SerS - The Serious Squad Thread
0
@ Obvious spam
You own every discussion with your first post...
I just think that it is a shame that japanese artists are still required to censor genitalia even though they gained "freedom of speach and media" after World War 2.
The censorship laws have become more lenient over the last decade though. Prior to the 1990's even pubic hair had to be censored. Recent works show just how much more lenient the censorship laws have become
example:
A few years ago, a transparent non-mosaic censor would have been unheard of.
You own every discussion with your first post...
I just think that it is a shame that japanese artists are still required to censor genitalia even though they gained "freedom of speach and media" after World War 2.
The censorship laws have become more lenient over the last decade though. Prior to the 1990's even pubic hair had to be censored. Recent works show just how much more lenient the censorship laws have become
example:
A few years ago, a transparent non-mosaic censor would have been unheard of.
0
@ obviouspam
Well, looks like we're the only two here.
C'mon guys, censored pornography is a topic that EVERYONE on Fakku should have something to say about.
Well, looks like we're the only two here.
C'mon guys, censored pornography is a topic that EVERYONE on Fakku should have something to say about.
0
Captain_Falcon wrote...
@ Obvious spamYou own every discussion with your first post...
I just think that it is a shame that japanese artists are still required to censor genitalia even though they gained "freedom of speach and media" after World War 2.
The censorship laws have become more lenient over the last decade though. Prior to the 1990's even pubic hair had to be censored. Recent works show just how much more lenient the censorship laws have become
example:
A few years ago, a transparent non-mosaic censor would have been unheard of.
I think if it needs to be censored it should be censored this way. So it does not destroy the artists work. If i were a artist i would not like the fact that a section of my picture would have to be blanked out. I Don't mind the one bar censors as much as the ones with 3+ bars that destroy the image.
0
Even though i feel that the all the users have already made a valid point, i might as well throw in my 2cents. Sorry if people have already mentioned this.
Basically, as stated, i think censoring Hentai is unnecessary at all. Whenever i see censored areas in an h-manga i'm reading, i feel rather insulted. Why, you ask? Because i usually assume that by censoring said area, the people in-charge assume that our minds are just not ready for something that revealing. It's like we don't even know whats going on in the first place. What am i? stupid?(don't answer that).Along with that, some of us including myself actually do have intentions on seeing how the reproductive organs are drawn, seeing as how artists have different ways of doing this, I'm usually curious at seeing how that certain artist draws it his certain way.
Hentai is meant for those mature enough to see it. Thus, by saying that, it should be implied that this type of material is for those who are already experienced enough or is already aware of the type of content held within the hentai manga/DVD/etc. Keeping censors on is sort of a childish way of saying "I'm too embarrassed to let other people see them doing that, so i'ma make it less-visible, but visible enough for people to be able to tell how the cock keeps thrusting in and out."
Basically, as stated, i think censoring Hentai is unnecessary at all. Whenever i see censored areas in an h-manga i'm reading, i feel rather insulted. Why, you ask? Because i usually assume that by censoring said area, the people in-charge assume that our minds are just not ready for something that revealing. It's like we don't even know whats going on in the first place. What am i? stupid?(don't answer that).Along with that, some of us including myself actually do have intentions on seeing how the reproductive organs are drawn, seeing as how artists have different ways of doing this, I'm usually curious at seeing how that certain artist draws it his certain way.
Hentai is meant for those mature enough to see it. Thus, by saying that, it should be implied that this type of material is for those who are already experienced enough or is already aware of the type of content held within the hentai manga/DVD/etc. Keeping censors on is sort of a childish way of saying "I'm too embarrassed to let other people see them doing that, so i'ma make it less-visible, but visible enough for people to be able to tell how the cock keeps thrusting in and out."
0
Malik_USMC wrote...
Captain_Falcon wrote...
@ Obvious spamYou own every discussion with your first post...
I just think that it is a shame that japanese artists are still required to censor genitalia even though they gained "freedom of speach and media" after World War 2.
The censorship laws have become more lenient over the last decade though. Prior to the 1990's even pubic hair had to be censored. Recent works show just how much more lenient the censorship laws have become
example:
A few years ago, a transparent non-mosaic censor would have been unheard of.
I think if it needs to be censored it should be censored this way. So it does not destroy the artists work. If i were a artist i would not like the fact that a section of my picture would have to be blanked out. I Don't mind the one bar censors as much as the ones with 3+ bars that destroy the image.
Malik pretty much said the same thing I would've said.
*bows respectfully to Malik*
0
omnicide wrote...
Malik_USMC wrote...
Captain_Falcon wrote...
@ Obvious spamYou own every discussion with your first post...
I just think that it is a shame that japanese artists are still required to censor genitalia even though they gained "freedom of speach and media" after World War 2.
The censorship laws have become more lenient over the last decade though. Prior to the 1990's even pubic hair had to be censored. Recent works show just how much more lenient the censorship laws have become
example:
A few years ago, a transparent non-mosaic censor would have been unheard of.
I think if it needs to be censored it should be censored this way. So it does not destroy the artists work. If i were a artist i would not like the fact that a section of my picture would have to be blanked out. I Don't mind the one bar censors as much as the ones with 3+ bars that destroy the image.
Malik pretty much said the same thing I would've said.
*bows respectfully to Malik*
ditto (God I'm so late to this one I'm not even the first to say someone said what I was gonna say....sheesh.)
0
@Veus
If memory serves the cultural issue really comes up in places where you can buy it. The manga and videos themselves are on display not in the same way western shops are. They aren't behind the counter they are just as visible by anyone who come in the shop. So although it's "target" group is mature anyone can come around and take a look. So since there's not "in the back" or "behind the desk." You have to ask yourself, are they mature enough to see it yet? That's where the concept of universal censoring comes from currently...
Other than mindful shop owners that might curb audience away from the more "adult" areas.
I don't live there, and my daisy chained information is riddled with holes. So I'd like to hear revisions to this weak "Devil advocate" rebuttal.
If memory serves the cultural issue really comes up in places where you can buy it. The manga and videos themselves are on display not in the same way western shops are. They aren't behind the counter they are just as visible by anyone who come in the shop. So although it's "target" group is mature anyone can come around and take a look. So since there's not "in the back" or "behind the desk." You have to ask yourself, are they mature enough to see it yet? That's where the concept of universal censoring comes from currently...
Other than mindful shop owners that might curb audience away from the more "adult" areas.
I don't live there, and my daisy chained information is riddled with holes. So I'd like to hear revisions to this weak "Devil advocate" rebuttal.
0
How about a discussion of whether it was ethical to use the atomic bombs on teh cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end World War II?
Personally, I do not believe it was ethical to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even though an Atomic weapon had never been dropped before, scientists still had a good idea of the effects that atomic radiation could have on the human body. Even without tests it was evident that the radiation could cause cancer, tumors, and birth defects for years to come. Also, the radiation would affect the environment itself for an undetermined number of years.
However, one can not argue that there was a need to put a swift and quick end to the war. By this point in history, it was a matter of fact that the Allies were going to win the war. It was just a matter of time. The use of the atomic bomb did force the Japanese to surrender. This prevented a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have cost thousands of lives and lasted for an undetermined period of time. The use of the bomb did bring a swift end, preventing a second "island hopping" campaign.
Still, the after effects and the hellish landscape created by the bomb would linger for years to come.
Personally, I do not believe it was ethical to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even though an Atomic weapon had never been dropped before, scientists still had a good idea of the effects that atomic radiation could have on the human body. Even without tests it was evident that the radiation could cause cancer, tumors, and birth defects for years to come. Also, the radiation would affect the environment itself for an undetermined number of years.
However, one can not argue that there was a need to put a swift and quick end to the war. By this point in history, it was a matter of fact that the Allies were going to win the war. It was just a matter of time. The use of the atomic bomb did force the Japanese to surrender. This prevented a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have cost thousands of lives and lasted for an undetermined period of time. The use of the bomb did bring a swift end, preventing a second "island hopping" campaign.
Still, the after effects and the hellish landscape created by the bomb would linger for years to come.
0
Yes, dropping an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unethical to say the least, but then again, the whole war itself was unethical. both countries have reached a point in which they could no longer return from. Already slaughtering millions of people, this act was a measure taken to at least lessen any further loss of life as well as lessen the morale of the Japanese pushing them to surrender. At least they were able to justify their act...a little.
Also, did you know the Japanese were also building their own atomic bomb? I saw a documentary with a few blueprints saved from when they discarded the research papers. It was basically a race for both countries on who could develop the weapon first. In the end, the U.S. won this race, and thus, was able to launch it first. Kinda strange, no? It seemed that the use of nuclear weapons was inevitable for both countries. Kinda sad how they would resort to such a thing.
Also, did you know the Japanese were also building their own atomic bomb? I saw a documentary with a few blueprints saved from when they discarded the research papers. It was basically a race for both countries on who could develop the weapon first. In the end, the U.S. won this race, and thus, was able to launch it first. Kinda strange, no? It seemed that the use of nuclear weapons was inevitable for both countries. Kinda sad how they would resort to such a thing.
0
Veus wrote...
Yes, dropping an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unethical to say the least, but then again, the whole war itself was unethical. both countries have reached a point in which they could no longer return from. Already slaughtering millions of people, this act was a measure taken to at least lessen any further loss of life as well as lessen the morale of the Japanese pushing them to surrender. At least they were able to justify their act...a little.Also, did you know the Japanese were also building their own atomic bomb? I saw a documentary with a few blueprints saved from when they discarded the research papers. It was basically a race for both countries on who could develop the weapon first. In the end, the U.S. won this race, and thus, was able to launch it first. Kinda strange, no? It seemed that the use of nuclear weapons was inevitable for both countries. Kinda sad how they would resort to such a thing.
That is a good point, both sides had passed the point of no return. Each committing heinous acts. For example, if you had asked a Chinese person whether they thought the bomb was ethical, chances are they would have said it was just retribution for the Rape on Nanjing.
The Japanese were in the very first stages of building an atomic bomb. They would not have had one ready even if an invasion had been used instead of the bomb.
0
It was of course unethical to use them. Americans didnt care after losing troops they just wanted to end it and the A bomb made sure that it would end very fast. At least after using it we decided to not use it again sure we have lots but those are more to scare people and a if you launch one we are launching many and we will win emergency plan.
0
of course it's unethical.....
but rather than pointing fingers about who's to blame,i tried to look at the positive side.....
i think japan would not be the japan we see today if it's not for the A bomb.they might still be an imperialist country who would have minimal contact with the world.(and there's a possibility that H-material wouldn't be exported if it stays that way)
and i think the A bomb teaches the japanese "perseverance" even further,and that makes them the blue-collar,tough society they are today.and it opens up their world even further.
furthermore:the hiroshima-nagasaki teaches the world society about how scary,dangerous,lethal and inhumane A-bomb could be,and thus take a lesson from it.
but it's not like i advocate for more A-bomb usage.
the usage of A-bomb should still be banned at all cost.
but rather than pointing fingers about who's to blame,i tried to look at the positive side.....
i think japan would not be the japan we see today if it's not for the A bomb.they might still be an imperialist country who would have minimal contact with the world.(and there's a possibility that H-material wouldn't be exported if it stays that way)
and i think the A bomb teaches the japanese "perseverance" even further,and that makes them the blue-collar,tough society they are today.and it opens up their world even further.
furthermore:the hiroshima-nagasaki teaches the world society about how scary,dangerous,lethal and inhumane A-bomb could be,and thus take a lesson from it.
but it's not like i advocate for more A-bomb usage.
the usage of A-bomb should still be banned at all cost.
0
unethical? inhumanes more like it, america gets hit with a low blow and when their own reach around doesnt work they blow a fucking hole in the planets surface. although it might have prevented the war from progressing it was in no way a sensical idea. history has a tendency to repeat itself and now that atomic weapons have credible account its that much more likely that they will be used again. and if one is indeed used again it probably wont be the worlds strongest power finalizing a conflict, itll probably be someone they provoked.
just a note on the last topic: theres no obligation to censor hentai anymore. its based on the artists morality towards japanese customs, they probably receive wider publicity when they abide by the typical censors the japanese are used to. and @ obviouspam: the majority of adult products packaging usually have little or no explicit content on them, its essentially universal censoring at its best. thats no reason to censor the content of the product itself if thats what you might be implying.
just a note on the last topic: theres no obligation to censor hentai anymore. its based on the artists morality towards japanese customs, they probably receive wider publicity when they abide by the typical censors the japanese are used to. and @ obviouspam: the majority of adult products packaging usually have little or no explicit content on them, its essentially universal censoring at its best. thats no reason to censor the content of the product itself if thats what you might be implying.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
I think unethical is the wrong question to ask. By the definition of ethics, using the atomic bomb IS unethical. I'm pretty sure that's not up for debate.
The question should be more of "Was it right to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan?"
Compared to 'ethical', right is ambiguous in the fact that what people see is right can be varied due to their culture and surroundings.
The question should be more of "Was it right to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan?"
Compared to 'ethical', right is ambiguous in the fact that what people see is right can be varied due to their culture and surroundings.
0
like everyone said the use was unethical and further more not necessary.
Japan was about to surrender, dropping those bombs were just a real case test for America to see there efficiency and show their superior might. America even tried to drop a A-bomb at germany, but germany surrendered before the bomb was finished luck for us I guess.
Dropping those bombs didn´t helped anyone, the alliance would have one the war one way or another it was completely unnecessary. It only cause humanity to be more mistrustful, like in the cold war that happened afterwards.
But there is one thing that humanity should have learned like mnx said
but I would not say that there are any
things.
It is easy to say that if something didn´t happend in the past then things would not be the way they are today.
But it is difficult to say what would have happened to japan if the bombs would not have been dropped. We don´t know how the world or especially japan would be if those bombs were not dropped.
Japan was about to surrender, dropping those bombs were just a real case test for America to see there efficiency and show their superior might. America even tried to drop a A-bomb at germany, but germany surrendered before the bomb was finished luck for us I guess.
Dropping those bombs didn´t helped anyone, the alliance would have one the war one way or another it was completely unnecessary. It only cause humanity to be more mistrustful, like in the cold war that happened afterwards.
But there is one thing that humanity should have learned like mnx said
mnx wrote...
the usage of A-bomb should still be banned at all cost.but I would not say that there are any
mnx wrote...
positive side.....It is easy to say that if something didn´t happend in the past then things would not be the way they are today.
But it is difficult to say what would have happened to japan if the bombs would not have been dropped. We don´t know how the world or especially japan would be if those bombs were not dropped.
0
I don't really see the point of it. I don't think it accomplished anything a larger amount of less powerful bombs couldn't. I just think it's further proof that the people who are in charge of making decisions like these shouldn't be.
0
Ramsus wrote...
I don't really see the point of it. I don't think it accomplished anything a larger amount of less powerful bombs couldn't. I just think it's further proof that the people who are in charge of making decisions like these shouldn't be.That is true, traditional bombing runs can and have caused more damage than the atomic bomb. For example, the fire-bombings of Tokyo destroyed a larger area and killed more people than the atomic bombings did. However, the atomic bomb has a much greater psychological impact; one bomb is capable of obliterating an entire city.