while, I don't particularly care for loli as an 'art' it still is something that someone in a dungeon somewhere made. We can't play thought police.

If people actually cared about the issue they would be funding research to understand why people desire such things. Simply banning something doesn't stop it from happening and doesn't fix it.

Why do morons have to be so loud?
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/9/17 , edited 3/9/17

mxdan wrote:

Banning artistic expression because it displays something illegal. Hmm. I can remember a couple books that look like this...

I think in context, yes, it is something some people get gratification out of and as such it increases demand for such content which in turn makes something perhaps 'ban worthy'. But we wouldn't ban the classic book Lolita because it depicts things that are uncomfortable, no? We can't play thought police.

If people actually cared about the issue they would be funding research to understand why people desire such things. Simply banning something doesn't stop it from happening and doesn't fix it.

Why do morons have to be so loud?


I know this isn't really your point but I felt like it should be said anyway because otherwise I'm gonna be thinking about it for way longer than I should, but Lolita was a satirical allegory for totalitarianism. Humbert's goal is not one the reader is supposed to view as a good one and the novel is not supposed to be erotic (no matter how many adapters seem to think it is, ugh). I am told that that is not really the case for the likes of Boku no Pico.
mxdan 
11246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:


mxdan wrote:

Banning artistic expression because it displays something illegal. Hmm. I can remember a couple books that look like this...

I think in context, yes, it is something some people get gratification out of and as such it increases demand for such content which in turn makes something perhaps 'ban worthy'. But we wouldn't ban the classic book Lolita because it depicts things that are uncomfortable, no? We can't play thought police.

If people actually cared about the issue they would be funding research to understand why people desire such things. Simply banning something doesn't stop it from happening and doesn't fix it.

Why do morons have to be so loud?


I know this isn't really your point but I felt like it should be said anyway because otherwise I'm gonna be thinking about it for way longer than I should, but Lolita was a satirical allegory for totalitarianism. Humbert's goal is not one the reader is supposed to view as a good one and the novel is not supposed to be erotic (no matter how many adapters seem to think it is, ugh). I am told that that is not really the case for the likes of Boku no Pico.


True, (I had to look up boku no pico and I wish I hadn't ) but I suppose it is what is derived out of it in the end. I don't see the point of certain aspects of something. But that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Intention is something that is hard to quantify ultimately and I think when it comes down to it we can't interject our own idea of somethings particular intention.

When it comes to something that harms someone, absolutely, we should do our best to stop it. But I think my issue comes at the point of policing what can be said and done. I'm no anti-SJW band wagoner because I think a lot of the SJW's have good intentions but I do think when it comes down to it that I don't have a good metric of what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong. I think I do. But what does that mean? I think things that depict something repulsive should be free to depict something repulsive. By the absolutist mentality I think Boku no Pico is doing far less harm then, say, the saw movies.

But that has a theatre and a vast following. Even though you could argue that it is in part helping to foster a portion of the population who thinks high violence is normal.

In the end how do you differentiate between what is creating a higher message and what is pornography? How can you be sure that someone doesn't attain the higher message from pornography?

We need freedom of expression no matter how ugly it can be.
15752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/9/17 , edited 3/9/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MidoriNoTora wrote:

You don't have to pay if you can prove you don't watch television


And if you can't prove it and don't pay you get guys in suits knocking on your door, right? Sounds a bit like taxes to me.



*Sigh* This is what happens when someone is selective with which parts of a paragraph they qoute and add their own emphasis. Go back and take a careful look at what I said.

Sometimes I think subtlety is a lost art form.



edit:
Also, no. They are unlikely to knock on your door. A van will drive through your street and see if they can pick up signals from a television receiver in a house without a licence. If they find something you are taken to court in the same way as if you broke any other law. If they don't pick up a television receiver then nothing happens. No use of television = no need to pay the licence = technically not a tax (also there are several other reasons why calling it a tax would be wrong but I can't be bothered arguing semantics).

The crux is that Britain has a different model for paying for television and radio content than the USA. One of the benefits of public service is that I can watch a programme without wondering which lobby group or corporation is funding the paycheck of the presenter. It reduces the potential sources of bias.
mxdan 
11246 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/9/17

MidoriNoTora wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MidoriNoTora wrote:

You don't have to pay if you can prove you don't watch television


And if you can't prove it and don't pay you get guys in suits knocking on your door, right? Sounds a bit like taxes to me.



*Sigh* This is what happens when someone is selective with which parts of a paragraph they qoute and add their own emphasis. Go back and take a careful look at what I said.

Sometimes I think subtlety is a lost art form.


He doesn't have a subtle bone in his body mate. It's all or nothing.
Posted 3/9/17

octorockandroll wrote:



Why wouldn't it be? Maybe I am missing something but all that this seems to prove is that you're not allowed to do stuff illegally in the UK.



Protip: if your argument to prove a country isn't 'dystopian' is that you should just obey the state, its not a very good one.
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/9/17

mxdan wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


mxdan wrote:

Banning artistic expression because it displays something illegal. Hmm. I can remember a couple books that look like this...

I think in context, yes, it is something some people get gratification out of and as such it increases demand for such content which in turn makes something perhaps 'ban worthy'. But we wouldn't ban the classic book Lolita because it depicts things that are uncomfortable, no? We can't play thought police.

If people actually cared about the issue they would be funding research to understand why people desire such things. Simply banning something doesn't stop it from happening and doesn't fix it.

Why do morons have to be so loud?


I know this isn't really your point but I felt like it should be said anyway because otherwise I'm gonna be thinking about it for way longer than I should, but Lolita was a satirical allegory for totalitarianism. Humbert's goal is not one the reader is supposed to view as a good one and the novel is not supposed to be erotic (no matter how many adapters seem to think it is, ugh). I am told that that is not really the case for the likes of Boku no Pico.


True, (I had to look up boku no pico and I wish I hadn't ) but I suppose it is what is derived out of it in the end. I don't see the point of certain aspects of something. But that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Intention is something that is hard to quantify ultimately and I think when it comes down to it we can't interject our own idea of somethings particular intention.

When it comes to something that harms someone, absolutely, we should do our best to stop it. But I think my issue comes at the point of policing what can be said and done. I'm no anti-SJW band wagoner because I think a lot of the SJW's have good intentions but I do think when it comes down to it that I don't have a good metric of what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong. I think I do. But what does that mean? I think things that depict something repulsive should be free to depict something repulsive. By the absolutist mentality I think Boku no Pico is doing far less harm then, say, the saw movies.

But that has a theatre and a vast following. Even though you could argue that it is in part helping to foster a portion of the population who thinks high violence is normal.

In the end how do you differentiate between what is creating a higher message and what is pornography? How can you be sure that someone doesn't attain the higher message from pornography?

We need freedom of expression no matter how ugly it can be.


I guess that's fair enough, though I think in general it's pretty easy to tell when something is intended to be erotic and when it isn't. I still think stuff like Boku no Pico or Kodomo no Jikan (please do not look that up if you already don't know what it is) should not be published over here (or at least censored) I'm all for freedom of expression, but when what's being expressed is criminal, that's where I draw the line.
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/9/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



Why wouldn't it be? Maybe I am missing something but all that this seems to prove is that you're not allowed to do stuff illegally in the UK.



Protip: if your argument to prove a country isn't 'dystopian' is that you should just obey the state, its not a very good one.


Protip: If your argument to prove a country is "dystopian" is that laws are enforced, its not a very good one.

Posted 3/9/17

MidoriNoTora wrote:



*Sigh* This is what happens when someone is selective with which parts of a paragraph they qoute and add their own emphasis. Go back and take a careful look at what I said.

Sometimes I think subtlety is a lost art form.


None of the other things you said matter in the context of the argument though.
Britons must pay so the BBC can produce 'diverse' programming (read: propaganda) for non-brits? What?



PeripheralVisionary wrote:

What the hell do you know Amyas?


I know having your house raided by police because you're suspected of using a television you bought is pretty police state-ish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbgmrC-3yog

Its extra hilarious they have all this time and resources to go after people suspected of using a TV and none to track down child grooming gangs.
Posted 3/9/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

why was this thread reported...?
UN already tried to ban certain manga in Japan, but Kumiko Yamada, representative of the Japanese wing of the Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture, basically told them the f-word, and her response was very satisfying.
female Japanese representative response



It goes without saying that the rape and other crimes of actual real people who experience sexual acts from partners without consent is an actual violation of their rights concerning sexual violence and should obviously be forbidden by law, and that it’s necessary to protect and support victims. However, the figures in manga and video games are creative fictions that do not actually exist, and thus this is not a violation of any real person’s human rights. We should focus on attacking the problems that affect real women’s human rights as quickly as possible.


hahahahaha the best quote, sums up all my thoughts
17430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 3/9/17
I have been at families when the door has been knocked about that first the van, then the door a couple of times then the court that tends to be the way it goes around here and the T.V. licence is terrible especially now that analogue is gone Also the BBC is bias remember the whole Trump is a monster fear Russia that was floating around for a while along with the vote for Scottish independence that was like no don't vote out Scotland more often than it was for them to stay an alternate opinion on the BBC is just lip service the UK is taking the socialist ideals and running as far as they can with it attempting to make it's people think that it's for their safety or to improve the quality of life which at the end of the day is basically just fear tactics and false hopes kind of proven by them wanting to monitor our internet and pretty much everything we even have CCTV cameras everywhere some with microphones because apparently you need to watch out for those evil people who will feel the righteous judgement of the government... sometimes for things such as urinating in an ally behind the public toilet because it's closed at that time of night because you don't want nefarious activities going on in there. The term nanny state applies to what the UK has been becoming for years now but what makes it worse is the attempt in spreading the convictions through hyperbolic fear mongering ill-informed reports usually to take attention away from another subject or because it will assist in some other way in this case probably BBC does not condone pedos because they are terrified of that subject due to all the celebrities allegedly linked to it but I could be wrong about their motive who knows how many skeletons they have in their closets I wouldn't even be surprised if that saying was literal at this point.
Ejanss 
16831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/9/17 , edited 3/9/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


MidoriNoTora wrote:

You don't have to pay if you can prove you don't watch television


And if you can't prove it and don't pay you get guys in suits knocking on your door, right? Sounds a bit like taxes to me.


Taxes??? AAAAHHHHH!! Taxes are evil!--EEEE-VILLLLL!!!!

(Well, y'know, it's a Republican administration...)




That's hilarious


I'm surprised someone hasn't done a similar parody with the Cat Detector Vans from the Ministry of Housinge.

(Which, yes, was a parody on the radar-policing of unlicensed TV's, as the BBC radio-TV license was also a frequent butt of Python jokes.)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.