quote:
Originally posted by bishounen_blue:
Woah, woah. Don't quote me and then say things like that as if you're trying to argue with me. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It's just important to make a distinct difference in your mind between fact and opinion. Here are the facts. Lolicon is the word the Japanese use for pedophile. Pedophiles are people who are sexually aroused by children. There's really nothing to argue about that, it's cut and dry. Now, questions like "what makes a character a lolicon character?" are quite subjective.(...) The reason I define lolicon characters by looks is because I use the definition as my basis. Lolicon = pedophile = sexually aroused by children. Therefore, a lolicon character should look like a child. Of course, there is a lot of grey area with our concept of "minors." (...) It would be nice if everyone could talk about what they think and actually provide reasons to support what they say. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/wink.gif[/img]
Few people I know can distinguish between fact and opinion sadly enough and equal to that a lot state that what is opinion today is fact tomorrow, such as in 1860 'men will fly someday' and by 1990 the Concorde is crossing the Atlantic in around 2 hours. Please note that what I am saying is not arguing with you per say but since you sited something I am going off of from what you have said since you have said it.
Please note I use child in place of minors but I am guessing we mean the same thing?
No definition can be 100% fixed, set in stone, when it deals with an issue surrounding people. See I think if you can at least get a workable framework you can apply a definition in maybe 8 or 9 out of 10 times and then apply it to other fields then what you started using it to define. That is if you can always apply it to people then you can apply it elsewhere but because of the stickiness of aspects of what makes someone a child instead of an adult, and age is not the only nor final way to tell, I am not sure this can be used 100% of the time in real life. Therefore I am not sure we can apply it elsewhere because we have no fixed framework to work from to say "Oh she looks young but really is mature and smart and truly takes on the roles of a mother or a teacher or adult big sister, she's a kid."
See one could just as easily say "Oh she looks like an adult, but loves to play games, giggles all the time, often wears clothes with cartoon characters on them, has her hair in pig-tails, skips while singing to herself and eagerly tugs on people's arms when she sees something she likes, so she must also be a adult". Those then might be two ways to make a child, actions and looks and neither could be right, the first could be an adult in all but age and age is abritary definition decided on in part for ease of the enforcement of law, and the second could be an adult too that just acts that way because she truly enjoys life and really does not give a darn what others think of her actions. Yet both could also be children because of their actions and their appearance . So you see why I think there is no fixed way to define what is a child? Age I really don't think can ever be the only way people decide this issue since the only reason we think someone of age X is a child is because we are socialized to think that, not because they might be a child until they have a birthday when they magically go from infant to child to adult at certain given ages?
Maybe Lolicon = pedophile = sexually aroused by children, but then the problem is what I have been saying, what makes a child, and as you said or hinted at that is a much harder question to answer. So my main point is, we cannot even fixate this truly in real life, they have been cases of 12 year olds fathering their teachers child, Mississippi I think, and from what I remember reading the courts ruled they could marry and the 12 year old had the responsibility of an adult for his actions. So does that mean all 12 year olds are adults or just that one?
Until we solve the issue of what is and is not a child I don't think we can apply any definition to anything other then life which allows us to alter the definition accordingly. That is why I fail to see why people make a deal of it outside of life when we change the idea within it's application to life each day.
But those companies are self-banning it by fear of what others will think through not releasing it. Yes they have to be concerned about their costumers so set up dummy coporations and sell it through those, most people won't spend the time looking for the link between say the ABC Coporation which sells maybe Language Teaching Software, and the XMB Corporation which sells those types of games.
Oh yes it would be nice if all that are interested could post their views maybe get a nice dialog going on this issue and share views, bring understanding.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 05-05-2004).]
