/jp/ - Otaku Culture

My love for big tits will keep me safe.

Still keeping my loli.

But she's really 1300 years old, so the form her body takes is of no consequence!

Unless you're racist against dwarfish people!

Let me enjoy my loli in peace it's not like I want your disgusting 3d children.

Good thing I don't live in America.

Typical American.
Look how he tries to ban our imagination.

>Alaska
lol right. No one gives a shit.

>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com

>Rep. Jay Ramras, R-Fairbanks

Good thing no one is taking republicans seriously right now.

Is this a state ban or a federal ban they're looking for?

ASS TO ASS

normalfags will NEVER understand that loli has absolutely nothing to do with 3d. I want nothing to do with 3d kids you fucking morons jesus christ.

You can't ban something like "imagination", silly Americans.

>>3534834
You sound like a furry complaining about fursecution.

>>3534815
You say that now, just wait 4 years when President Palin takes over.

>>3534834
Chill, all those rules mean nothing to us.

>Is this a state ban or a federal ban they're looking for?

>Prosecuting attorneys in Alaska

lol they could do this in every state and it still won't do shit

You could never arrest a man for loli in alaska, he'd just hop on his dog sled and ride off into the wilderness.

>>3534865
>implying state officials can't push something to Congress

>>3534877
USA is busy sucking Obamas penis and spreading democracy all around the World.

Japans response to this should be to make an anime loli version of Northern exposure

>>3534824

They're trying to get the supreme court to declare it, so it would become the highest law in the united states. You might know the supreme court better by their most famous ruling. Roe versus Wade.

That said, the Supreme court is a pretty even split and they need a majority, and that this case is coming from an Alaskan Republican in a Democratic administration, so I doubt they'll even entertain it.

"What possible good could come out of having child pornography? I don't see that the founders of our country had any intention of protecting people who prey on our children. It would be an additional tool to put people away who are possibly abusing children."

I'm possibly invading my neighbor's house right now, with a weapon I possibly own that possibly could harm then. Possibly.

So, people, is there like Godwin's law, but related to using the founding fathers in an argument? Like "Our founding fathers wouldn't approve your junk food eating habits."?

>>3534910
>Supreme Court
>the Supreme court has 9 Justices
>even split
nigger what.

>crimes-against-children
Crimes against fictional children? Oh lol.

brb fapping to loli

>>3534933
I don't know, but child abuse functions pretty similiarly to Godwins law when it comes to all matters related to privacy and artistic freedom.

Everyone trying to ban loli and Hentai are just really fucking bored, clearly we need another war to happen to keep these morons entertained

I dont care that much as long as this will not happen in my country.

>>3534956
spoiling other peoples fun is what being human is about.

>And cartoons are naturally conducive to attracting a child.
does this mean I can get little girls to come home with my if I promise to show them cartoons?

>>3534956
Aren't we already engaged in active warfare in three fucking countries ?

>>3534883
>spreading democracy
>supporting defacto despot in Afghanistan

The most attempts to get this banned came during the Clinton years. There was an attempt to get written sex with children banned, too. The SCOTUS shot that down.

This was during the Rehnquist years. The last challenge that came up was in 2003. The Court shot that one down, too.

Congress passed the PROTECT Act in 2006. The Roberts court has not seen fit to bother with any challenges to it at all.

>>3534964
America doesn't care about the deaths of millions of foreigners. It cares about the deaths of millions of Americans.

We need a World War up in this shit, yo.

>>3534964
Military and society different things, bro.

>>3534954
True, but fun fact is that Hitler possibly gassed every child molester they found.

>>3534969
There's only been one prosecution under that law since, and the dude had actual CP.

>>3534977
Hitler also said that you can use protecting children as an excuse to pass whatever retarded laws you want.

>>3534933
in the founding fathers time didn't 10 year olds get married to 20+ year olds?

My great-grandma was twelve when she married my great-grandpa (he was 19 at the time)

I can just say that they are 18+. What are they gonna do? They cant prove me wrong, its a fictional character. They gonna ban all images of of age flat girls too?

>>3534984

They would just argue that times have changed, we are more "sophisticated" now. Clearly they know nothing of the world

>>3534984
And back in the day, pretty much every guy would sleep with another guy or two at some point in his life.

>>3534996
This sounds like sarcasm when it shouldn't be.

>>3534981
Two.

>>3534947

Between liberal and conservatives. I'm implying that even if they entertain this, there's a 50/50 chance that they'll actually end up declaring loli to be completely and unquestioningly legal.

>>3534994

If America wants to, they can manage to ban whatever the fuck they want. Fucking hypocritical country

>>3535003
>liberals
>in American politics
Unless we're talking about Dennis Kucinich, no.

>>3535003

>there's a 50/50 chance that they'll actually end up declaring loli to be completely and unquestioningly legal.

But haven't they done this several times already though?

>>3535014
when you're talking about the supreme court the liberals are the ones that would rule in favor of a ban.

>>3535015
And each time a new, poorly written law came out that put it back in grey legal territory.

How is it that they have managed to bring the loli ban to the supreme court multiple times? All the arguments they make will be exactly the same as last time, so why is the supreme court even allowing them to waste their time on something they have already made a ruling on.

>>3535015

Not by the supreme court. Minor court battles have usually resulted in loli being called legal with a few hiccups here and there. The Supreme court also usually follows trends in their rulings, so yeah.

Loli is banned in Canada why don't you faggots angst about that.

>>3535048
But I don't like loli!

>>3535048
Because Canada drinks its milk from bags.

Milk. In bags.

Milk bags. Milk. Bags.

Really, it's hard to take a country seriously after milk bags.

>>3535048
I am Canadian and I did not know this.

>>3535007
Oh please, its a ban on CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Just because it drawn doesn't make it not depictions of little girls in sexual situations. I couldn't prove to you that it causes many people to go out and rape kids (in fact, I would expect to find the opposite in most cases) but that doesn't really change what it is. And for gods sake at least the US doesn't censor crap like Australia and Germany do....yet.

>>3535069

Actually no, it isn't.

>>3535048

Because the six police officers here in Canada are too busy responding to domestic disturbances caused by sandniggers and Somalians to enforce it.

>>3535069
The CBLDF would like to have a word with you...

It never ceases to amaze me how the media/government misunderstands the purpose of animé and manga. Why can we not enjoy a story with young children (i.e. school girls in sailor fuku) without assuming it's all hentai or ecchi related? I think they really need to study more into it before making assumptions as to what it really is.

And I concur with the "it's just fantasy" post above.

>>3535069
>Just because it drawn doesn't make it not depictions of little girls in sexual situations.
Actually, in a sense, it does.
Child Pornography is by definition pornography of unconsenting underaged children. Lolita is DRAWINGS of underaged children, drawings are not human or sentient, and have no legal rights or protections (other than the artist's copyright)

Ask yourself for a moment, why is Child Pornography banned? Nobody will say it shouldn't be, but ask yourself why? It's because it does mental and physical harm to children, who are often abused and exploited, and can't legally consent to sexual relations.

With loli, there are no children to hurt, they are drawings sprung from an artist's imagination.

Crimes must have a victim, after all, laws only exist to keep people from harming each other. There are no victims in with loli

>>3535098
>animé
Get out.

Now.

>>3535098
Most people who enjoy stuff with little girls in sailor fuku probably enjoy ecchi/hentai stuff with the same girls as well.

>>3534994

What this guy said, how are they proving it? For instance is JAST gonna get spotlighted for translating demonbane with it's loli heroine? She's obviously not a child, but will they see it that way.

>>3535098
They can't be bothered to read a bill, which they're getting paid to do. Like they can be fucked with doing independent research that isn't presented to them by a lobbyist along with a campaign check.

>>3535089

And it's going to be the same story in the US if this shit passes.

>>3535098
>young children (i.e. school girls in sailor fuku)
You just said that all young children are school girls in sailor fuku.

Congratulations.

You were looking for "e.g.", fuckwit.

In before 30% of the FBI is utilized into tracking down /jp/ users and imprisoning them.

>>3535108

He's probably gonna censor the hell out of it, I don't blame him with the way the world is right now. All the kids on /jp/ are gonna cry about it though

I'd love to see this shit go to court with someone who has a fucking clue. No victim thus no crime. Age of characters could be anything you say they are. Thought crime. It's a fucking cartoon FFS! If I doodle a stick person having sex with a smaller stick person and say the smaller stick person is 8 is that suddenly illegal?

It needs someone with more than half a brain to challenge this if it ever came to pass.

lol Alaska

I wonder if Rep. Jay Ramras can see Russia from his house.

>>3535121
Most people don't even know e.g. exists, more so the difference between i.e. and e.g.

Wow, completely misses the point of anti-CP laws. Its to protect abused children, not because of sexualization of children. You see elementary school kids wearing the sluttiest clothes, just miniaturized now days. And that's because of parents and social trends.

>>3535143

Something tells me when they get really serious on this, they'll plant real CP on the guys computer. So they can try to make the average american assume CP and loli are the same. Basically they'll use the last loli trial as an example and just replicate it

>>3535155
Most people are retarded. What's your point?

If it was the possibility of him not even knowing about "e.g.", you can look for a word (based on its meaning) without knowing it.

>>3535101
"Depiction"
That means, it is a representation of something.

Granted I did use the term "child pornography" in all caps with the intention of making it sound worse than it really is. But I can still define it any way I wish. To me, child pornography would be any kind of image that shows underage children (underage) having sex or in sexually explicit situations. Whether there is consent or not is completely irrelevant as well.
The whole argument is over this very issue in a way. Are the drawings bad? Can they potentially cause children harm by putting the wrong ideas in to the minds of the viewers? It does glorify sex with children, no?

Shit if I know, brah. Even if you did some kind of study on it the statistics could be warped to support either side.

>>3534772
stop spamen ur crappy bored on anoпtalk.com u retartet fagit's btw moot log's ur ip's lulz enjoy ur v&

the bot is getting smarter...

>>3535181
>the statistics could be warped to support either side
I guess the statistics on eating horse shit for dinner every day could also be warped. We clearly have no idea whether that's healthy. I recommend we start doing it right now to help solve world hunger. For the children!

IT'S UNACCEPTABLE THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS TO CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE THEY AREN'T REAL

>>3535196
/jp/ always raged about this to protect their lolis. Just wait for the neverending shitstorms when Japan will ban loli.

This reminds me a little of the news on the radio today. Apparently some playboy-like magazine is going to have Marge from Simpsons on the cover, and the newslady made the funny remark about "Does anyone find drawings interesting?".

Like the concept of imagination was completely new and the only way to be aroused is to visually see an actual human.

Saying that drawings of lolis makes children at risk sexualizes them more than the images themselves. Saying that we're so close to raping children that an image will throw us into some kind of rape-fest is outrageous. Loli is a separate entity than CP. Watching CSI is not going to make you murder. Watching SAW IVIIVIVIVIXXXI is not going to make you plant a knife in someones eye.

What is important here is there is nothing illegal going on. It's victimless.

This will never be passed and if it does how are they gonna stop us?

They can't even stop pirates and actual pedophiles. They're biting off more than they can chew.

>>3535199
You probably could, honestly

>And cartoons are naturally conducive to attracting a child

OUTLAW CANDY

>>3535210
It's Playboy itself.
She won't be nude.

>>3535211
There are even studies that indicate that such things reduce the occurrence in real life.

As far as I'm concerned, these are just a bunch of conservative judgmental moralists, who thinks its wrong, perverted and disgusting. Which it may be, but that's a matter of opinion, and we have rights to some extent. They're just attempting to use moral outrage and reinterpretation of the intention of laws to give them backing to violate others rights and make them conform to their own conservative values.

>>3535244

Do you happen to have a link to any of these studies?

I might need them in the future when normalfags start nitpicking and acting holier than thou.

Want to know something about advocates against pedophilia?

Most of them are pedophiles. You hate the thing you are.

if they don't have the fantasy to keep them at bay then they'll really go molest children.

>>3535260
I love loli and fellow loli-lovers...

>>3534813
>Typical American
>Alaska

>>3535260
That's why Republicans are the craziest sexual deviants and homosexuals.

>>3535260
I can vouch that this is true. I used to be really, really against loli... and then I got an interest in it myself.

This thread is starting to remind me of what I heard the other day. Something about republicans voting not to punish some company who's employees gang raped some woman or something. One of those Republicans being McCain of course. Glad he didn't become president.

>>3535261
A real Child Molester won't just stop thinking about it or doing it just because he can fap to loli. If he has it in him, he will do it whatever he has porn or cp.

>>3535285
It was halliburton.
http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

>>3535121
Punctuation does not go outside of quotation marks, fuckwit.

You know what? I'm gonna fap to loli tonight just because of this.

>>3535290
I'm glad you use "child molester" instead of "pedophile".

It's likely that many child molesters are "pedophiles", but I would bet that at least some are not. Further, most pedophiles would never go for child molestation. It's like the relationship between rapists and "normal" people.

This reminds me of all that shit going on in Japan. Hope it doesn't happen here.

>>3535261

The problem with that argument is that--much like the argument that CP causes child abuse--it undermines personal responsibility and ultimately lends more credibility to the opposing argument.

>>3535306
It depends on the punctuation in question, the context of the quotes, what is being quoted... and parts of it are debatable even then.

Also, I was talking about diction, not grammar, dumbass.

>>3535261

The problem with that argument is that--much like the argument that violent/sexual media causes more violence--it undermines personal responsibility and ultimately lends more credibility to the opposing argument.

What's a pederast, /jp/?

>>3535257
I don't think there are studies, just the observation that in the United States, as porn quantity, quality, and availability has increase, rape has decreased.

I fap to loli daily. I can't even fap to normal shit any more. I think something is wrong.

There's a difference between being attracted to a 7 year old and a 14 year old with hips and a nice ass.

>>3534770
stop spamen ur crappy bored on anoпtalk.com u retartet fagit's btw moot log's ur ip's lulz enjoy ur v&

>>3535340
Hey. 7 year olds can have nice asses and hips too.

>>3535336
No, I'm pretty sure most people don't fap to shit.

>>3535328

Oh, well that was a given.

>>3535343
That is very rare. I generally stick to 9 as my lower boundary.

>>3535260
Source?

Victimless crimes are the future.

>>3535103
>>3535104
>>3535111
>>3535121
oh shit, i forgot to post where i quoted that from
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=123016
4th post down

Why is it that horror films are rarely blamed for murders these days while anime and games have been taking the blame?

>>3535403
And GTA.

>>3535403

Horror movies - Mainly American

anime & games - Japanese

If anime & VN's were all American, this shit would never be an issue.

>>3535403
They probably aren't, it's just that you have more knowledge of those that do, due to browsing /jp/.

Isn't porn that "simulates" sex with children illegal in most states?

As in, "oh, I am 30-year-old pig-disgusting 3D Pamelanderson with twintails, but really I'm 15-year old schoolgirl kekeke :)))" in schooluniform and sucking lolipop. Doesn't that get people arrested?

You know, sometimes I want to like republicans what with all their flag-waving FREEDOM IS AWESOME antics. But then they go and shit all over everything by proposing censorship and shit.

It's like, if your pro-economic-freedom, you've got to be pro-social-freedom too you twats. Otherwise the same arguments you use against government economic control can be used against your social policies.

>>3535444

Only if they claim that the person is under 18. If they show a 5 second warning that states ALL ACTORS ARE OVER 18, then it is legal regardless of how young they are made to look.

Which brings me to this: you cannot prove age in a cartoon. It's not as if the characters are 3 months old because that's when they were animated. All you have to do is be creative with your spoilers:

"All characters depicted live on an alternate reality earth has a year that is 5 times longer than normal, and where physical development continues at 5 times slower a pace but mental development is the same as our earth. Therefor, while this character may look adolescent, he/she is actually in his/her middle age by our standards, and all characters shown are at or above the age of consent for the planet they are depicted on."

>>3535444

No

>>3535446
>flag-waving FREEDOM IS AWESOME antics
Why would you possibly like that crap

Politicians will go with whatever the flavor of the month is to get into power then push through their own agendas regardless of public opinion. Never trust anyone that wants to be in politics. They are all scum and in it for personal gain.

>>3535460
That explains Fate Stay Night.

>>3535493
There is nothing that could possible explain FSN.

>>3535475
Nationalism is cool dude. Doesn't lead to fascism in the slightest.

>>3535446
Your choices are as follows:
Left wing- Anti economic choice, anti-personal choice (unless you happen to be in a hot-topic group, i.e. homosexuality, feminism, etc.)
Right wing- Pro economic choice, anti-personal choice.

>>3535460
Woo!

>>3535510
Left is still better, since only people who have money get to make economic choices, meaning the top 1% of Americans control everything.

IF ROBERT HEINLEIN WAS MY ATTORNEY GENERAL THINGS WOULD BE DIFFERENT AROUND HERE

Don't care, first amendment, can't change it.

>>3535498
Nationalism is pretty much shit, actually.
Nothing good has ever come of it. Ever.

>>3535510
If only there was some third choice with maximum freedom and black people deaths..

> it still sexualizes the child
>the child
>the
Looks like someone has trouble distinguishing the real world from the fictional one.

>>3535510
How can you even imply the right wing has anything over the left in terms of economics. Where have you been the last 8 years?

Protect the depiction of a child at all costs!

>Internet
>ban

>>3535551
They have economic freedom, man. The freedom to live in a country with the highest income disparity of any first world nation. The freedom to be born poor and then die. The freedom to keep most of that $5 million that you earned because you worked 150 times harder for it than the guy making minimum wage. Freedom is awesome.

>>3535580
You clearly have no fucking idea how the economy works.

Your post:
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>3535551

He didn't imply anything. What he said is absolutely true. Republicans do advocate for more economic freedom.

Whether state-controlled or corporate controlled economies are better is a completely different issue.

>>3535600
"Economic freedom" does not = Pro economic.

>>3535613
Try reading one word further on from economic and you'll see another that changes the meaning of the sentence.

Stop it, guys, don't bring economics into this.

>>3535510
I'm a fascist. Pro:

freedom of speech; no censorship whatsoever, regardless of who is being offended; making CP is illegal, watching it is not

force all presidents to go on a diet and do weekly muscle training, and then have them pose topless for propaganda that would make Putin shy

nationalize utilities and healthcare

maximum income cap as a progressive multiple of median employee salary, with incentives to allow more government oversight voluntarily.

racial nationalism (for blacks, whites, and everyone in between)

abolishing affirmative action

incentivized eugenics (get abortion, get artificial insemination, adopt, etc, and you get $$$)

transhumanist studies and genetic engineering of humans to work towards the overman

increase unemployment pay and allow people to remain on it indefinitely, but after six months they can be forcibly drafted into any public works projects and/or military at any time, and the former affords no extra pay.

Make education optional; implement literacy test for voting (eliminate lazy bastards from the voting populace; only those with drive will vote, so it will be less of a popularity contest)

build a replica Colosseum, and make corrupt public officials fight to the death gladiator style

provide political asylum for all computer criminals world wide, and use them to form a 1337 haxor squad, with large incentives to out eachother if they catch anyone double-teaming

government-made recreational drugs during national events, a la Brave New World

>>3535624
What's wrong with a little economics between friends?

>>3535632
That's not what fascism is you idiot. The people who first used the term were quite explicit, I don't understand why everyone has so much trouble with this.

>>3535613

I did not say it was, nor did he.
He simply said that they were pro economic freedom, a stance which holds that the economy is better controlled by private citizen's interests than that of the state, which is pretty much the GOP line.

This does not, in fact, imply that this a smart line of thinking. These are merely words stating the common party stance. Nothing to get butthurt about.

I know the world is supposedly in debt right now (I say bullshit). But if it wasn't (hurr) what would happen if everybody in the world got an equal share of everybody elses money? Would there be enough for everyone to live a reasonable life on?

WELCOME TO CANADA FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS ENJOY

>>3535632

>>3535652
Dunno.
We'd have to substract debt. We might actually reach a not so big number of real money being free.

>>3535652
ITT we don't understand how fiat currency and debt works

>>3535645

Even if I'm not using the term correctly, that's exactly what people would call it. I just figured I'd lessen the effect of calling it that as a pejorative by saying it myself.

>>3535624
Better than another 100+ post of fags repeating themselves.
With that said and done, I believe that Keynes was right but everybody who tried and tries to use his stuff is fucking stupid.
>>3535632
>force all presidents to go on a diet and do weekly muscle training, and then have them pose topless for propaganda that would make Putin shy
Bad idea, brah. Putin would take that as challenge and train so hard that he would become God Emperor of Mankind.

>>3535658
Canada is a shithole.

>>3535648
Regardless of party propaganda, no government is in favor of less government. Ever.

>>3535658
If Canada is any indication, no one will give a shit and you'll be able to download loli exactly as you are now.

>>3535648

>build a replica Colosseum, and make corrupt public officials fight to the death gladiator style

best idea

>>3535685
Wrong.

>>3535632
>incentivized eugenics (get abortion and you get $$$)
Great idea. Enjoy your thousands of chavs who keep getting themselves pregnant then having abortions to get free state money, attacking people and generally shitting up your nation.
You should probably consider some sort of process for the extermination of chavs in your list first.

LOOKS LIKE BEING COOL'S ILLEGAL NOW, HEY GUYS?

>>3535689

No U.S. president has ever significantly decreased the scope of government.

>>3535682
>Keynes was right
Dunno brah, I don't really feel like having my savings reduced to zero through negative interest rates and inflation to deceive workers into believing they're getting raises while their labor is actually getting cheaper.

>>3535694
If they all had abortions, chances are your chavs would only last one generation.

>>3535694

After the fifth abortion, it is entirely possible that a 'mistake' might be made that renders the female reproductive system useless.

p.s. im making a country where cool things are legal who's in.

p.p.s. no shitty idolfags allowed

>>3535697

Also, Reagan merely shifted government power from the social sector to the military sector and into the drug war

>>3535700
Yeah, cause abortions have done so much to stop black on black crime in the states.

>>3535705
>Ausfailian

>>3535685

I'm beginning to agree with him that perhaps you are retarded.

No one has said anything regarding that.

The right wants to put the economy completely in the people's hands. Which means mega $texas monopolies for the companies that back them. The left wants the economy in the state's hands, which means a bureaucratic mess and a national tax drain.

No one said either one is better, no one said either party wishes anything more than complete authoritarian control. He just supplied the goddamn party stances, and you're a retard.

>>3535711

I'm pretty sure loli's already highly illegal here, but the government doesn't give a shit so w/e..

>>3535714
>implying the rich are people

>>3535446

This guy here

All I meant that that the republican party line is basically that the government shouldn't interfere in the market, thus leaving the market 'free' insofar as it is not controlled by the government but by non-governmental organizations that form in the free market.

>>3535714
First, I'm not the person you think I am.
Second, the right proclaims to want that. It doesn't actively do it.
If party lines were worth anything we'd already know.
Claiming you want something and not doing it doesn't count as anything.

>>3535726

Marxists here. There is nothing wrong with being 'rich'. I wish everyone were 'rich'. The problem is when your wealth is not representative of your labour, or in other words when you make money off of other's labour and not your own. You can very well be a poor bastard and still be a bourgeoisie capitalist in that the little money you have did not come from your own labour. It's the disconnect between labour and wealth that we criticize, not the wealth itself.

>>3535726
>implying

Seems like we are at a low point.

What is the ideal mix of left and right wing policies?

>>3535746
No.
What you criticize is the exploitation of the majority by the capitalists through unjust remuneration that serves to produce capital gain. Marxism denounces the theft of worker's labour by capitalists through the mechanism of capital value and the monopolisation of production means.
Be honest about your damn beliefs.
The disconnection you speak of is theft.

>>3535743

No shit. Of course they say they want it but don't actively pursue it. It's the same reason the democrats say they want racial and sexual equality and rarely pursue it.

So what the hell are you arguing then? He just supplied the party lines in the first place to demonstrate how neither party is fair match for /jp/.

>>3535758

fascism

>>3535758
That would be a fuselage.

>>3535758
There's none. All policies eventually turn social-democrat much like Germany, Great Britain or France.

>>3535758
Asteroid drop.

>>3535746
Oh, so I was right that NEETs are bourgeoise fuckers. Thanks commuAnon.

>>3535769

>Marxism denounces the theft of worker's labour by capitalists through the mechanism of capital value and the monopolisation of production means

I never said that that wasn't what I believed. But rather than explain about wage slavery and the means of production, I figured I'd just summarize the underlying principle in laymen terms.

>>3535787

They're only bourgeoisie if their parents are forced to take care of them. If he's forty years old, and his parent's don't require him, there is no reason he can't be kicked out. By contrast, workers *need* money to survive. Parents don't need a lazy slob. NEETs are an example of parental stupidity rather than exploitation.

This girl looks older, is having porn of her ok?

By their standard of judgment yes because how a person looks determines their age.

>>3535769
Who decides what unjust remuneration is?

Don't like little girls? What's the matter, too HOT for ya?

>>3535839
It means not paying them what they earned.

>>3535826
Also by their standard no one normal would express interest in an adult woman with an underdeveloped-looking body.

>>3535777
lol'd hard

>>3535851
Who decides how much they earned?

>>3535848

What is this from? I swear I've seen it before.

>>3535746
>There is nothing wrong with being 'rich'.
There is.

>I wish everyone were 'rich'.
This is why you don't understand.

Not everyone can be rich. Until we have cost effective long distance space transportation and can colonize and mine other planets, our resources are much too limited for that. As a result, for every rich person, there are MANY poor people.

>>3535884

And therein lies the greatest argument against Marxist socialism. To reduce pay to merely hours worked ignores effort and intelligence, and fosters laziness over efficiency. The state's ability to set prices and wages in an objective manner is far less efficient than the supply-demand market equilibrium.

>>3535897
Shana, fool.

First rule of crime. Don't get caught.

>>3535914

Is it even a crime if you don't get caught?

>>3535898
Resources are not the only factor. Effort and genes play a huge role as well.

>>3535899
Of course, both suck, so the obvious solution is to do away with economy in the modern sense altogether. Reduce the population by picking off all except the elite. Eventually, we reach the point where those remaining are capable of collecting and refining resources enough to sustain themselves with ease. These individuals form small, separate collectives which eliminate the need for state oversight and practice economic (near-)isolationism while encouraging cultural exchange through global communications (such as the Internet).

>>3535919
That's true, but even the most effort and best genes possible can't make up for the lack of resources, so that is the most damning argument against the "everyone is rich" scenario.

>>3535919
Both effort and genes are completely impossible to affect because we live in a deterministic universe.

>>3535327
SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY! YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT!

>>3535925
>deterministic
It would seem that you don't even know what that word means. Shut up before you make people mistake an intelligent discussion for your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

>>3535921

eugenics-based elitist anarcho-communist technocracy? Excellent.

>>3535947
Pretty much.

>>3535925
>effort and genes
>deterministic universe
But if it is a deterministic universe, then I was determined to have put as much effort into anything I ever did from the beginning, and my genes were certainly determined. There's no need to be redundant about it.

>>3535925

>using determinism as an argument on how to or not to model society, thereby implying free will which is mutually exclusive with it's premise

reactionimage.png

It would seem that the flood of pseudo-intellectuals doesn't know the difference between determinism and fatalism.

>>3535925
Are you talking about determinism as "lack of choice" or determinism as "all relevant choices are plotted?"

While the terms are often used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predestination are discrete in emphasizing different aspects of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but, because the future is predetermined, human action is just part of the overall cause. Their view does not accentuate a "submission" to fate, whereas fatalists stress an acceptance of all events as inevitable. In other words, determinists believe the future is fixed because of absolute causality, whereas fatalists and many predestinarians think the future is ineluctable despite causality.

Therefore, in determinism, if the past were different, the present and future would also differ. For fatalists, such a question is negligible, since no past could have happened other than the one that has happened.

Fatalism is a broader term than determinism. The presence of history indeterminisms/chances, i.e. events that could not be predicted by sole knowledge of other events, does not exclude fatalism. Necessity (such as a law of nature) will happen just as inevitably as a chance—both can be imagined as sovereign.

>>3536001
The former isn't determinism at all.

>>3536003
Don't mind me, just dropping many-worlds.

>>3536032
Yeah, enjoy your "I survived quantum suicide in another universe!" You're still (and were determined to) die in this one.

>>3536003

less tl;dr version:

determinists think that the universe is like a movie, but can still be awesome because you can't see the future until you have a memory of it.

fatalists get all emo over how they can't change anything, even if they don't understand that causal determinism doesn't change subjective experience at all.

>>3536013
It's not like many people recognize fatalism. I've met a bunch of people who lump it all under the label of "determinism," so it's a valid question when half the people use flimsy definitions by ignorance or laziness and the other half are Miriam Webster.

I suppose a less semantic question would be "what is your opinion of free-will and choice?"

Yes I do have lolis, but I assure you it's only for the heart attack inducing cuteness factor.

When the courts see how much safe driving ecchi I have, and how frequently it is accessed, surely the truth will set me free.

>>3536079 safe driving ecchi
Requesting loli-wearing-seatbelts image dump.

>>3536079
>safe driving ecchi
I'm not entirely sure what this means.

>>3536073

Even if the world is entirely causal (deterministic), functionally, it means nothing to humans.

Free will is "free" insofar as for any given choice you make, it *could have* come out differently. In a determinist system, it could *only* come out that way. However, from the subjective perspective, you can never *know* whether or not it could have come out a different way (beyond contending logical possibilities), therefor in either case the human mind could not tell the difference. Furthermore, in either case (determinism or not), the mind could *conceive* of ways that it *might have*, but *did not*, occur. Because of this potential to conceive of alternate possibilities, combined with the inability to objectively determine (from our subjective minds) whether or not an action is deterministic (that is, unless you can time travel, one can only imagine alternate choices, they cannot be verified), the human mind--by virtue of it's limitations--could not tell the difference between a truly causal and a non-causal universe. The illusion of free will, therefor, would be identical (at least from our perspective) as the real thing.

In other words, the question is meaningless because either way it wouldn't change anything. The question, from the human perspective, is functionally irrelevant. "Knowledge" of our state of being, in regards to determinism, would change--in a causal or non-causal manner--our actions, however our own short sightedness would make it manifest as the illusion of free will regardless. Unless you are a fatalist, the concept of 'determinism' has no real bearing on anything.

>>3536121
Airbag tits.

>>3536130
Uhhh, I just saw this post from the first page.

What the fuck...?

Determinism: There is free will, but everything is going to turn out in the way it does because everyone involved will always make the same decisions, as that's just part of who they are. In other words, you can and did decide everything for yourself at the very beginning..

Fatalism: You may or may not have free will (depends on the specific variant), but everything was and is going to turn out the same way because it is somehow decided by some higher power/the universe itself/whatever. You can't choose, no matter what.

Fatalism is fucking stupid. Determinism is just the result of a world based on "cause and effect"--a philosophical extension of causality.

>>3536130
Stop trying to be formal and "intelligent lol". It clashes with your poor grammar.

>>3536130

Well this post is as good as any to end this discussion.

I am not exactly sure what communism has to do with little girls though.

>>3536162

>implying that grammar matters on 4chan

>>3536164
True communists are cool bros and want to distribute the world's supply of loli to everyone equally.

>>3536130
So the thing which would primarily matter is our perspective on the causal universe, e.g., whether we are optimistic or pessimistic, whether we are good sports or react with jealousy, whether our behavior feels decisive or waffling, and such?

>>3536167
>implying that grammar doesn't always matter everywhere

>>3536175
>implying that everyone's first language is English

>Legality of lolicon ---> General economics ---> The Gold Standard ---> Determinism

Yes, this is a logical progression

>>3536192
That's why /jp/ is so great: there are things you can set your watch to - "japanese bird cooking spaghetti" - and things that you'd never be able to see coming.
In an discussion about determinism, no less.

>>3536172

Yes, because from our perspective we cannot by definition know if the universe is causal (we can't travel back in time to test randomness, while at the same time showing that our traveling did not introduce new causal elements), and also because regardless of what we believe about causality, how we act from our perspective will remain the same. Even if we change how we act based on that information, we do so in a way that provides the illusion of free will.

>>3536199
Delicious irony.

>>3536199
Just because you weren't able to predict determinism as easily as cooking bird doesn't mean that either one is more or less predestined.

>>3536192

Actually, it was:

Legality of lolicon ---> General politics ---> Fascism ---> General economics ---> Communism ---> The Gold Standard ---> Determinism ---> Fatalism

>>3536187
1) I didn't say anything about a specific language.
2) You cannot claim to know a language if your grammar is shit. If you don't know English grammar, you don't know English, so it's not your first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or whatever the fuck else language, and you are a retard for posting on English-language websites without putting in the effort to learn the language.

>>3536221
>implying he speaks impeccable English
>multiple grammatical errors in post

>>3536221

By that logic, no one on earth really knows any language.

>>3536226
>asserting that there are grammatical errors in the post of someone who clearly cares about grammar and not helpfully pointing them out
So you're an asshole and, possibly, a liar. Cool story, bro.

>>3536230
>implying trolls follow logic

>>3536221 You can't be a historian if you haven't made history.

>>3536230
No one really knows anything, of course. That doesn't mean they shouldn't put in the effort to learn as best they can.

>>3536236
I can see you certainly haven't.

/jp/-Philosophy/General

>>3536233
Reported for trolling. Enjoy your ban.

>>3536235
>DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS
See? I can "quote" something completely unrelated to the source post, too!

>>3536239
I wonder if Kant would've been a lolicon.

>>3536237
>I can see
No, son, your brain doesn't work, so you can't. Reported.

>>3536240
>>3536243
Butthurt.

>>3536244
You're the one taking cocks up his ass, so I'd wager you're also the butthurt one.

>>3536240
He was saying that YOU were the troll, since your arguments did not logically follow.

>>3536246
Ad hominems so soon? What happened to logic? Oh wait, trolling, right?

Guess what, faggot? I'm right. You're wrong. I know this. You know this. All of /jp/ knows this. Are you really so pathetic that you don't have anything better to do than shit all over the text entry form while I chill to Kalafina? Are you? I've got a solution. It works very well, ensuring that you will never have another pathetic moment in your life. Kill yourself. Trust me on this one. You'll never have to cry yourself to sleep again.

>>3536256
Internet tough guy. Still butthurt.

>>3536171
Nah, the supply of loli is infinite. People will take as much loli as they wish.

>>3536247
>>3536251
>I was saying
We all know you don't have the mental capacity to speak.

Legality of lolicon ---> General politics ---> Fascism ---> General economics ---> Communism ---> The Gold Standard ---> Determinism ---> Fatalism ---> Semantics ---> Grammer ---> Epistemology ---> Name calling

>Hurr durr

>>3536162 <--- This is where the thread went to shit.

>>3536264
>I don't have the mental capacity to speak.
Finally you are making sense.

>>3536267
Yes, because that's the part where, in your tiny, non-functional troll "mind", you "thought" you had an opening. Please, go back to /v/ and grind on the idiots there.

Also, anyone reading this thread can tell every post disagreeing with me was made by you, so why bother with the massive samefagging?

As long as this thread is shit, can someone tell me why it's a bad idea to tie everyone's pay to how well the company they work for is doing?

>>3536278
>EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS SAMEFAG

>>3536279
Because that would lead to a monopoly very quickly.

>>3536284
>implying multiple people would "disagree" with the obvious truth
No, you're the only one that stupid, fortunately.

>>3536292
Oh. That makes sense.

>>3536293
>>implying

cool story bro

>>3536309
>I have nothing to say.
Well, it's good that you can finally admit it.

>>3535217
marisa is right.

>>3536171
But loli isn't a resource which diminishes when split between multiple people, it can be copied repeatedly without cost. Wouldn't that be more like the Pirate Party's goal?