|
|
|
|
#61
09-14-2010
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
TURTLICIOUS YOU ARE WARNED WE DO NOT ALLOW THAT LANGUAGE AGAINST OTHER USERS 
|
|
#62
09-14-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
The mod gods had striked down upon you.
And while I do think hentai and porn are both tasteless things to keep or produce, I don't think they should necessarily be outlawed. Porn depicting rape is much more troubling than trashy comics for teenage boys.
|
|
#63
09-14-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
...
that was a joke I did that...
|
|
#64
09-14-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh.
LOL You got me. 8)
|
|
#65
09-16-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
^_^
|
|
#66
09-26-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
well, i do consider hentai as art, and its not something that should be called inmoral.
then again there are sub forms of hentai that are seriously fucked up (guro ,scat for example). i don't really have an opinion regarding the morals behind hentai ...i think its something that shouldnt be taken as serious as its normally taken. i might expand on this comment later, when i come up with a better reply
|
|
#67
09-26-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is pornography immoral? Same premise.
By the way, I always considered tentacle rape a product of a disturbed mind. What was seen cannot be unseen. <shudder>
|
|
#68
10-02-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not that I watch Hentai, but I believe it is a form of art, just like any animation. I cannot say that any form of art is wrong. I believe that no music sucks. Just because I don't like someone's taste in music, doesn't mean everyone else hates it too. So that music is art, just like hentai.
|
|
#69
10-02-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a person that likes mostly anything I really do not see the true problem with it as long as no one is being stupid enough to try to do it in real life. You can't say that it "influenced" them, because anyone with a big enough brain capacity should know that Cartoons or any kind of media don't happen in real life. As someone else said, you ask if Hentai is immoral but with real pornography, woman are demeaned in real life which I think is a far worse victim than some red head with huge eyes getting raped on a screen.
Maybe hentai needs a disclaimer like on Jackass telling people not to repeat any actions they see. :|
|
|
#70
10-03-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#71
10-03-2010
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes. Everybody just likes to point the finger at general media to blame for things people do.
For prostitution, rap is promoting it. Music video's "glorify" objectifying women. Not to mention the screaming debate that violence and sex on TV is responsible for children's misbehavior. If a 4 year old is calling people a bitch, who's fault is it? The Tvs or the parents?
|
|
#72
10-03-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Back on topic, sure, there's some porn that subjects women, but there's also porn that subjects men, so that's a bit of a stupid argument, IMO. And if it's just hentai, I don't understand the problem, it's a drawing.
|
|
#73
10-15-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
...Also there's alot I've seen in hentai you just can't do in real life
Cuz honestly who's gonna live and enjoy being fucked through a gash made in the stomach by a butcher knife wielding clown?
|
|
#74
11-03-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
There are enough points already arguing my case for me to need to sa much more than in my moral opinion hentai is fine. Another thing though:
Because hentai is drawn, and not filmed/photographed, is requires nothing more than an artist, a pen/pecil, and something to draw on. Whereas porn of exaclty the same nature requires people, props, and recording equipment, and that's the bare bones. This makes the morality in making hentai as opposed to porn far better IMO (although it could be argued that Porn would provide the actors and crew with money, so it's not that bad). Yeah, hentai's fine.
|
|
#75
12-31-2010
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hentai is okay, but when it comes to doing that kinda stuff in really life then the immorality begins. There are lots of sickos out there who are really into that kind of pornography IRL and those people need an immense amount of therapy and some kind of God O.O
|
|
#76
01-01-2011
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#77
01-01-2011
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, this is kind of an interesting subject. In essence, there is nothing inherently wrong with Hentai (Anime Porn). This is simply the artistic depiction of the nude body, which has been around... well since cave drawings. Depending on your views on pornography, Hentai is no more deviant than Hustler, and can be as artistic as any Renaissance painting (ok, maybe that's a bit of a bold claim).
I guess the ultimate answer to this is that it is in the eye of the maker, and the beholder. It is with the intent in which a person makes the Hentai, and the reaction of the person looking at the Hentai, that really more defines whether or not this is acceptible and artistic, or deviant and morally bankrupt. All this said, there are parts of Hentai in which blur the line of acceptiblility. One such mentioned is Guro... No, not there MK subboss, but the artistic form. Guro, if you do not know, is a shortening of Ero guro, an art form (originating in Japan) that is intended show the most deviant and violent forms of sex (Wiki). Though, my understanding of Japanese Culture is minimal, at best, my impression of this art form is that it is less about sexual arousal and more about horror. Sex, being one of our primary drives, can be the source of fear and disgust, which can validly be displayed in art. Many mediums use elements of Guro, including video games such as God of War, and Dante's Inferno (the latter of which actually has a female boss, who is nude, half monster, and spits babies out of her nipples). So I hardly call this a wrong form of Hentai. A better example of sketchy morals is when Hentai depicts young children. This can be viewed in a couple ways. Depicting child nudity has been a long standing artistic medium for the depiction of innocence (and if you don't believe me, think about those naked children statues in the park, or the Coppetone Child). However, when the child is being willing placed in a sexual position, at that point you have crossed the line in to pedophilia (by losing the artistic significance of pure innocence). So, I guess to sum it up: Whether or not Hentai is morally objectionable depends on a couple key variables: Your moral impressions on pornography, the depicted age of the subject matter, the intent the picture was made, and the reaction it garners from you. If you are like me (and enjoy pornography), than normal Hentai isn't morally objectionable. But, when it comes to things like lolicon, in which children are put into sexual situations for no artistic benefit (but rather pornographic material), than yes, it is morally wrong (for reasons that I don't have to explain). ___________________________________________ Jack "Aperio Contra" Shawhan. Satire Writer, Critic.
|
|
#78
01-01-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
-The problem you have made is that by following the line morality is what the subjective holder, says it is means you take for granted a complete sense of individual ownership which clearly not right because by accepting yourself in society, you also accept that morality is not interchangable with ethic's, ethic's are what you are on about because ethic's are individual beleif, morality is a grouped form of beleif, therefore this means we need to look at what society thinks of this hentai to know if it is moral. However I am not going to go directly down that route right now as take too long, instead I am going to say that another thing, ownership to soceity inflicts upon you, is a responsability to your fellow members of the social group which means that saying if you believe it is right makes it right, can impinge their right to refute this but them doing same refutes your rights, this means you have unbalanced society with an impossible challenge of individual freedom that it can never attain too, meaning everything else you write is wrong because basis you made it upon is paradox and therefore not valid ;) [ this was written mostly in jest ]
|
|
#79
01-01-2011
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to ask, Fat1Fared, where did you get your definition of ethics and morals? I am a moral relativist, a philosophy that believes that morals, being a relative ideal, are contingent on variables, one being the effect of the individual. With out an individual effect of morality, it loses it's meaning. On the other hand, ethics, whose dictionary definition insists that it is less subjective to the person, and more subjective to society in which the person lives in, is less of a subjective creature, and therefor is determined by society and not the individual perspective.
It seems that you missed the point of my post (and to much extent, the entire thread). The point of my post is that: whether hentai is right or wrong kind of depends on whether you think pornography is right or wrong, and also depends on the spirit of said piece. You see, I have personally met people who believe that pornography (an accepted medium in many first world countries) is morally wrong. These people have quite obviously forgotten that morals are not subjective, so, not to worry, I have directed them away from the accepted definition of morality and directed them toward you (you moral guru you). You mention that I created a paradox. As much as I would love to claim this paradox, it was created over 2000 years ago by a man commonly known as Socrates. I'm reminded of his arguments with the sophists, that for a society to be 100% ethical denies individual morality. Thus a paradox of ethics and morals was created, making this a subject amongst philosophers for that last 2000 years. But, luckily, you have come along and fixed this problem by switching the accepted concrete definitions, with your own stipulative definitions, and the field of philosophy thanks you for that. [ this was written mostly in jest, of course ] ________________________ Jack "Aperio Contra" Shawhan. Satire Writer, Critic. The Wasted Time.
|
|
#80
01-01-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well this just got mildly interesting, not only did he reply, but he wrote more than simple sentences as well ^^, though he is yet to reference in correct format
 =Ok first should probably state that what I wrote before took me about 5 minutes and was off the top of my head, so I actually have no idea what its conclusion was, because basically I was doing a form of debating where doesn't matter whether I prove mysel right, but more that I prove you are wrong, however I will be little more serious in this reply, (still jesting though) =Next I notice that you put forward a Socrates point, which is ironic really because you made the same mistake I made when I first quoted him once, in fact many make this mistake, when they quote Socrates. It is that you have believe you understand Socrates enough to use his theories as your own. Now do not misunderstand me here, I am not going to argue against/for Socrates because first he actually argues ethic's and moral's and rarely appears to make two interchangeable and secondly unless you read ancient greek, I will assume that you have read one of the translations/later accounts of his/his students work which can often be misleading at best, so forgiveable mistake which not worth getting into. =Instead I will just put this, "reputability" he is the second best theorist to have ever lived ad far beyond my personal scope of refutability, but what you should remember is that Socrates isn't like Bentrum, Durkierm, Kant or even other pre-enlightened theorists like Aquinas, in that it is unlikely that he was interested in social reform prefecto (ie forming a general perfect society/theory) he considered himself a social critic and was interested in the problems/politic's of his time/cutlure, which could go some way to explaining why he probably didn't write down his theories and also could explain why Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes all depicted him as actually quite an enigmatic, amusing and ironic man. -This means that you need to be careful when you use his theories because no core doctrine of them exists, only fragments of pieced together information and also we don't know if he would put forward his theories today in relation to our world, I am not saying ether way personally, just saying that should be careful when quote him, as he was dangerously brilliant and therefore easy to misunderstand, especially when so many holes in his history. =Now that aside here is my next rebuttal, first I never changed the meaning of morality, you did...or should I say Walter Terence Stace did when he started blurring the boundaries between ethic's and morality to form his own version of moral relativism which ignored his predecessors such Herodotus who actually accepted that morality is social thing based on social norns and values. -(this why you should be careful if you are going to label yourself as any 1 theory, especially if you take very wide ideology which is actually umbrella heading for lots of theories rather than a theory itself) =Now where did i get my definitions of ethic's and morals, easy I started with dictionary (the collins dictionary to be exact) because you should never demiss these sources of language as they are written and proof read by lots of very talented academics who are basing their definitions on the proper use/meaning of the words in question. -However this being said, you should only start with dictionary, you should never end with it because, even though they give the ‘proper’ meaning of a word, they do not give actual context to that meaning, so academics may twist or deconstrue meanings to own ends. So the next place I went was to an academic that didn't just review the world from inside a university box but worked within the real world and dealt with issues of review first hand. In short I take my version of morals and ethic's from (to give him his proper title, which should do as english law student) the "then Lord Devlin." -While I take a more Hart based view on the law itself and therefore disagree with a lot of Devlin's legal idea's and his ultimate conclusions, I must say that he puts forward a very compelling view of morality which actually coincides with not only the meaning of the word, but the somewhat sordid way it relates to society which is then backed up by sociological theories like Moritz Schlick's version of positivism, positivism in general and even some naturalist and neo-Marxist theories. =Now where does this leave us? Back at the start actually....oh how nice ^^, -ethic's are generally an individuals personal views of right and wrong while morals are more social view of them, which is why there is no paradox here, well unless you start making the two words/idealogies interchangeable, but that is the reason the English made two words; because they have two different meanings, this is not to say that they do not cross paths, but that they are not same thing, in same way the Law is not the same as morality, bu merely crosses paths with it. -An example of the above is homosexality, in England it is not immoral to be homosexual, but to certain individuals it is unethical, and the crossover can come because there are certain moral codes they personally follow as a subgroup, and this point is what need to understand/ be wary of when dealing with morals/ethic’s. -Taking another example, it is immoral in England to use a prostutite however there are individuals who have no breach of ethic’s doing it, but the crossover he comes as double sided sword because these individuals can be subgrouped within prostutition world and ones who don’t pactise can very likely have formed their ethic’s to follow societies morals from society, but then can also be third group who accept it as socially immoral but personally have no ethical action against it. Does this make sense? =Now does this mean I am making morals objective, no of course not, because objectiveness would give them a tag of conclusivity they simply don't deverse, but morals are not a 'wholly' individualistic thing ether, in the same way that we are not wholly individuals of self-ownership, because if you start removing all obligations and links we have to the group as theorists like Nozick did, then you start getting crazy and even insulting results that Taxation is form of slavery and you hold no obligation towards your children which is clearly wrong. -And this is where we link back to Hentai, you said hentai is porn which is debatable, but to be honest I will take as presupposition because doesn't matter to the conclusion here, what matters is that you still mixed morals and ethic's, because you took the gray line between individual/ethical choice and mixed it with the possible dissenting subcutlures. -In reality the social group you are referencing will define its morality, and you will define it ethical nature, while this is subtle difference it can have profound effects because if don't allow this difference to exist you will end up with paradox's you created previously ;). [ this is rather fun, not been able to debate like this in sometime PS though do like that someone who has just come here told me (old and trusted user from start of this debate) that I missed the point of it, when the point of this whole thing was a joke by the original poster who was a abrasive fellow who wanted to prove a point about another debate o_0 ] Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-01-2011 at 09:42 PM.
|
|
#81
01-01-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Welcome to the forum, guy who is clearly just here to promote his blog. (It worked by the way. I googled you with the intention of finding out who you were, but ended up losing an hour reading your articles.) I don't want to interrupt your other discussion, but something you said jumped out at me.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not saying you are wrong. Lolicon is a morally ambiguous territory and I would be foolish to claim I had any answers here. I'm just saying that it is odd for someone who calls himself a moral relativist to say something is so obviously immoral that it doesn't even merit a discussion. That being said, I hope you will stick around here for a while. It's been a long time since someone interesting joined the forum.
|
|
#82
01-02-2011
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow, this is getting interesting. I have not one, but two intelligent responses. I'm personally awestruck. Well, I guess both of these gentlemen have tried so hard, I will now flail my wrists, and attempt to fight these arguments off.
Fat1, I have to say, I'm impressed, I honestly didn't expect to meet a philosophy expert in the forum, so kudos to you. But, I have to say, I think it may have been a little misleading when I used the whole Socrates reference. The point of this was to really date how long the ethical and moral paradox has been around, and really point out that I'm not the first to create this. This was more of an act humility on my part, than a serious reference. Now, I do have to say one thing. At what point did I ever say that morals are wholly individualistic? Generally when I mentioned the individual aspect of morality, I would assign qualifiers (such as "one being..."). This allows me to mention one side of morality, for sake of not having to list every possible variable. I will agree that a frame of a reference of morality is created by societal mores, norms and laws. However, I have to argue that: as foolish as it would be to believe that morals are wholly individualistic, it's just as foolish to believe that morals are wholly societal, as well. As to ethics. Well, the seeing fact that the word ethics is commonly used to describe a system of how to treat a demographic, I have to say I stand firm on the idea that ethics is not so much an individual bias on morality, but more the understood guidelines on how to treat a specific group of people (the fact the Business Ethics is a class in all management degrees, kind of insists on this). But, this is all splitting hairs. The question really was whether or not Hentai is morally wrong. So, I think this all kind of got out of hand. When asked the question of whether hentai is wrong, I had to think "What do you consider wrong?" I hardly think there is an argument against the idea that two people from the same culture can have diametrically opposing ideals on a subject (Though it would be quite ironic if somebody argued against that statement). I was assuming that some people don't like pornography as much as I do (seriously, it borders as an obsession at this point). So, I simply set the frame, with that in mind. The fact is if you firmly believe that pornography is evil, and to even peer at it is a one way ticket to sharing a prison bunk with Mephistopheles (and you forgot the lube), than hentai, is immoral to you (and far beest me to argue you about whether it is immoral or not). But if you love sweet, sweet pornography... What was I talking about? I don't know, but on to the next person, who calls himself killshot. First, I want to say, you got me. I love whoring out my site (The Wasted Time), I could do it all day. But, I did come here to enjoy the forum, as well, and put my finger on the pulse of the demographic that I tear apart. First of all, the reason I didn't go into this in the first place, is just because I didn't want to be the guy to have to point out the pros and cons of lolicon. While, I will admit, there's nothing inherently wrong with drawings of nude youngers, as it is victimless. What comes off as wrong in lolicon is really the intonation of it. When you are sexually depicting young boys and girls, you are, in essence, feeding the pedophilic spirit. While, I'm not saying that a person will start looking at lolicon, and then go to cp. I will argue that people who already watch cp, probably would look at lolicon. The acceptance of this medium, is the acceptance of the ideal that it is right to depict children in a sexual manner, and there is just something about that that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As I said, I just didn't want to discuss this, for fairly good reasons. This is a touch subject, and really lolicon represents about as much of hentai as cp does to real pornography, so I think it really doesn't have much place in the argument. It's a specialized group, for a very special taste and doesn't represent the norm of the medium, so I chose to ignore it. Well, I hope I muddled things up (because god knows, I sure tried). Both of you floored me with your rebuttals, and I didn't expect it. Kudos to both of you. __________________ Jack "Aperio Contra" Shawhan. Satire Writer, Critic. The Wasted Time.
|
|
#83
01-02-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
" Is Hentai moral? "
No.
|
|
#84
01-02-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#86
01-03-2011
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
[ seriously, in Law you can technically bring forward academic argument in a case and it is my dissantation but I always wondered what would happen if I actually went ahead and did it, as solicitor once said to me, the better you are at a law degree, the further practising actual law you stand 0_o ]=Fair enough Quote:
Quote:
 (no I jest, think that because they are specific guidelines to a specific group which makes a them a class of ethic's, or a third group of consideration within this spectrum) Quote:
-one thing did find interesting was that both you and dark draw parallels between porn and hentai but I didn't as felt began to widen the scope of what porn itself is, to much Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-03-2011 at 08:23 PM.
|
|
#87
01-04-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
and guess what? hentai is just a sexy cartoon...
|
|
#88
01-05-2011
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#89
01-05-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#90
01-05-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
=to me, porn is watching two people have sex, not watching someone imitate sex, now as admitted before, I am pretty naive and unknowing about porn world and more so on the cartoon-porn world, but they certainly ain't samething and certainly have different rules, even if someone did decide to use same name for them (I mean a knife and a nuke are both weapons but wouldn't get in same brackets) Last edited by Fat1Fared; 01-05-2011 at 05:36 PM.
|
 |
|
|
