Re: Frequently Asked Questions and Errors
You can't argue against the fact that what Nunu says, goes. Until he/she says otherwise, we are not allowed to post written works depicting underage characters having sex.
Yes. Admittedly, I had at first assumed that our admin were, in fact, already aware of the fact that the anti-child pornography laws did not cover text – and they still might be, as Nunu’s argument against it (PM’d to me) was merely for erring on the side of caution - …but I had, observably, underestimated at least Nunu’s reservation towards the potential of misjudging it. Hence why I am now trying to convince Nunu and/or Aika that we are able to host written loli content without ramifications, negating the only reason they stop us from doing so.
We don't allow loli, because we WOULD be threatened with a shut down if we openly displayed it, just as the other forum was shut down for having adult content.
Nooo we wooouldn’t~. There are a great deal of sites that display loli depictions quite openly but are still based in the US, and nothing has happened to them, despite the current laws. It’s almost like law enforcement knows that these laws are so unconstitutional that they would never work in court…
However, I’m not even talking about that – in fact, I would advocate the forum’s current position on images of sexually explicit loli content – I’m talking about written loli, something that expressly isn’t covered by any laws. This is something I pointed out in the first post, which you’ve not even attempted to prove wrong, and thusly I can only assume you accept as right (as I have been doing throughout the argument so far).
It's Aika and Nunu's jobs to tell us what we should and should not do, which they do via the Forum Rules and Advice thread. They tell us what the rules are, and we heed them.
Have
you told Nunu your secrets, recently? But being serious, the way the no loli rule is phrased is incredibly ambiguous. Not to the point of a ‘PC LOAD LETTER', but ambiguous nonetheless. A much better way to gauge the rules of the site is to actually listen to the admin speak on them; and what has been said about loli is ‘it’s illegal so you can’t do it here for the sake of our safety’. And written loli
isn’t covered by any anti-loli law, which I am attempting to convince Aika and Nunu of, thereby allowing it to be posted.
If it belongs to them, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where I said they couldn’t.
You trying to argue the possibility of how they might react to what they might deem as illegal content is just stupid.
No, that’s called ‘knowing someone’. It’s this thing that happens when you observe someone for a long period of time, and lets you have a good idea of how someone will react to something. When the ‘someone’ happens to have posted, multiple times, about the fact that they ‘allow loli it’s just that the laws don’t’, and the ‘something’ happens to be the fact that there is a post containing loli, or the fact that there is a loophole allowing written loli to be posted, I can fathom how they’ll react within a reasonable margin of error.
Lets say you have a person you know is hungry, and they’re in a room with a cake which you know they like, and which is owned by them. Apparently, RJ thinks that it would be
just stupid to think that the person is going to eat the cake; we can’t
KNOW how someone is going to react!
And yes, we really
can’t know how someone is going to react. But that does not stop there from being a damn good estimate.
Further, I can only surmise that RJ still does, in fact, expect the admin to suddenly destroy the form, despite his insistence against such, since he admits himself that he doesn’t assume how Aika or Nunu might act, and has yet to actually give any way in which the forum might be destroyed by something other than the admin themselves. In fact,
the very statement of RJ’s this paragraph responds to was about how it would be ‘just stupid’ to assume that Aika and Nunu would
not destroy the forum over loli content.
You presume that Nunu is totally infallible, has read through the entirety of the rules pertaining to the legality of loli, has a full understanding of it, and always keeps it in mind
You presume that Nunu asked because the character was underage
Or you think that Nunu is showing a strong personal hatred for loli(/shota) to the point where Nunu would want it removed
Did I say any of that?
…Do you understand what ‘presuming’ means? It doesn’t mean “say”. In fact, it happens to mean the opposite.
The More You Know
Or are you making up whatever you think will help your argument? Please, argue actual facts if you're going to argue. You're not making a point, you're being annoying and retarded.
First observation:
You presume that Nunu is totally infallible, has read through the entirety of the rules pertaining to the legality of loli, has a full understanding of it, and always keeps it in mind.
Actual Fact:
If you didn’t presume this, you would not be able to argue that Nunu knows, without any doubt, and thusly without any reason to question Nunu, what is right for the forum in regards to the legality of loli.
Point:
The idea that you would need to hold to make your argument - that an admin is infallible (in a serious context; as jokingly, we know Nunu is never wrong) - is patently ludicrous. It is a result of the incredibly childish and flawed view that one should not question a moderator or administrator. This would be correct policy on a forum where warnings would be whispered into the ear of new arrivals to keep them from being perma-banned as soon as they express a differing opinion to the admin’s – but not here. That a forum’s admin allows themselves to be questioned within reason is one of the things that makes a good forum a
good forum. Otherwise we might as well have named it LineMarvel’s Palace.
Second observation:
You presume that Nunu asked because the character was underage.
Actual Fact:
If you didn’t presume this, your statement would have no relevance to the matter at hand. Are you trying to say that you
didn’t presume that Nunu was asking because the character was underage?
Oh no, what was I thinking?! Of course not! You added that statement to your response about the legality of written loli because you thought Nunu was
just curious! That is totally relevant to your argument! (/sarcasm)
Point:
There was the possibility that Nunu was not asking for the purpose of determining loli. It was a slim chance, which has since been refuted by Nunu’s questioning of the story I posted on the blank page, but it was a chance nonetheless, and it meant that Nunu was not necessarily questioning their age for the reason you claimed Nunu was.
It was mainly added so I could ironically point out the opposite – that Nunu being infallible was likely (in co-ordinance with requisite forum humour) and that ‘Nunu was asking about the character’s age for the reason of determining if it was loli’ was unlikely (due to Nunu’s documented whimsicalness), an effective reversal of the actual, not-making-a-joke likelihood’s.
Granted, this was quite ambiguous and I should have explained it better, so I thank you for fulfilling part of your duties in an argument (namely, alerting the arguing partner to mistakes or lack of clarity).
Third observation:
If the other two presumptions are not the case, you must think that Nunu is showing a strong personal hatred for loli(/shota) to the point where Nunu would want it removed.
Actual Fact:
If you thought that Nunu might not be right, and may have made a mistake, then the only way you could have had any argument is if you assumed that Nunu was going to personally destroy the forum over the content (as, as I have said, my initial argument removed any method of the forum being destroyed over loli other than the admin, and was never refuted by you). I didn’t say it was
likely, just that it was the only other logical thought you could have been having.
Point:
Your argument was nestled between two flawed premises; that the admin are flawless or that the admin will destroy the forum themselves (which you have yourself admitted is a stupid argument).
You constructed two paragraphs, revolving around the imaginary ideal[sic] that I think Aika and Nunu hate loli? Or that I think THEY'D destroy the forum over it?
since half of the things I think I was accused of, I'm sure had NOTHING to do with what I was saying.
I provided the laws in place against loli, showing that currently there is nothing against written loli. With the actual law giving no indication that the forum can be shut down because of it, and (, unless I ended up proven mistaken in my assumption that V-bulletin had no problem with it,) V-bulletin not going to shut the forum down because of legal, written-loli content, you argue that:
For the sake of not seeing this forum end like the first linemarvel forum, underage pornography is not allowed here, so long as Nunu says it isn't.
You gave no argument against the validity of the law I had referenced, or any argument against my assumption of V-Bulletin’s rules, or, lastly, any new reason why the site could be taken down in spite of it… only that our admin forbade it. Considering that this makes direct action by the admin the
only remaining way that the forum could be destroyed, I can only assume that you somehow expect the admin to suddenly destroy the forum because of loli content.
And here is something that I should have pointed out before, but somehow managed to slip under my conscious thought. This is a rundown of the beginning of this argument:
Toxic: Would something without image or video, something that is purely in text the describes a character as being underage still be trouble, not just for this website but for any under the rules?
RJ: Anything related to underage porn is in violation of the rules.
Douchebag: Where's that clip of Lex Luthor going "WRONG!!" when you need it...
Text is fine. All that the laws prevent are visual depictions, not textual.
RJ: I'm not talking about law, you idiot, I'm talking about the rules, which were made by Aika and Nunu themselves, not by the US government.
Now, let’s go back to that original question:
Toxic: Would something without image or video, something that is purely in text the describes a character as being underage still be trouble,
not just for this website but for any under the rules?
Is anybody else seeing the problem with this, now?
That all said, RJ's grasping at ways in which his incorrect statement was not, in fact,
incorrect, has spawned a second debate of greater importance; that of whether written loli should be allowed on ULMF. So far, RJ’s contribution to this argument has been nothing more than “YOU MUST NOT QUESTION THE ADMIN!!!!”, in a way that makes me want to reference 1984, Your Friend The Computer, and something that would be covered by Godwin’s Law, all at once…
Thankfully, however, both Nunu and the person who proves to live up to their position as RJ’s better half, Toxic, have provided actual, reasonable and logical arguments against the inclusion of written loli on the forum, which has invalidated a good portion of my argument, and gives me actual points to address... though there's still a bit to do before I get to that.
This would probably be as good a point as any to address this statement:
Maybe it was a little too obvious you were more interested in making stabs at me, than actually working on having a point in your argument. That was what probably ruined it.
My point-to-barb ratio was, and I believe still is, outstripping yours, though this post of mine might cause an imbalance against me. However, I’m not going to add a detailed examination of our posts proving such; not only would that be incredibly difficult to do fairly, the readers can decide which of us is “more interested in making stabs [at the other] than actually working on having a point in [their] argument”, by themselves.
It would be neglectful of me to ignore that there actually was an argument underlying RJ’s words, if one looks close enough. It took me a while to realise, but despite what was in his posts, the actual argument that RJ is trying to make is that “you are wrong in your belief that written loli is allowed under law; law is complex, and you might have missed something”. Granted, he never actually mentions anything to this end himself, and barely ever even alludes to it, but after two posts of his, I
think that this underlying belief is the only remaining way that his arguments can make sense to him(, or anyone else, for that matter).
This argument, that it has taken RJ two rather large posts to communicate, is also the same argument held by Nunu, who summed it up with a slightly smaller amount of rage and frivolousness:
We ere on the side of caution as we would rather not get the site shut down for misjudging the boundaries.
This is the first point that I will be replying to shortly. The second thing, added in by Toxic, are a few laws and events of note that go against, or would seem to go against, the idea that written loli is legal, and which I will respond to first.
These are the two main points:
The UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
And
The Miller Obscenity Test
The first one, and I am not going to write it’s name in full again, would seem to ban the existence of loli in even written form. However, the US has not actually ratified [That Convention]. It created a good deal of it, which other nations have decided to follow, but doesn't actually follow any of it, itself.
The second point is that there was some written loli that was prosecuted under the Miller Obscenity Test. The important thing is that this test is supposed to effectively decide that something is obscene to ‘community standards’ and has no ’artistic or literary merit’. In other words, it has no care as to whether a work contains loli or not, whether it is visual or not; just that it is obscene. (Ironically the written loli that was removed happened to be bondage-loli, i.e. the same fetishes in the example I put up on the blank page.)
This is
a bad thing, and wrong in more ways than I could name… but it isn’t quite the perfect argument for removing written loli that it seems. Now I'll admit, I personally underestimated this law when I made my initial statement that written loli was not covered by law; I had thought it to be unenforceable, but apparently it is instead all too enforceable.
However, the things that get taken down by the Miller Obscenity Test aren’t merely loli, they’re BDSM, scat, guro, tentacles – that sort of thing. Literally the
only sex act that cannot be found obscene under the Miller test, and this is in no way an exaggeration, is sex between a man and a woman – and only if you don’t show the ejaculation. Despite that, I doubt anyone here is going to claim that we should drop the content of the site down to the excessive standards of the Miller test. The anti-loli law? Sure, lets abide by it and not show loli images. But we’re already failing the Miller test. It won’t hurt to fail it more.
But, that said, it is undeniable that there have been loli stories removed through the Miller test. With the public’s hysteria towards loli how it is, the addition of loli material, even written and thereby technically legal, may potentially, in some small way, make the forum more of a target for some random litigation… however, the rest of our hentai does that pretty well already.
Which gets back to Nunu’s point. Yes, we don’t want to put ourselves at risk of getting taken down, but it is my belief that the addition of written loli content will not cause the forum to be at any greater risk than the obscene, and largely copyrighted work we already distribute does, as it does not break any laws that we
weren’t already breaking. (And really, the Miller test doesn't deserve to be considered as a law, as laws have static and definable parameters.) However, the final decision, of course, resides with our admin.
