[OPINION] What to do about H-anime
Carlos F. Salgado
Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness. This is the
large availability of what some in this country would consider
pornography. I refer of course to H-Anime. Thanks to distributors like
AD Vision, Anime 18 (CPM), and others, a great amount of reasons have been
provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
the rest of America about the evils of Anime?
Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
availability in the U.S.!
-Carlos
Cory Patton
Carlos F. Salgado (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) wrote:
: Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness. Carl Macek and
bad dubbs?
ÿû This is the
: large availability of what some in this country would consider
: pornography. I refer of course to H-Anime. oh
Thanks to distributors
like
: AD Vision, Anime 18 (CPM), and others, a great amount of reasons have been
: provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
: ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
: this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
: It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
: Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
: Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
: the rest of America about the evils of Anime? If the tight-ass middle
age republicans of America develop a problem with anime, fuck 'em. IN the
logical scenerio it will actually get it some publicicty. If it doesn't, I
don't give a rats ass because most of the people who would have a problem
with it are those who haven't seen any. I don't think these people should
be allowed near anime. Besides, only parents would really get concenrned,
the people who really like anime would keep buying it, as weel as the
perverts.
: Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
: on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
: considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
: Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
: The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
: availability in the U.S.! Anime will always be availiable in the US.
:
: -Carlos
--
Doug Jacobs
: provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
: ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
: this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
: It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
: Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
: Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
: the rest of America about the evils of Anime?
The press will always make a big deal out of the extremes. I remember
seeing Dateline do "factual" expose's on the Japanese school system
only to blow the suicide rate way out of proportion. If they couldn't
find anything sensational, it wouldn't be a story.
Note that I saw similar stories done by the Japanese press about
America. It goes both ways.
So, to defend against this, each fan should try to educate those
around him (her, etc.) Don't try to convert them to anime...simply
expose them to something like Totoro or BGC or something. This way
when they do hear the press rabmling about "all anime is sex filled!"
they'll remember that they've seen at least 1 show that doesn't fit
this image . They may not like anime which is fine; your goal should
be to simply show them that anime is very diverse.
: Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
: on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
: considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
: Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
: The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
: availability in the U.S.!
Since none of the voice actors are underage (at least I'm assuming they're
not!) in those sort of shows, I think it would be tricky to prove them
as a violation of the child porn laws (speaking from a US point of view
here.) Anyways, such tapes are marked by the manufacturer as definitely
not being for minors. If Blockbuster wanted to be stupid and place
Urotsukidoji next to Bugs Bunny, they'd deserve to be sued. I can
hardly see the compaines stopping their release of this stuff into the US
after all, it is making money and that's why they're doing this in the
first place.
Sakurazukamori
I'm not a big H-anime fan, but I think I should point out drawing cannot
be consider of any human age, thus child porn in anime's case is a moot
point. I turns my stomach to think of any kind of censorship, even to
real hardore stuff. This thread's message goes against the things we've
been questing for for years. Maybe you should re-think your position,
Mr. Salgado, because, like it or not, H anime is a viable and important
part of the US anime industry.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
< Ad-chan (Adam Marshall) >
> kul...@citynet.net <
< >
> ...one of the Dragons of Earth... <
< >
> ...Sakurazukamori... <
< >
> ...he has tainted a kekkai... <
< >
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Susano Orbatos
> >If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
> >with anime, fuck 'em.
>
> ass out of yourself. when are you morons going to stop mindlessly
> associating republicans with censorship when you have just as much
> to worry about from the communist party. why don't you think of
> groups like NAG or people like senator exon when you worry about
> censorship?
Before I stick myself into a political argument (cause I'm not the
"screw all politicians" type), I'm just wondering, Walter, you scolded
Cory for his stereotype, but in the same sense you give clear evidence
that implies that you're rather lacking in the department of
credibility; hypocrisy is NOT a way to justify a point...
--
_____________________________________________
Flight Officer Susano Orbatos
WolfPack X-Wing Squadron
Assign.: The Cruiser Defiance
http://www.wizard.net/~rcpcacmc
---------------------
176th Mobile Suit Platoon
'Cloud 9' Gun EZ Squadron
"We Get There When We Do."
dma...@forest.drew.edu
In article <5el2ot$s...@chronicle.concentric.net>, Eff...@cris.com (Cory Patton) writes:
> Carlos F. Salgado (fs...@aurora.alaska.edu) wrote:
[munched]
> : AD Vision, Anime 18 (CPM), and others, a great amount of reasons have been
> : provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
> : ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
> : this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
> : It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
> : Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
> : Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
> : the rest of America about the evils of Anime? If the tight-ass middle
> age republicans of America develop a problem with anime, fuck 'em. IN the
> logical scenerio it will actually get it some publicicty. If it doesn't, I
> don't give a rats ass because most of the people who would have a problem
> with it are those who haven't seen any. I don't think these people should
> be allowed near anime. Besides, only parents would really get concenrned,
> the people who really like anime would keep buying it, as weel as the
> perverts.
> : Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
> : on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
> : considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
> : Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
> : The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
> : availability in the U.S.! Anime will always be availiable in the US.
Hentai should be treated just like any other ultra-violent or
sexually explicit film is in America. Kids just shouldn't be allowed to
see it. But there's no reason that someone old enough can't view it. If
something like that takes place, and people STILL bash Anime then we can
easily attack their hypocrasy and people will believe that those malfactors
are idiots. The problem is, no such division exists. We need to be more
responsible in the future when renting or selling certain titles to
youngsters.
Look. Nothing has to be "done" about Hentai Anime. It's a viable
form of Anime and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. If we
try to restrict it we'll be just as bad as those censors we hate. Sure,
Hentai is sick shit. But we don't have to WATCH it. The only thing we
have to do is make sure there's a divisible split between "Hentai" and
regular Anime. But there's no reason to put up stone walls. There's not
a person out there who can tell me that I can or cannot see Hentai stuff.
I alone can make that descision for myself. If you want to watch it -
fine. I'll think you're a fucked-up wacko and try not to hang around you,
but I'm not going to force you NOT to watch it. That's totally
irresponsible. (unless, of course, you're my kid. THEN I have every
right to tell you what and what not to watch)
---Dmambu
Carl Walter White, Jr
Cory Patton <Eff...@cris.com> wrote:
>If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
>with anime, fuck 'em.
well that didn't take very long. thanks a lot cory for making an
ass out of yourself. when are you morons going to stop mindlessly
associating republicans with censorship when you have just as much
to worry about from the communist party. why don't you think of
groups like NAG or people like senator exon when you worry about
censorship?
--
My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
GRIESENBROCK
In article <5el90b$a...@samba.rahul.net>,
>: large availability of what some in this country would consider
>: pornography. I refer of course to H-Anime. Thanks to distributors like
>: provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
>: ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
>: this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
>: It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
>: Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
>: Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
>: the rest of America about the evils of Anime?
>
>seeing Dateline do "factual" expose's on the Japanese school system
>only to blow the suicide rate way out of proportion. If they couldn't
>find anything sensational, it wouldn't be a story.
>
>Note that I saw similar stories done by the Japanese press about
>America. It goes both ways.
>
>So, to defend against this, each fan should try to educate those
>around him (her, etc.) Don't try to convert them to anime...simply
>expose them to something like Totoro or BGC or something. This way
>when they do hear the press rabmling about "all anime is sex filled!"
>they'll remember that they've seen at least 1 show that doesn't fit
>this image . They may not like anime which is fine; your goal should
>be to simply show them that anime is very diverse.
I would just wait until Disney start pumping out the theatrical
version of all Studio Ghibili flics (hopefully with a better dubbing
job except for Kiki which is already damn good...) When people start
looking for more of 'those cool stuff...' especially the parents, I would
point them to some good shows like El Hazard (just to freak out those
homophobes :) and some softer AD Vision titles.
-T.J.
Enrique Conty
In article <5ekt62$m...@news.alaska.edu> fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Carlos F. Salgado) writes:
>Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
>on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
>considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
>Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
>The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
>availability in the U.S.!
Yes, we must eradicate pornographic trash like
Ranma 1/2 from video store shelves everywhere.
[Very big, very droll smirk.]
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
http://www.mcs.net/~conty
"There's what's legal, there's what's right, then there's what we do."
Jeff "Tsubame" Jarlett
The Dark Trooper wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb 1997 19:31:14 GMT, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Carlos F.
> Salgado) wrote:
>
> >Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness.
> >
> >-Carlos
> I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
> Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
> tools of SATAN. Go figure...
> I guess I am a minion of the Dark One then...So be it.
What was declared to be Satanic? To think that my cable company is
forced by the federal gov't tp waste a channel on these people...
And to think there are people who send money to keep them afloat...
--
Jeff "Tsubame" Jarlett
"You know, sneaky things are the specialty of ninja."
For a mediocre web page, visit
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jpjarlet/www/tsubame.html
PsychoKick
In article <33112af4...@news.insync.net>, ye...@right.com says...
>
>On 21 Feb 1997 19:31:14 GMT, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Carlos F.
>Salgado) wrote:
>
>>Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness.
>snip snip
>>
>>-Carlos
>I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
>Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
>tools of SATAN. Go figure...
Sheesh. I wonder if they've ever heard of "SuperBook", "Flying House"
or "In the Beginning?". Wonder what their reactions will be when Disney
releases the Ghibli films... won't they have egg on their faces then?
On another note, when you say "acquire", do you mean obtain the rights
to? If that's so it's rather hypocritical of them, even if they just intend to
sit on it to prevent distribution, since they've bought it already and thus
supported it.
--
-PsychoKick (mad animator in training)
--
"Creativity will not come out of happy lives, but from people who become
outcasts." -Toshio Okada
--
"One little word shall fell him." -'A Mighty Fortress is our God'
--
"Actually, I like being corrected. That way, I don't embarrass myself by
spewing the same BS over and over." -Paul Cordeiro
Michael Powers
In article <5el90b$a...@samba.rahul.net>, dja...@rahul.net says...
>
>not being for minors. If Blockbuster wanted to be stupid and place
>Urotsukidoji next to Bugs Bunny, they'd deserve to be sued.
Well, yes, except people won't remember it was Blockbuster who put the H tapes
next to kid's cartoons...they'll remember the H tapes. And let me tell you
Blockbuster won't be out in the streets shouting "look, we screwed up, we just
saw animation and assumed 'cartoon'"...they'll quietly fire the responsible
parties, let the loudmouths get hysteric about hentai anime, and hope everybody
forgets it was Blockbuster. And who can blame them? The sole and over-riding
purpose of most companies is to make money, and you can't do that if everybody
thinks of you as "the video store that puts porn on kids shelves"
Mike Powers
Carl Walter White, Jr
Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Before I stick myself into a political argument (cause I'm not the
>"screw all politicians" type), I'm just wondering, Walter, you scolded
>Cory for his stereotype, but in the same sense you give clear evidence
>that implies that you're rather lacking in the department of
>credibility; hypocrisy is NOT a way to justify a point...
i don't know where you get the idea that i lack credibility. i did not
deny that there are people who call themselves republicans who advocate
censorship far to easily. however, they are a small minority of
comparable size to similar groups in the communist party. knowing
this, i can only assume that cory is showing his ignorance by making
such a stereotype of republicans. ignorance in this case is a very
dangerous thing. you should not give half of the censorship advocates
a free ride.
if you still feel that i lack credibility, then i suppose that you can
discredit my claim that there are just as many groups or individuals
in the communist party that advocate censorship. i don't think that
you can prove that groups like NAG or people like senator exon don't
exist in that party.
if it is my referring to that party as the communist party that causes
you to question my credibility, then i would remind you of its ties to
the communist chinese that are finally coming to light.
i don't know where you get the idea that i am a hypocrite. i advocate
free speech and in fact enjoy using it myself. i don't censor
anything. cory is still just as free as before to show us all just
how ignorant he is.
when the CDA was a hot topic, there were many people just as ignorant
as cory who assumed that senator exon was a republican. this is why
it is important to challenge cory's stereotype. your innocent use of
the word hypocrisy suggests that this stereotype has clouded your
thinking also.
The Dark Trooper
>Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness.
snip snip
>
>-Carlos
I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
tools of SATAN. Go figure...
PsychoKick
In article <3312820...@news.insync.net>, ye...@right.com says...
>On 23 Feb 1997 13:14:15 GMT, wt...@cornell.edu (PsychoKick) wrote:
>
>> Sheesh. I wonder if they've ever heard of "SuperBook", "Flying House"
>>or "In the Beginning?". Wonder what their reactions will be when Disney
>>releases the Ghibli films... won't they have egg on their faces then?
>> On another note, when you say "acquire", do you mean obtain the rights
>>to? If that's so it's rather hypocritical of them, even if they just intend
>>to sit on it to prevent distribution, since they've bought it already and
>>thus supported it.
>>
>They rented it from the local video store. To show their "rightous
>flock" what is corrupting the minds of America.
>To Organized Religion.........Just say no.
Doh... I hope you're not trying to start some flamewar here with that
last line. All I'll say is "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Like lots of things in life, organized religion has done much good as well as
much bad.
Tenchi
Sakurazukamori wrote:
>
> I'm not a big H-anime fan, but I think I should point out drawing cannot
> be consider of any human age, thus child porn in anime's case is a moot
> point. I turns my stomach to think of any kind of censorship, even to
> real hardore stuff. This thread's message goes against the things we've
> been questing for for years. Maybe you should re-think your position,
> Mr. Salgado, because, like it or not, H anime is a viable and important
> part of the US anime industry.
Ihave to agree here, that H anime is important to the anime industry,
allthough I dont buy any somebody must. When you consider the two
companies that pump out the most new titles every month they both have
H-anime departments (AD Vision's Softcel, and CPMs Anime 18). Now I cant
be certain on this, but I would bet that CPM sells more LA Blue Girl
tapes then something like Iria, so maybe the money they make from porn
can allow them to buy a good series, I dont see AnimEigo rushing out 2
to 3 new series a month.
Tenchi-
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <cwwE62...@netcom.com>,
c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>
> Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Before I stick myself into a political argument (cause I'm not the
> >"screw all politicians" type), I'm just wondering, Walter, you scolded
> >Cory for his stereotype, but in the same sense you give clear evidence
> >that implies that you're rather lacking in the department of
> >credibility; hypocrisy is NOT a way to justify a point...
>
> i don't know where you get the idea that i lack credibility. i did not
> deny that there are people who call themselves republicans who advocate
> censorship far to easily. however, they are a small minority of
> comparable size to similar groups in the communist party. knowing
> this, i can only assume that cory is showing his ignorance by making
> such a stereotype of republicans. ignorance in this case is a very
> dangerous thing. you should not give half of the censorship advocates
> a free ride.
And communists are a TINY minority in this country, compared to
Republicans, in case you refused to notice.
If 10% of Republicans advocate severe censorship (a conservative
estimate, pun intended, considering the "don't put evolution in MY kid's
textbooks!" debates that are raging all over the place), and 50% of
Communists advocate it, well, guess what? That's still a hell of a lot
more pro-censorship Republicans than Communists, numbers-wise.
And, yes, it *WAS* a Republican who started the "let's censor anime
because it's kiddy porn" wave - Back in the 80s - Name of Jesse Helms.
Name me a single well-known Communist group that advocates censorship as
loudly as any group of Christian Republicans.
>
> if you still feel that i lack credibility, then i suppose that you can
> discredit my claim that there are just as many groups or individuals
> in the communist party that advocate censorship. i don't think that
> you can prove that groups like NAG or people like senator exon don't
> exist in that party.
See argument above re relative versus absolute numbers.
"Innumeracy" does not convey credibility.
>
> if it is my referring to that party as the communist party that causes
> you to question my credibility, then i would remind you of its ties to
> the communist chinese that are finally coming to light.
So long as you're not using the word "Communist" to refer to
Democrats.
>
> i don't know where you get the idea that i am a hypocrite. i advocate
> free speech and in fact enjoy using it myself. i don't censor
> anything. cory is still just as free as before to show us all just
> how ignorant he is.
>
> when the CDA was a hot topic, there were many people just as ignorant
> as cory who assumed that senator exon was a republican. this is why
> it is important to challenge cory's stereotype. your innocent use of
> the word hypocrisy suggests that this stereotype has clouded your
> thinking also.
Maybe we assumed he was a Republican because he was acting like one? ;)
>
> --
> My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
Gee, no bias here.
> Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
C Sue Shambaugh
Free-Thinking Anime Fan ;)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Susano Orbatos
> democrat = communist. the truth hurts, doesn't it.
What the did I say before, Carl? I said don't kill your own credibility
with hypocrisy. Your still doing the same cheap-arsed thing. I'd like
to know what's wrong with being a democrat or a communist; for one who
is so vehement in the belief of free thought and anti-censorship, you
certainly crack down on anyone that doesn't share your own political
frame of mind. I repeat to you again: Don't kill your credibility with
hypocrisy
Tenchi
Jeff "Tsubame" Jarlett wrote:
> forced by the federal gov't tp waste a channel on these people...
>
> And to think there are people who send money to keep them afloat...
>
> --
> Jeff "Tsubame" Jarlett
> "You know, sneaky things are the specialty of ninja."
> For a mediocre web page, visit
> http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jpjarlet/www/tsubame.html
Before I'm acussed of sticking up for anyone I will say I'm an athiest,
but I would everyone to look back and count the amount of times 666, or
the name Lucifer and Satan appear in anime, its alot! Though I would
have a serious hard time calling it the work of the devil considering
most of Japan is Buddhism.
Nicholas Leifker
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 c...@netcom.com wrote:
> <sue.sh...@trw.com> wrote:
> >c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
<useless argument snipped>
At the risk of making a couple of enemies here, I think it would be wise
if you took this argument outside of this arena. It has gone away from
its desired purpose of considering the problem of hentai anime and gone
into the realm of name-calling and back-biting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Leifker
nwl...@unix.tamu.edu
Nightelf's Elysium - http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~nwl9354
"Now the applause has died and I can dream again..."
"Anybody Listening", Queensryche
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dark Trooper
On 23 Feb 1997 13:14:15 GMT, wt...@cornell.edu (PsychoKick) wrote:
>In article <33112af4...@news.insync.net>, ye...@right.com says...
>>
>>On 21 Feb 1997 19:31:14 GMT, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Carlos F.
>>Salgado) wrote:
>>
>>>Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness.
>>snip snip
>>>
>>>-Carlos
>>I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
>>Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
>>tools of SATAN. Go figure...
>
The Dark Trooper
On 24 Feb 1997 07:00:21 GMT, wt...@cornell.edu (PsychoKick) wrote:
>In article <3312820...@news.insync.net>, ye...@right.com says...
>
>>On 23 Feb 1997 13:14:15 GMT, wt...@cornell.edu (PsychoKick) wrote:
> Doh... I hope you're not trying to start some flamewar here with that
>last line. All I'll say is "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
>Like lots of things in life, organized religion has done much good as well as
>much bad.
>
sorry about that...Poor Choice of words.
The Dark Trooper
>What was declared to be Satanic? To think that my cable company is
>forced by the federal gov't tp waste a channel on these people...
>
>And to think there are people who send money to keep them afloat...
>
I saw different titles....the one that through me off was when the
used scenes from Viz's Ramna 1/2. They claimed that it promoted
Homosexuality, Crossdressing and other things. They started to talk
about getting stores to ban the stuff, because it was promoting the
decline of Family Values.....iiieeeee...I can't belive I said that.
Shoot me now....
Pleeeeeease...
..er...eh-hem. sorry
if that is the case...
I have several LARGE pairs of silk womens underwear to get rid of...
can't be polluting the minds of the youth of america......
Carl Walter White, Jr
>And communists are a TINY minority in this country, compared to
>Republicans, in case you refused to notice.
there are enough of them to elect a communist as the president.
>If 10% of Republicans advocate severe censorship (a conservative
>estimate, pun intended, considering the "don't put evolution in MY kid's
>textbooks!" debates that are raging all over the place), and 50% of
>Communists advocate it, well, guess what? That's still a hell of a lot
>more pro-censorship Republicans than Communists, numbers-wise.
your whole argument is faulty because you are only considering the
number of people who actually call themselves communist. include
those who are still trying to fool the people by calling themselves
democrat.
getting further off topic, as far as i am familiar with the current
evolution vs. creation debate, the argument is about teaching creation
_and_ evolution. this should work in favor of the scientists if they
take advantage of it.
furthermore, the debate is a symptom of the school system's failure to
properly teach evolution. most kids get out of school only vaguely
familiar with the theory and don't understand all the supporting
evidence or any of the controversy over the way evolution actually works.
if clinton would allow school vouchers, you could easily send your kid
to a school that teaches evolution to your satisfaction.
>And, yes, it *WAS* a Republican who started the "let's censor anime
>because it's kiddy porn" wave - Back in the 80s - Name of Jesse Helms.
he didn't get any support did he? i didn't think so. we still have
anime, don't we? yep. i'm not saying to let down your gaurd, just
keep it in perspective.
if you are so worried about christian conservatives trying to censor
your entertainment, i'll tell you how to win that argument with them
every time, guaranteed. just take out your bible and show them one of
the more raunchy passages. then explain to them that if they succeed
in censoring anything, they make it easier for others to censor their
bible. that ends the debate right there.
>Name me a single well-known Communist group that advocates censorship as
>loudly as any group of Christian Republicans.
NAG (NOW for anyone without a sense of humor)
>So long as you're not using the word "Communist" to refer to
>Democrats.
democrat = communist. the truth hurts, doesn't it.
>>when the CDA was a hot topic, there were many people just as ignorant
>>as cory who assumed that senator exon was a republican. this is why
>>it is important to challenge cory's stereotype. your innocent use of
>>the word hypocrisy suggests that this stereotype has clouded your
>>thinking also.
>
>Maybe we assumed he was a Republican because he was acting like one? ;)
i bet you would feel pretty stupid if you found out that limbaugh (mr.
conservative himself) said that the CDA was a bad law. he has in fact
stated that. you have also ignored my statement of unconditional support
for free speech. instead, you cling desperately to your stereotype.
>>My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
>>a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
>
>Gee, no bias here.
the truth hurts, doesn't it.
--
My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
Carl Walter White, Jr
Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>What the did I say before, Carl? I said don't kill your own credibility
>with hypocrisy. Your still doing the same cheap-arsed thing. I'd like
>to know what's wrong with being a democrat or a communist; for one who
>is so vehement in the belief of free thought and anti-censorship, you
>certainly crack down on anyone that doesn't share your own political
>frame of mind. I repeat to you again: Don't kill your credibility with
>hypocrisy
why do you seem to equate my vigorous debating with a call for censorship?
unless you can point out where i have advocated censoring the political
views of the communists, you should stop implying that i am a hypocrite
based solely on my disagreement with you and some previous posters.
you act as though it is a bad thing that i debate anyone who does not
agree with me. would you rather i shut up so that they can win the
debate without a fight? maybe the government should have the legal
power to shut me up. would that suit you?
do you still think that i loose credibility by calling them communists?
several communist members of congress, rep. rangel in particular,
fraternized with castro during his last trip to new york. birds of a
feather...
did you know that the naaccp (the extra c is for communist) has refused on
several occasions to allow clarence thomas to speak at meetings they were
associated with. what are they so afraid of? that sounds like censorship
to me.
did you know that the communist party actively suppresses its anti-abortion
members. that sounds like censorship to me.
i can come up with more of these. all you have to do to end this
is to admit that there are censors who are not conservative and that
it is therefore silly to associated censorship so strongly with
conservatives.
dma...@forest.drew.edu
In article <33126A...@gatecom.com>, Tenchi <Ten...@gatecom.com> writes:
> Jeff "Tsubame" Jarlett wrote:
>>
>> The Dark Trooper wrote:
>> >
>> > Salgado) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness.
>> > snip snip
>> > >
>> > >-Carlos
>> > I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
>> > Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
>> > tools of SATAN. Go figure...
>>
>> forced by the federal gov't tp waste a channel on these people...
>>
>> And to think there are people who send money to keep them afloat...
>
> but I would everyone to look back and count the amount of times 666, or
> the name Lucifer and Satan appear in anime, its alot! Though I would
> have a serious hard time calling it the work of the devil considering
> most of Japan is Buddhism.
Maybe they're just trying to screw with us and some of our more
uptight and humorless religious zealots. :)
---Dmambu
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <cwwE64...@netcom.com>,
c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>
> <sue.sh...@trw.com> wrote:
> >c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>
> >And communists are a TINY minority in this country, compared to
> >Republicans, in case you refused to notice.
>
> there are enough of them to elect a communist as the president.
<FLAME ON>
All right, jerk...
I guess there are plenty more Fascists in the US than commies, then,
because they elected Reagan to the office for "8 lame years."
<FLAME OFF>
And it was on Reagan's watch that Jesse Helms started his anti-Cream
Lemon campaign. I guess you can get away with anything when the
President's senile.
>
> >If 10% of Republicans advocate severe censorship (a conservative
> >estimate, pun intended, considering the "don't put evolution in MY kid's
> >textbooks!" debates that are raging all over the place), and 50% of
> >Communists advocate it, well, guess what? That's still a hell of a lot
> >more pro-censorship Republicans than Communists, numbers-wise.
>
> your whole argument is faulty because you are only considering the
> number of people who actually call themselves communist. include
> those who are still trying to fool the people by calling themselves
> democrat.
I am a Democrat, and registered as such. I am NOT a Communist. (My work
on defense contracts kind of, like, PREVENTS that, you silly boy. Last I
heard - And I *AM* an authority - being a Democrat was not a bar to doing
national security work, so there. Nyah ;) I *like* private property,
and so do most Americans, including Democrats. Without private property,
no lovely VCRs with which to watch anime, ne? (And the only anime on TV
would be reruns of "Worker and Parasite.") I am also a LOUD supporter of
the ACLU, People for the American Way, etc. All prominent,
LIBERAL-BACKED, anti-censorship organizations. See their web sites for
yourself. Do not presume to comment on the political constituency of
their membership unless you are a member yourself, or have done any
research on them whatsoever.
See the following URL if you're interested in such organizations
(assuming anyone rational's still listening to this thread):
http://www.ncac.org/pos.htm
<FLAME ON>
YOUR whole argument is faulty because it makes you sound like a militia
member, and we all know how logical and tolerant *they* are, hm?
If McCarthyism makes a comeback, ya gonna rat me out, fanboy?
<FLAME OFF>
>
> getting further off topic, as far as i am familiar with the current
> evolution vs. creation debate, the argument is about teaching creation
> _and_ evolution. this should work in favor of the scientists if they
> take advantage of it.
Then you are completely unfamiliar about the debate. I'm married to an
evolutionary paleontologist. You don't get much more familiar than that!
(Yes, he's also an anime fan - He thought "Coo" was hilarious.)
>
> furthermore, the debate is a symptom of the school system's failure to
> properly teach evolution. most kids get out of school only vaguely
> familiar with the theory and don't understand all the supporting
> evidence or any of the controversy over the way evolution actually works.
> if clinton would allow school vouchers, you could easily send your kid
> to a school that teaches evolution to your satisfaction.
>
> >And, yes, it *WAS* a Republican who started the "let's censor anime
> >because it's kiddy porn" wave - Back in the 80s - Name of Jesse Helms.
>
> he didn't get any support did he? i didn't think so. we still have
> anime, don't we? yep. i'm not saying to let down your gaurd, just
> keep it in perspective.
Oh, he had support, all right; you don't think he discovered those Cream
Lemon tapes on his own, do you? Just because no legislation came of it
doesn't mean it wasn't a serious debate at the time. We still have
anime, but we also have an increasing number of "concerned family types
of America" groups butting into our entertainment industry, etc. The
number and variety of these groups has never been greater, and neither
has their influence on the press, including the news you're allowed to
view every evening.
Frankly, I wish they'd shut up and go away, too, but wishing won't make
it so.
BTW, isn't it interesting how all those "concerned family" groups claim
they want to protect children, yet they want to accomplish it by taking
away more and more of their children's rights? I suppose if they ever
invented a "brain thought control device," these people would be shoving
to be first in line to get their kids implanted with them. Sort of
reminds me of all those "pro- lifers" who also support the death penalty,
and lobby against seat belt laws because they interfere with their
"freedom as parents." Feh.
Luckily, even the most tentacle-prone anime porn CANNOT be legally
classified as kiddy porn, because all the voice actors are of legal age
(in Japan), many of them middle-aged. No kiddy models posing nude in the
studios, either! (I never saw any on my studio tours, anyway ;) No
children exploited = no kiddy porn, kind of by definition. (I guess all
that remains is for them to redefine what qualifies as kiddy porn -
certainly possible - or just make the laws so vague as to be completely
open to individual interpretation - which is exactly what we have now,
IMO.)
>
> if you are so worried about christian conservatives trying to censor
> your entertainment, i'll tell you how to win that argument with them
> every time, guaranteed. just take out your bible and show them one of
> the more raunchy passages. then explain to them that if they succeed
> in censoring anything, they make it easier for others to censor their
> bible. that ends the debate right there.
You forget: some of these people read translations of the bible that you
never heard of, and all the naughty bits have been excised from those
*anyway*, therefore any "bible" that you show them that doesn't match
theirs in every respect will probably be denounced as fake.
>
> >Name me a single well-known Communist group that advocates censorship as
> >loudly as any group of Christian Republicans.
>
> NAG (NOW for anyone without a sense of humor)
NOW is not a Communist group. And since you're male (?), and therefore
not a member, you should refrain from commenting; I doubt you've so much
as read their charter.
>
> >So long as you're not using the word "Communist" to refer to
> >Democrats.
>
> democrat = communist. the truth hurts, doesn't it.
<FLAME ON>
Republican = Fascist - Get an armband! Heil Helms!!
<FLAME OFF>
>
> >>when the CDA was a hot topic, there were many people just as ignorant
> >>as cory who assumed that senator exon was a republican. this is why
> >>it is important to challenge cory's stereotype. your innocent use of
> >>the word hypocrisy suggests that this stereotype has clouded your
> >>thinking also.
> >
> >Maybe we assumed he was a Republican because he was acting like one? ;)
>
> i bet you would feel pretty stupid if you found out that limbaugh (mr.
> conservative himself) said that the CDA was a bad law. he has in fact
> stated that. you have also ignored my statement of unconditional support
> for free speech. instead, you cling desperately to your stereotype.
We were talking about a congressman, not Rush Limbaugh. Why change the
topic?
But since you DID... I'll exercise MY free speech! :)
I'm sure Mr. Limbaugh was afraid the law might be applied to HIMSELF.
That's usually what it takes to get people roused against the censorship
threat, unfortunately.
If he's against the CDA, then he's proved he has a brain - Good for him!
BTW, the reason the NAACP wouldn't let Mr. Thomas speak at their meeting,
is that he's outspoken against affirmative action. They certainly have
the right to pay/entertain whatever speakers they choose, depending on
their political goals.
>
> >>My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> >>a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
> >
> >Gee, no bias here.
>
> the truth hurts, doesn't it.
Truth? PROVE IT. This is, um, AMERICA, remember? Innocent until proven
guilty? Libel laws, and all that?
Or is such a concept beyond you?
Unfortunately, it is JUST SUCH AN ATTITUDE ("we assume you guilty and YOU
prove your innocence") that leads to censorship in many cases. Parents
want movies banned because a few stupid kids go out and imitate things
they see in them. (They blame the movie, not their offspring's lack of
intelligence.) Parents wanted D&D banned because they thought it caused
their kids to suicide. (Never once blaming themselves for creating a
repressive home environment.) There were book-burnings held for D&D
manuals, once upon a time, in response to this nonsense.
Now we have parents demanding that all porn be banned everywhere on the
web/ internet, even in countries where it's legal, because their kids
might see it. We actually have TV ratings (that no one cares about) now,
and parents are demanding (in effect) censorship chips for their home
TVs, because they find even such ratings confusing and inadequate.
The universal failing among people who demand this stuff is that they'd
rather blame society's problems on scapegoats (it was comics, once; we
STILL have the comics code because of that, BTW), instead of the complex
social problems which require hard thinking and long-term solutions.
They assume that any subject that they don't like (abortion, porn,
welfare, etc.) must be to blame for whatever social problems they (think)
they see.
If TV violence really causes bad behavior among children in the US, then
why don't we see the same effects on Japanese children? Or even Canadian
kids, if you want a culture that's much closer to our own?
If anime porn really *might* cause depravity in the US fan population,
then why aren't even more hardcore Japanese otaku raping each other in
record numbers? Why are the Japanese uniformly well-behaved and stable
by comparison?
Correlation IS NOT EQUAL TO causation.
(Here's another example: going to college in the 60s DOES NOT EQUAL a pot
smoker. Just ask all those brave Nam vets who came back hooked on
HEROIN. ;)
>
> --
> My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
> Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
Then your father's done a good job raising you to be as narrow-minded as
he is.
- C Sue Shambaugh
Susano Orbatos
> >What the did I say before, Carl? I said don't kill your own credibility
> >with hypocrisy. Your still doing the same cheap-arsed thing. I'd like
> >to know what's wrong with being a democrat or a communist; for one who
> >is so vehement in the belief of free thought and anti-censorship, you
> >certainly crack down on anyone that doesn't share your own political
> >frame of mind. I repeat to you again: Don't kill your credibility with
> >hypocrisy
> ...views of the communists...
> do you still think that i loose credibility by calling them communists?
> several communist members of congress, rep. rangel in particular,
> fraternized with castro during his last trip to new york.
> did you know that the naaccp (the extra c is for communist)...
> did you know that the communist party ...
> all you have to do to end this is to admit that there are censors who are
> not conservative and that it is therefore silly to associated censorship so > strongly with conservatives.
Both parties are guilty of censorship. I'm sorry I never said that
earlier. Both parties are guilty of a lot of things. Both parties have
a number of bad members. BUT both parties also have their good
members...
It's good of you to point out that its silly to strongly associate
censorship with conservatives. Who do you think is associated with with
censorship?
Commies? Commies visiting Castro? That Commie bastard the Pope visited
Castro, too... You forgot about him.
You have to understand: whether or not you believe such things isn't the
point. You can't shut yourself off from all sides like this; be a
little more circumspect. Because a problem can't be solved from only
looking at one side, be it the left side or the right...
--
Sakurazukamori
Tenchi wrote:
>
> Before I'm acussed of sticking up for anyone I will say I'm an athiest,
> but I would everyone to look back and count the amount of times 666, or
> the name Lucifer and Satan appear in anime, its alot! Though I would
> have a serious hard time calling it the work of the devil considering
> most of Japan is Buddhism.
It doesn't really matter, anyway. Lucifer is not even certainly applied
to el diablo, and 666 is only one of the many possible answers to the
statement of the number of the beast. If Aleister Crowley hadn't came
around we would probably not even be aware of that silly number.
chps
I have only been into anime two years now, but I have been into role
playing games for over 12 and I can say that press attention hurts. Right
now we are just considered wierd, but that nothing till the press starts
calling us all perverts and the fanatics calling us satan spawn. I can't
wait until I hear of the first "japanimation" inspired crimes, and it will
happen, its still happing with D&D and Vampire.
Arigato
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <33135F...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > >What the did I say before, Carl? I said don't kill your own credibility
> > >with hypocrisy. Your still doing the same cheap-arsed thing. I'd like
> > >to know what's wrong with being a democrat or a communist; for one who
> > >is so vehement in the belief of free thought and anti-censorship, you
> > >certainly crack down on anyone that doesn't share your own political
> > >frame of mind. I repeat to you again: Don't kill your credibility with
> > >hypocrisy
Unfortunately, you're making the same mistake I did when trying to
"debate" with this boy; he's not debating, in the real sense of the word;
he's spouting opinions (and not even his own, from the sound of them;
just parroting G. Gordon Liddy or one of that crowd) as loud as possible,
and *refusing* to see the possibility of another view.
One of the ground rules of debate is, "he who defines the terms, wins the
argument." Since he's insisting on defining all the terms (instead of,
say, using those defined by civilized society), how can you expect to
convince him of anything?
Rule 1: define your OWN terms, and just try making him accept *them* for a
change. Then see how long it takes for his tiny little head to explode.
>
> > ...views of the communists...
> > do you still think that i loose credibility by calling them communists?
> > several communist members of congress, rep. rangel in particular,
> > fraternized with castro during his last trip to new york.
You lose credibility EVERY TIME you name-call, young man. Now go wash
your mouth out with Politeness Soap.
If a member of congress describes themself as a Democrat, it is your duty
as a (theoretically) patriotic American to accept that self-definition.
>
> > did you know that the naaccp (the extra c is for communist)...
Oh, dear, more schoolyard name-calling tactics...
> > did you know that the communist party ...
Gee, Walter, how do YOU KNOW so much about the communist party, ANYWAY???
Hmm, looks suspicious; must be a member himself...
(Gads, I've been forced into resorting to his childlike tactics! Maybe
he'll comprehend this way?)
>
> > all you have to do to end this is to admit that there are censors who are
> > not conservative and that it is therefore silly to associated censorship so
> strongly with conservatives.
Again, the argument of absolute numbers may be applied.
If the vast majority of those calling for censorship (of anime or
whatever) associate THEMSELVES with conservative political views, then it
is not silly to associate censorship with conservatives.
Censorship is a popular conservative-agenda tool, used to prohibit access
by other people to progressive ideas they don't like, such as:
- Humans are just derived primates; we're apes, so get over it
- Gays are people, too, and children should be taught to be tolerant of
them (and everybody else, too, for that matter)
- A woman's body is her own
- Masturbation won't make you go blind, and won't give you AIDS, either
- Lack of religious belief does not automatically make you a bad person
- There is no such thing as one absolutely correct belief system
People such as Hitler were very fond of censorship. I doubt you'd find
anybody willing to describe him as anything BUT conservative, hmm?
>
> Both parties are guilty of censorship. I'm sorry I never said that
> earlier. Both parties are guilty of a lot of things. Both parties have
> a number of bad members. BUT both parties also have their good
> members...
It's not the parties you have to worry about so much; it's their fringe
element members, and also people who feel disenfranchised and alienated
from ANY party (like the ones setting off bombs in Atlanta lately).
They're trying to "censor" whole health clinics and nightclubs, and I
doubt they'd describe themselves as "liberals."
>
> It's good of you to point out that its silly to strongly associate
> censorship with conservatives. Who do you think is associated with with
> censorship?
>
> Commies? Commies visiting Castro? That Commie bastard the Pope visited
> Castro, too... You forgot about him.
No, no! The Pope isn't evil because he visited Castro; he's evil because
he finally admitted that evolution is a fact! Don't forget that; I'm
sure Walter-chan won't. :)
>
> You have to understand: whether or not you believe such things isn't the
> point.
No, *you* have to understand: that IS the entire point, to him. Only his
own belief system matters. Translation: "I'm always right! I'm always
right! I'm always right!" Why bother reasoning with someone with a
3-year-old's mentality?
> You can't shut yourself off from all sides like this; be a
> little more circumspect.
Uhh, too late; he's already done that; and since he obviously enjoys
starting flame wars, you have no hope of entreating him to be
"circumspect." (Anybody who thinks a statement like "all democrats are
commies" ISN'T a fine set of fighting words, get thee to a shrinkery,
go.)
> Because a problem can't be solved from only
> looking at one side, be it the left side or the right...
TRUTH!
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Flight Officer Susano Orbatos
> WolfPack X-Wing Squadron
> Assign.: The Cruiser Defiance
> http://www.wizard.net/~rcpcacmc
> ---------------------
> 176th Mobile Suit Platoon
> 'Cloud 9' Gun EZ Squadron
> "We Get There When We Do."
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
dma...@forest.drew.edu
Well, some would argue it's going on now in terms of fan-subbing
but I don't really want to open that pandora's box again. :)
Really, though, I can't possibly imagine any "Anime inspired"
crimes. Is someone going to steal a plane to protect us from an Alien
invasion? Mecha hasn't been invented yet so that knocks out a HUGE chunk
of the potential market for criminal activity. I think you're
overreacting.
---Dmambu
Susano Orbatos
> > You can't shut yourself off from all sides like this; be a
> > little more circumspect.
>
> Uhh, too late; he's already done that; and since he obviously enjoys
> starting flame wars, you have no hope of entreating him to be
> "circumspect." (Anybody who thinks a statement like "all democrats are
> commies" ISN'T a fine set of fighting words, get thee to a shrinkery,
> go.)
Nothing's too late. One must think things through a little more clearly
and carefully before automatically jumping to conclusions. I changed
before, and I'm happy I did.
I hope Walter does the same; just be more circumspect. I have friends
who are grossly to the right, and friends who are grossly leftist.
Tedeshimas, Miss Shambaugh, and you, Mr. White, but before dwell knee
deep into this shit (as if we aren't already...) lemme ask you both a Q:
What are your opinions on H-Anime?
---
Carl Walter White, Jr
>>>And communists are a TINY minority in this country, compared to
>>>Republicans, in case you refused to notice.
>>
>>there are enough of them to elect a communist as the president.
>
>because they elected Reagan to the office for "8 lame years."
i don't think anyone can show where reagan associated with fascist
dictators much less committed treason by doing so in the same manner
that clinton has done with the communist chinese. you can not
identify any policies of his presidency that are unique identifiers
of a fascist government. therefore, it is wrong to refer to his
supporters as fascists.
>And it was on Reagan's watch that Jesse Helms started his anti-Cream
>Lemon campaign. I guess you can get away with anything when the
>President's senile.
you keep mentioning jesse helms, but could you possibly be thinking
of ed meese. i said at the time that what he was up to was bad for
the country not to mention a huge waste of tax payer money. by the
way, that is particularly nasty of you to be so insensitive about
president reagan's current condition. you should be ashamed of
yourself.
>I am a Democrat, and registered as such. I am NOT a Communist.
why do you support politicians who have fraternized with communists
and who constantly paraphrase from the communist manifesto?
>I *like* private property, and so do most Americans, including Democrats.
i don't disagree with that. however, you have helped to elect many
politicians who are less than friendly to the idea starting at the
top with the clintons. perhaps you really belong in the libertarian
party.
>Do not presume to comment on the political constituency of their
>membership unless you are a member yourself, or have done any research
>on them whatsoever.
ok, let me get this straight. it's ok for you to comment on political
groups that i identify with but it is not ok for me to comment on
political groups that you identify with? have i got that right?
>YOUR whole argument is faulty because it makes you sound like a militia
>member, and we all know how logical and tolerant *they* are, hm?
i wouldn't know. i don't personally know anyone in a militia. hmm,
i guess that means that they are just a fringe element and therefore
are not representative of conservatives. wouldn't it be stupid to
stereotype conservatives based on a fringe group. i don't think that
any militia member has been elected to anything either.
>We still have anime, but we also have an increasing number of
>"concerned family types of America" groups butting into our
>entertainment industry, etc.
and having no effect.
>The number and variety of these groups has never been greater, and
>neither has their influence on the press, including the news you're
>allowed to view every evening.
the press only bring these things up during sweeps weeks to
titillate the viewer. i doubt it is due to any influence by
any "family friendly" group.
>BTW, isn't it interesting how all those "concerned family" groups claim
>they want to protect children, yet they want to accomplish it by taking
>away more and more of their children's rights?
children are used by both sides in propaganda. i personally have no
patience for anyone who wants the government to protect their children
from "smut" on the tv when they should be there to turn the tv off.
all of the conservatives that i know are of like mind on this issue.
conservative politicians find it hard to vote against such things,
not because they are conservative but because they are politicians.
in the recent example of the cda, liberal politicians also didn't
vote against it. it is just not politically easy to do so.
>I suppose if they ever invented a "brain thought control device,"
>these people would be shoving to be first in line to get their kids
>implanted with them.
why do you think that conservatives want the government to control
everyone's mind. here in georgia, where the republicans are the
minority party in the state legislature, you are required to submit
to finger printing to get your driver's license. the republicans
and libertarians hate this law and are fighting to repeal it. i
hope that causes you to question your picture of republicans
promoting "big brother" type government.
>Sort of reminds me of all those "pro- lifers" who also support the
>death penalty, and lobby against seat belt laws because they interfere
>with their "freedom as parents." Feh.
i don't see an inconsistency between supporting the rights of the
unborn child and the death penalty. the child is innocent, the criminal
is guilty.
>>just take out your bible and show them one of the more raunchy passages.
>>then explain to them that if they succeed in censoring anything, they
>>make it easier for others to censor their bible. that ends the debate
>>right there.
>
>You forget: some of these people read translations of the bible that you
>never heard of, and all the naughty bits have been excised from those
>*anyway*, therefore any "bible" that you show them that doesn't match
>theirs in every respect will probably be denounced as fake.
no, i didn't forget. i've never run across such people using anything
other than the king james translation. people of that frame of mind using
any other translation must be an infinitesimally small minority. i
think you are just desperately looking for a justification for your
stereotype of conservatives.
>>i bet you would feel pretty stupid if you found out that limbaugh (mr.
>>conservative himself) said that the CDA was a bad law. he has in fact
>>stated that. you have also ignored my statement of unconditional support
>>for free speech. instead, you cling desperately to your stereotype.
>
>We were talking about a congressman, not Rush Limbaugh. Why change the
>topic?
that was not a change of the subject (you're the one to be complaining
about that. your whole post is an exercise in changing the subject).
i mentioned limbaugh as another data point which proves how silly it
is to stereotype conservatives as censorship advocates.
>BTW, the reason the NAACP wouldn't let Mr. Thomas speak at their meeting,
>is that he's outspoken against affirmative action. They certainly have
>the right to pay/entertain whatever speakers they choose, depending on
>their political goals.
yes they do. however, they have also intimidated other groups into
not allowing mr. thomas to speak.
>>My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
>>a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
>
>Truth? PROVE IT. This is, um, AMERICA, remember? Innocent until proven
>guilty? Libel laws, and all that?
that's an easy one. clinton has admitted to trying pot. he was such a
chicken, that he ran overseas to avoid the draft. he ran all the way
to moscow in fact. i'm not saying he shouldn't have protested the draft
though. if he weren't a chicken, he would have stayed here and gone to
prison if it came to it for his beliefs. such civil disobedience is a
fine american tradition.
Carl Walter White, Jr
Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>It's good of you to point out that its silly to strongly associate
>censorship with conservatives. Who do you think is associated with with
>censorship?
i try to avoid using such unjustified stereotypes.
>Commies? Commies visiting Castro? That Commie bastard the Pope visited
>Castro, too... You forgot about him.
the pope has a well documented history of undermining communist
dictatorships. i don't think he is a friend of castro.
Carl Walter White, Jr
sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
>Rule 1: define your OWN terms, and just try making him accept *them* for a
>change. Then see how long it takes for his tiny little head to explode.
let's start by defining "debate". sue would have everyone believe that
it means to agree with her.
>You lose credibility EVERY TIME you name-call, young man. Now go wash
>your mouth out with Politeness Soap.
your side started this whole thing without credibility by stereotyping
republicans as censorship advocates. at least i can argue that most of
the democrat politicians get their beliefs strait out of the communist
manifesto and someone must be electing them.
>If a member of congress describes themself as a Democrat, it is your duty
>as a (theoretically) patriotic American to accept that self-definition.
do you really believe that. jeeze, and you guys stereotype us as being
mind numbed robots.
no, it is not my duty to accept them without question. it is my
obligation to call a spade a spade. until the leaders of the so
called "democrat" party stop spewing communist propaganda and
hanging out with communist dictators, they are communists.
>Gee, Walter, how do YOU KNOW so much about the communist party, ANYWAY???
>Hmm, looks suspicious; must be a member himself...
that's a pathetic argument.
>If the vast majority of those calling for censorship (of anime or
>whatever) associate THEMSELVES with conservative political views, then it
>is not silly to associate censorship with conservatives.
but you skip the step where you prove that most censorship advocates
are conservatives.
>Censorship is a popular conservative-agenda tool, used to prohibit access
>by other people to progressive ideas they don't like, such as:
the communist party uses censorship just as much. and they have trained
people like you to shout down anyone who tries to use their free speech
to disagree with them. here is a fine example of that:
>- Humans are just derived primates; we're apes, so get over it
>- Gays are people, too, and children should be taught to be tolerant of
>them (and everybody else, too, for that matter)
>- A woman's body is her own
>- Masturbation won't make you go blind, and won't give you AIDS, either
>- Lack of religious belief does not automatically make you a bad person
>- There is no such thing as one absolutely correct belief system
>People such as Hitler were very fond of censorship. I doubt you'd find
>anybody willing to describe him as anything BUT conservative, hmm?
hitler was also very fond of gun control. does that make him a
liberal? anyone who describes hitler as a conservative are only
showing their ignorance.
>It's not the parties you have to worry about so much; it's their fringe
>element members, and also people who feel disenfranchised and alienated
>from ANY party (like the ones setting off bombs in Atlanta lately).
>They're trying to "censor" whole health clinics and nightclubs, and I
>doubt they'd describe themselves as "liberals."
at least you have accepted that they are only a minor fringe element.
both parties have attracted their own mad bombers. the unibomber
would feel very out of place in a crowd of conservatives. there were
many more fringe groups during the late '60s to early '70s that were
anything except conservative.
>No, no! The Pope isn't evil because he visited Castro; he's evil because
>he finally admitted that evolution is a fact! Don't forget that; I'm
>sure Walter-chan won't. :)
do you really think that i'm a creationist. you are sadly mistaken.
whoops, there goes one of your stereotypes. sorry about that.
>Why bother reasoning with someone with a 3-year-old's mentality?
instead, you just pitch a fit and hope nobody notices the stupidity or
total lack of your argument.
>...since he obviously enjoys starting flame wars...
here is the spark that started this flame war:
Cory Patton <Eff...@cris.com> wrote:
>If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
>with anime, fuck 'em.
as you can see, your side is clearly responsible. come on sue, you're
even posting your articles from dejanews. there is no excuse for you
having missed this unless you are desperately clinging to another
stereotype. yep, them rascally republicans, always stirring up
trouble.
Carl Walter White, Jr
whatever anyone watches in the privacy of their home is their
business alone. rules restricting sales to under-aged individuals
are not unreasonable (it takes a village to raise a child and
all that crap). rules requiring accurate descriptions of content
for the purpose of screening out unwanted material are not
unreasonable.
Mr. W.Y. Chan
Sakurazukamori (kul...@citynet.net) wrote:
: I'm not a big H-anime fan, but I think I should point out drawing cannot
: be consider of any human age, thus child porn in anime's case is a moot
: point. I turns my stomach to think of any kind of censorship, even to
: real hardore stuff. This thread's message goes against the things we've
: been questing for for years. Maybe you should re-think your position,
: Mr. Salgado, because, like it or not, H anime is a viable and important
: part of the US anime industry.
I believe Micky Mouse is 70 years old but he doesnt look a day over 21
: --
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <cwwE68...@netcom.com>,
c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>
> sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
> >c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
> >>sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
> >>>And communists are a TINY minority in this country, compared to
> >>>Republicans, in case you refused to notice.
> >>
> >>there are enough of them to elect a communist as the president.
> >
> >I guess there are plenty more Fascists in the US than commies, then,
> >because they elected Reagan to the office for "8 lame years."
>
> i don't think anyone can show where reagan associated with fascist
> dictators much less committed treason by doing so in the same manner
> that clinton has done with the communist chinese.
A definition:
Fascism = statism, ie, the state comes first ("Strength through forced
unity") As in, putting the state's interests before any of its citizens'
rights.
Fascism is not necessarily dictatorship; neither is the reverse true.
(Tito was a relatively benevolent dictator within modern memory - And a
staunch anti-communist.) Keeping this accepted definition in mind, read
on below if you want to see how Reagan fits the mold.
BTW, if Clinton's "committed treason," by talking to the Chinese, how
about Nixon?
Maybe you'd better notify Janet Reno about this "treason," hm? Quick!
Call the FBI! Maybe they haven't noticed, without your valuable input!
Put your actions where your mouth is, boy - Or shut up.
> you can not
> identify any policies of his presidency that are unique identifiers
> of a fascist government.
Oh, yes I can:
- Unfounded and insupportable claims of "America - We're # 1" (ie,
unthinking elitist statism) - Attempts to control the breeding habits of
the US population (and others) by revocation of family planning funds,
information about women's *legal* medical choices, as well as attempts
to outlaw such choices - Heavy stacking of the judiciary with candidates
that met his political and religious litmus tests (ie, political biasing
of our justice system) - Undermining elected representatives of the
people (Congress) and breaking the law by dealing with the Nicaraguan
contras via the CIA and his own White House staffers (ie, furthering a
personal political agenda against the wishes of the people) - Allowing
his wife to have undue influence over important affairs of state,
because of (get this) HER ASTROLOGER - Putting such a heavy emphasis on
national defense that we built up a huge deficit (trying to bankrupt the
Russians because they responded in kind) that we are now staggering
under, thus increasing the citizens' tax burden for dubious benefit
(USSR would have collapsed anyway, we didn't cause it) - Leadership
through charisma and "feel good" rhetoric instead of talent
> therefore, it is wrong to refer to his
> supporters as fascists.
If they supported the fascist actions listed above, then they are
fascists.
>
> >And it was on Reagan's watch that Jesse Helms started his anti-Cream
> >Lemon campaign. I guess you can get away with anything when the
> >President's senile.
>
> you keep mentioning jesse helms, but could you possibly be thinking
> of ed meese. i said at the time that what he was up to was bad for
> the country not to mention a huge waste of tax payer money.
The Meese Commission For Censorship certainly was formed during the same
administration. But it was Jesse Helms who made all the noise about Cream
Lemon in the same timeframe.
Attempts to control democratic citizens are ALWAYS despicable;
the money wasted is irrelevant by comparison.
> by the
> way, that is particularly nasty of you to be so insensitive about
> president reagan's current condition. you should be ashamed of
> yourself.
I am aware that Alzheimer's is not a condition with a sudden onset. It
takes DECADES for it to develop to the point where Reagan currently is -
Ie, unable even to recognize his own wife.
Due to the many gaffes and outright inaccuracies that I witnessed coming
out of that man's mouth during his tenure, I conclude that the onset of
his disease began during his tenure as President.
(Anybody who thinks that "we begin bombing in five minutes" is a good
idea for a joke on national TV, must be at least partially demented.)
And if I'm nasty for pointing out this man's mental shortcomings, why
aren't YOU nasty for calling all democrats communists? No double
standards, please.
>
> >I am a Democrat, and registered as such. I am NOT a Communist.
>
> why do you support politicians who have fraternized with communists
> and who constantly paraphrase from the communist manifesto?
Tell me, how long have you HAD this rare mind-reading ability? Please, by
all means, continue to tell me what I think. :?
I haven't knowingly supported ANY politician who has fraternized with
communists. The politicians I voted for do not quote from the communist
manifesto. If I had supported such politicians (and there are some who
*call* themselves communist, you know), gee, why didn't it show up on my
many national security background checks?
>
> >I *like* private property, and so do most Americans, including Democrats.
>
> i don't disagree with that. however, you have helped to elect many
> politicians who are less than friendly to the idea starting at the
> top with the clintons. perhaps you really belong in the libertarian
> party.
Here you go again with the mind-reading. How the hell would YOU know who
I voted for? (Ooh, rash assumptions! THAT'LL help your "credibility.")
The US government is, always has been, and will probably continue to sell
off public property (ie, forestry, mineral, and grazing rights) for a
pittance to - get this - PRIVATE INTERESTS. Government property is being
privatized at an alarming rate, and it is not slowing down. How do these
actions, continued during the Clinton administration, constitute a LACK
of support for private property?
I'm sure the Libertarians have a few fine members, but as long as Lyndon
LaRouche is a part of them, no thanks.
>
> >Do not presume to comment on the political constituency of their
> >membership unless you are a member yourself, or have done any research
> >on them whatsoever.
>
> ok, let me get this straight. it's ok for you to comment on political
> groups that i identify with but it is not ok for me to comment on
> political groups that you identify with? have i got that right?
Oh, boy, more mind-reading! I never KNEW I identified with NOW! Gee,
THANKS for that brilliant insight! What would I do without you to tell
me what I think!!
You may not presume to comment on the political constituency of any group
to which you never have a hope of being a member, and which you have
obviously inadequately researched (as demonstrated by your ignorant
slander that NOW is a communist group) because as long as you're forced
to remain an outsider, you can have no access nor insight to what its
members truly believe.
I, on the other hand, can comment about conservatives because I can
choose to become one any time I choose. When you choose to become a
woman, you can comment on women's PACs.
And neither, in case you missed the blunt point being bashed over your
head, may you PRESUME to tell me (or anyone else) what I think.
>
> >YOUR whole argument is faulty because it makes you sound like a militia
> >member, and we all know how logical and tolerant *they* are, hm?
>
> i wouldn't know. i don't personally know anyone in a militia.
Consider yourself damned lucky. I had to work with one of those, and he
would never shut up about political subjects in the workplace. He was a
staunch Dole/Kemp supporter, BTW.
"All Democrats are commies" is certainly a statement that he would have
agreed with. So, yes, you DO sound like a militia member. Oh, dear.
> hmm,
> i guess that means that they are just a fringe element and therefore
> are not representative of conservatives. wouldn't it be stupid to
> stereotype conservatives based on a fringe group. i don't think that
> any militia member has been elected to anything either.
No, but David Duke came close.
And the fringe groups are the ones with the bombs and guns, remember?
I have no problem with tame conservatives who do their patriotic duty and
vote. But if you don't wish fringe groups to "coopt" your party, please
do your part to stamp them and their illegal activities out. Hint: it
will take more than voting.
>
> >We still have anime, but we also have an increasing number of
> >"concerned family types of America" groups butting into our
> >entertainment industry, etc.
>
> and having no effect.
The effects may be subtle and take place over a long period of time, but
they are evident nevertheless.
Were you aware that dealers have had shipments of manga seized by
customs? That happened within the last 2 years. Who alerted customs to
take special looks at Japanese imports?
Why are some stores marking virtually EVERY anime title with an "over-18
only" sticker? Is this what will happen to Disney's release of
Miyazaki's Kiki? (She says in a desperate attempt to put this back on an
anime-related track.)
Why do some comics stores refuse to carry manga titles? Or were you
unaware that, instead of targeting individual stores, conservative
activist groups are now targeting coast-wide comics *distributors* in an
attempt to cut off what they consider obscene, at the source? Several of
our local comics shops went out of business after this happened to their
East Coast distributor; they couldn't get ANY new titles for months, and
down they went.
Oh, there are effects, all right.
>
> >The number and variety of these groups has never been greater, and
> >neither has their influence on the press, including the news you're
> >allowed to view every evening.
>
> the press only bring these things up during sweeps weeks to
> titillate the viewer. i doubt it is due to any influence by
> any "family friendly" group.
Considering the number of alarmist reports on any evening news (about
whatever the threat of the week is), you'd think EVERY week was sweeps
week.
If you think "family friendly" groups have no influence on what you see
on TV, try this: search for an ad for a pregnancy test where a married
couple is overjoyed to find out that the wife is NOT pregnant. This is,
of course, just one example. (I have yet to detect ANY liberal bias in
the media; being a liberal, I think I'd recognize one if I saw it.)
>
> >BTW, isn't it interesting how all those "concerned family" groups claim
> >they want to protect children, yet they want to accomplish it by taking
> >away more and more of their children's rights?
>
> children are used by both sides in propaganda. i personally have no
> patience for anyone who wants the government to protect their children
> from "smut" on the tv when they should be there to turn the tv off.
> all of the conservatives that i know are of like mind on this issue.
Good! People who believe in individual responsibility! INCITE THEM TO
RIOT! Otherwise they'll never make the news. :?
>
> conservative politicians find it hard to vote against such things,
> not because they are conservative but because they are politicians.
And they are thus overly concerned with reelection by their conservative
constituencies, rather than what is right or good or even Constitutional.
> in the recent example of the cda, liberal politicians also didn't
> vote against it. it is just not politically easy to do so.
True; but hopefully we won't have much to fear from the CDA; the Supreme
Court will take care of THAT piece of nonsense legislation. It's a sad
testimony to the lack of ALL law-makers' knowledge of modern technology,
that they really believe they can censor a worldwide medium in the first
place. We should all do more to educate them otherwise. (As an
engineer, I for one am in a good position to do this; but everyone can
write their representatives letters!)
>
> >I suppose if they ever invented a "brain thought control device,"
> >these people would be shoving to be first in line to get their kids
> >implanted with them.
>
> why do you think that conservatives want the government to control
> everyone's mind.
Because it's almost never liberals who want books banned from schools and
libraries? (I admit a *few* exceptions; but they are extremely few.)
Because it's conservative groups who want to ban flag burnings and allow
majority-controlled public school prayer?
Because it's conservative groups who don't want sex ed taught? (As if
lack of knowledge about sex ever prevented a teenager from trying it
anyway :)
> here in georgia, where the republicans are the
> minority party in the state legislature, you are required to submit
> to finger printing to get your driver's license. the republicans
> and libertarians hate this law and are fighting to repeal it.
Good for them.
> i
> hope that causes you to question your picture of republicans
> promoting "big brother" type government.
When I said "these people would be first in line," I was not referring
particularly to republicans ("there you go again," reading my mind :),
but to the pro-censorship conservative groups. If they have anything in
common, it seems to be some sort of anal-retentive control freak complex.
Most of the people I was referring to would find your republican party to
be MUCH too liberal and permissive for their tastes.
>
> >Sort of reminds me of all those "pro- lifers" who also support the
> >death penalty, and lobby against seat belt laws because they interfere
> >with their "freedom as parents." Feh.
>
> i don't see an inconsistency between supporting the rights of the
> unborn child and the death penalty. the child is innocent, the criminal
> is guilty.
Umm, Christian scripture dictates that NOBODY is innocent, and children
are guilty because they are born from sin. (Not that I believe this, but
I've heard enough of this kind of thing being parroted that I know it's
accepted dogma.)
Personally, I believe the death penalty is wrong because innocent people
DO get falsely accused and imprisoned. At least, with imprisonment,
there's always a chance to rectify that mistake. Once they're dead,
well, then what?
>
> >>just take out your bible and show them one of the more raunchy passages.
> >>then explain to them that if they succeed in censoring anything, they
> >>make it easier for others to censor their bible. that ends the debate
> >>right there.
> >
> >You forget: some of these people read translations of the bible that you
> >never heard of, and all the naughty bits have been excised from those
> >*anyway*, therefore any "bible" that you show them that doesn't match
> >theirs in every respect will probably be denounced as fake.
>
> no, i didn't forget. i've never run across such people using anything
> other than the king james translation.
Then you've led a very sheltered life.
> people of that frame of mind using
> any other translation must be an infinitesimally small minority. i
> think you are just desperately looking for a justification for your
> stereotype of conservatives.
Never heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the bible? How about
the Mormons' version? (And how non-conservative are THOSE groups? :) The
"new age" translations that came out this century, ostensibly to make
them more readable? (These are VERY widely used today.) How about the
Apocrypha?
Do not conclude that these add up to an "infinitesimally small minority"
just because you never did any research or heard of them.
>
> >>i bet you would feel pretty stupid if you found out that limbaugh (mr.
> >>conservative himself) said that the CDA was a bad law. he has in fact
> >>stated that. you have also ignored my statement of unconditional support
> >>for free speech. instead, you cling desperately to your stereotype.
> >
> >We were talking about a congressman, not Rush Limbaugh. Why change the
> >topic?
>
> that was not a change of the subject (you're the one to be complaining
> about that. your whole post is an exercise in changing the subject).
Hey, *I'm* not the one who dragged dirty name-calling politics into an
anime newsgroup discussion on censorship. But just because I didn't
start it, doesn't mean I won't flame you until you cut it out. (And you
excised my praise of Mr. Limbaugh - Tsk! CENSORSHIP!)
> i mentioned limbaugh as another data point which proves how silly it
> is to stereotype conservatives as censorship advocates.
I do not stereotype conservatives as censorship advocates. I merely
point out that the vast majority of censorship advocates are
conservatives. (Logic, dear: A leading to B does not mean that B leads
to A)
BTW, it's only a very poor scientist who bases his theories on a single
data point.
>
> >BTW, the reason the NAACP wouldn't let Mr. Thomas speak at their meeting,
> >is that he's outspoken against affirmative action. They certainly have
> >the right to pay/entertain whatever speakers they choose, depending on
> >their political goals.
>
> yes they do. however, they have also intimidated other groups into
> not allowing mr. thomas to speak.
Which other groups? I really want to know!
>
> >>My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> >>a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
> >
> >Truth? PROVE IT. This is, um, AMERICA, remember? Innocent until proven
> >guilty? Libel laws, and all that?
>
> that's an easy one. clinton has admitted to trying pot. he was such a
> chicken, that he ran overseas to avoid the draft. he ran all the way
> to moscow in fact. i'm not saying he shouldn't have protested the draft
> though. if he weren't a chicken, he would have stayed here and gone to
> prison if it came to it for his beliefs. such civil disobedience is a
> fine american tradition.
Hey, if he said he didn't inhale, I believe him :) When you can prove
he inhaled, be sure and call the DEA with the news. I'm sure they'll
arrest him right away.
And I believe he only ran as far as England (Rhodes scholar) as far as
residence is concerned. No American with a brain would want to live in
Moscow for more than a few days, considering how poor its conditions were
then (and still are).
If the draft is ever reinstituted and includes women (not that I'd be
eligible; I'm far too old), I'll be in Canada before you can say
lickety-split. I don't believe it's right to jail people for political
beliefs, and I for one have no intention of being forced to fight for
obscure reasons on the other side of the globe. (Especiallu if, like
Viet Nam, we're doomed to LOSE.)
Jailing political dissidents is something that communist dictatorships
are fond of doing, I hear. Do you approve of this practise?
>
> --
> My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
> Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
Still thinking for myself and refusing to be categorized -
B Jones
In a previous article, Ten...@gatecom.com (Tenchi) says:
>> > I hate to break it. Our mutal "friends" at the Trinity Broadcasting
>> > Network has allready aquired some anime. It is being denounced as
>> > tools of SATAN. Go figure...
>>
>> What was declared to be Satanic? To think that my cable company is
>> forced by the federal gov't tp waste a channel on these people...
To an extreme "Christian", if is doesn't involve praise for
god, or hate for those who don't fit the mold, it's satanic.
It's very much the same mentality and tactics used in
Cold War communist countries in terms of praising the
communist party.
>Before I'm acussed of sticking up for anyone I will say I'm an athiest,
>but I would everyone to look back and count the amount of times 666, or
>the name Lucifer and Satan appear in anime, its alot! Though I would
>have a serious hard time calling it the work of the devil considering
>most of Japan is Buddhism.
Actually, the Japanese are mostly Shintoists, but it's a
mix of the two plus some Confuscianism.
Lastly, you are not an atheist. To be an atheist, there
has to be a god.
Shunsuke
--
=====================================================
Please don't read this .sig file.
innp...@aol.com
In article <1997Feb26.110519.156148@forest>, dma...@forest.drew.edu writes:
> Really, though, I can't possibly imagine any "Anime inspired"
>crimes. Is someone going to steal a plane to protect us from an Alien
>invasion? Mecha hasn't been invented yet so that knocks out a HUGE chunk
>of the potential market for criminal activity. I think you're
>overreacting.
It already happened in Japan a few years back. Some guy named Miyazaki (Not THAT Miyazaki, baka!) raped and killed some little girls in styles similar to those in the H-anime and manga his apartment was literally crammed with. This is a BIG part of the reason the word "otaku" isn't well-liked in Japan.
the pig
************************************************************************
Washington Times, January 1997:
"The Democratic National Committee claims to have foiled a plot to take over the world by returning a $2.7 million dollar campaign contribution to The Brain."
---C.J. Scott (the pig)
************************************************************************
Linna Sylia Nene Priss Jeena Nausicaa Kiki Fio
...and Bell-chan, of course.
Susano Orbatos
>
> whatever anyone watches in the privacy of their home is their
> business alone. rules restricting sales to under-aged individuals
> are not unreasonable (it takes a village to raise a child and
> all that crap). rules requiring accurate descriptions of content
> for the purpose of screening out unwanted material are not
> unreasonable.
Thanx. That's what the thread's about.
I agree with you; I said something similar to those lines earlier.
Susano Orbatos
> >It's good of you to point out that its silly to strongly associate
> >censorship with conservatives. Who do you think is associated with with
> >censorship?
>
> i try to avoid using such unjustified stereotypes.
What, you think I'm trying to trick you or something?!? For christ's
sakes, man!
BOTH parties push for censorship in many ways. Examples:
)Janet Reno and TV censorship
)Republican senator who said that the recent NBC airing of Schindler's
List totally uncut was "shocking, and an outrage"...
go figure.
Susano Orbatos
> : I'm not a big H-anime fan, but I think I should point out drawing cannot
> : be consider of any human age, thus child porn in anime's case is a moot
> : point. I turns my stomach to think of any kind of censorship, even to
> : real hardore stuff. This thread's message goes against the things we've
> : been questing for for years. Maybe you should re-think your position,
> : Mr. Salgado, because, like it or not, H anime is a viable and important
> : part of the US anime industry.
Point taken. Though, most of the time, female ages tend to fall among
the high school level or so. And most try to push it as young (looking)
as possible...
It's like ... REI ... she could've been any age Gainax felt nessecary.
Luckily she's still 14 (yes!)
[Whether or not this could be reciprocated with Misato...]
> I believe Micky Mouse is 70 years old but he doesnt look a day over 21
Naw, he's reachin' his binge years: check out the beer gut!
innp...@aol.com
>
>BTW, if Clinton's "committed treason," by talking to the Chinese, how
>about Nixon?
>
>Maybe you'd better notify Janet Reno about this "treason," hm? Quick!
>Call the FBI! Maybe they haven't noticed, without your valuable input!
>
>Put your actions where your mouth is, boy - Or shut up.
>
>
[-*sigh*-]
Sue, turn on your TV. For the past week Janet Reno has been questioned to death over when she's going to appoint a Special Prosecutor in this matter and her answer is that there's already an ongoing FBI investigation. That investigation essentially centers on whether campaign contributions from foreign sources affected U.S. foreign policy-- an action that falls rather easily into the definition of treason. Next time duck the bullet, don't lean into it.
Point to Walter. Sure, he's bombastic and if you don't keep close track you're not likely to have any idea what he's talking about, but he usually just points out the fallacies of knee-jerk assumptions.
(Actually, Walter, how about a NON-political post sometime? It'd go a LONG way toward building up that credibility Sue was talking about.)
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <3314A2...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
> and carefully before automatically jumping to conclusions. I changed
> before, and I'm happy I did.
> I hope Walter does the same; just be more circumspect. I have friends
> who are grossly to the right, and friends who are grossly leftist.
>
> Tedeshimas, Miss Shambaugh, and you, Mr. White, but before dwell knee
> deep into this shit (as if we aren't already...) lemme ask you both a Q:
>
Personally, I find most of the hentai stuff pretty funny. (Example: the
new OAV whose name I can't remember, in which the entire point of the
episode was to get a girl to bungee-jump naked off a building.) Some of
the Cream Lemon "classic" anime is even charming; quaint, almost. The
tentacled rape type anime I could do without, but unlike most feminists,
I can sit through it and make pointed remarks without demanding it be
turned off.
I think the funniest (and least realistic) element in H anime that I've
ever seen was the concept of "curing" a lesbian by giving her a good
screw. You're more likely to encounter a tentacled rape monster in our
universe, than to find that happening in real life. :D
If you look carefully, there's hentai elements in almost every anime
made. Even if it's only "panty shots" (see Maison Ikkoku tennis scenes)
or similar harmless stuff. Could it be a by-product of the general
sexist nature of Japanese society? (Another gross generalization, but
they are rather behind the times there in many ways.) Who knows?
Personally, I don't see how animated sexism (or animated sex!) from
another country can possibly be harmful enough to Americans' psyches that
it needs to be restricted. And any movement to bar the stuff from coming
into the country is already 15 years late. I've said it before: if it
isn't driving Japanese kids to rape and pillage, it can't be blamed for
any of that here in the US, either.
>
> ---
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <cwwE68...@netcom.com>,
c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>
> sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
> >change. Then see how long it takes for his tiny little head to explode.
>
> it means to agree with her.
Debate means arguing opposite points based on REASONING and FACTS.
"All democrats are commies. The truth hurts, doesn't it?" These are NOT
facts; they are opinions being masqueraded and paraded around as if they
WERE facts. Further, they appear to be based, not on reasoning, but on
knee-jerk reaction fostered by parroting bigoted ultra-conservative
commentators.
Apparently Carl-chan thinks debate means yelling "I'm right and you and
all your kind suck" until the opposition gets disgusted and walks away.
Instead, how about this: what is YOUR definition of a communist? (Let's
see if it jibes with *accepted* definitions or not.)
>
> >You lose credibility EVERY TIME you name-call, young man. Now go wash
> >your mouth out with Politeness Soap.
>
> your side started this whole thing without credibility by stereotyping
> republicans as censorship advocates. at least i can argue that most of
> the democrat politicians get their beliefs strait out of the communist
> manifesto and someone must be electing them.
No, you started it by injecting politics into it in the first place.
You can argue that "democrats are commies" all you want, but arguing is
not debating, because arguing doesn't depend on FACTS.
Do you REALLY want to know what groups are the strongest pro-censorship
right now? DARE you do some actual research?
Check the following website:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/BCFE/bcfenatl.html
It is a list of the most active pro-censorship organizations today. It is
provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you crave a reference.
By all means, check out the self-described political affiliations of the
members and founders of these groups. You will not find that the results
coincide with your preconceived delusions. The vast majority of them (one
might say, OVERWHELMING) are conservative Republicans.
Do not bother me again on this topic before you do this research.
>
> >If a member of congress describes themself as a Democrat, it is your duty
> >as a (theoretically) patriotic American to accept that self-definition.
>
> do you really believe that. jeeze, and you guys stereotype us as being
> mind numbed robots.
OK, well then that makes you a robot for believing that Reagan wasn't a
heavily pro-censorship fascist.
If you won't accept the self-definition of one party, I don't have to
accept the self-definition of another.
If A, then B.
>
> no, it is not my duty to accept them without question. it is my
> obligation to call a spade a spade. until the leaders of the so
> called "democrat" party stop spewing communist propaganda and
> hanging out with communist dictators, they are communists.
Well, any time you feel like getting brave, and charging at the head of
the revolution towards the White House, be my guest. By all means, join
a militia; they'd appreciate your enthusiasm.
BTW, there is only one communist dictator left in this world, and he'll
be dead soon (Castro). Will you happy and relieved then? (Cuba sure
will be!)
>
> >Gee, Walter, how do YOU KNOW so much about the communist party, ANYWAY???
> >Hmm, looks suspicious; must be a member himself...
>
> that's a pathetic argument.
So is "all democrats are commies." Can't recognize sarcasm when you read
it?
Making fun of an opponent's stance (ie, reductio ad absurdum) IS an
allowable debating technique, by the way.
>
> >If the vast majority of those calling for censorship (of anime or
> >whatever) associate THEMSELVES with conservative political views, then it
> >is not silly to associate censorship with conservatives.
>
> but you skip the step where you prove that most censorship advocates
> are conservatives.
See the URL listed above. Educate yourself.
>
> >Censorship is a popular conservative-agenda tool, used to prohibit access
> >by other people to progressive ideas they don't like, such as:
>
> the communist party uses censorship just as much. and they have trained
> people like you to shout down anyone who tries to use their free speech
> to disagree with them. here is a fine example of that:
Umm, nobody's trained me to do ANYTHING for them. Free will? Brain of
my own? Got that yet?
If you insist on defining debate techniques such as presenting facts as
"shouting down," well, nobody's going to take you OR your opinions
seriously.
>
> >- Humans are just derived primates; we're apes, so get over it
> >- Gays are people, too, and children should be taught to be tolerant of
> >them (and everybody else, too, for that matter)
> >- A woman's body is her own
> >- Masturbation won't make you go blind, and won't give you AIDS, either
> >- Lack of religious belief does not automatically make you a bad person
> >- There is no such thing as one absolutely correct belief system
>
> >People such as Hitler were very fond of censorship. I doubt you'd find
> >anybody willing to describe him as anything BUT conservative, hmm?
Nowhere do I see PROOF that this is shouting ANYBODY down.
>
> hitler was also very fond of gun control. does that make him a
> liberal? anyone who describes hitler as a conservative are only
> showing their ignorance.
Hitler was a Nazi, in case you'd forgotten; that's about as conservative
as this century got.
By all means, please present your proof that Hitler was a left-wing
liberal. (He HATED communists, by the way; so the two of you have at
least that much in common.)
>
> >It's not the parties you have to worry about so much; it's their fringe
> >element members, and also people who feel disenfranchised and alienated
> >from ANY party (like the ones setting off bombs in Atlanta lately).
> >They're trying to "censor" whole health clinics and nightclubs, and I
> >doubt they'd describe themselves as "liberals."
>
> at least you have accepted that they are only a minor fringe element.
> both parties have attracted their own mad bombers. the unibomber
> would feel very out of place in a crowd of conservatives. there were
> many more fringe groups during the late '60s to early '70s that were
> anything except conservative.
There are certainly some whacked-out far-left terrorist groups - Mostly
consisting of environmentalists, like Greenpeace, and the more militant
tree-huggers. Unabomber was certainly of the last variety.
But the vast majority of fringe groups resorting to terrorism today, are
conservative. "Army of God" is left-wing? How about "Operation Rescue?"
If you called them liberal to their faces, they'd whip out their
control-free guns and shoot you.
>
> >No, no! The Pope isn't evil because he visited Castro; he's evil because
> >he finally admitted that evolution is a fact! Don't forget that; I'm
> >sure Walter-chan won't. :)
>
> do you really think that i'm a creationist. you are sadly mistaken.
> whoops, there goes one of your stereotypes. sorry about that.
Hurrah! You've shown independent thinking! Please keep it up.
If you're truly that open-minded, then you will check out the URL I
listed.
>
> >Why bother reasoning with someone with a 3-year-old's mentality?
>
> instead, you just pitch a fit and hope nobody notices the stupidity or
> total lack of your argument.
Since when is insisting on proof and facts, pitching a fit? You're not
going to trot out that old conservative saw about "hysterical women," are
you? :)
If you're going to call half of America communists, when they'd
undoubtedly violently disagree with you, then the burden of proof is on
YOU. Don't whine because you're now being asked to prove the worth of
your ridiculous opinion.
>
> >...since he obviously enjoys starting flame wars...
>
> here is the spark that started this flame war:
>
> Cory Patton <Eff...@cris.com> wrote:
> >If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
> >with anime, fuck 'em.
Again, see the above URL and do some research. The overwhelming majority
of organized groups calling for censorship today, describe themselves as
Republicans.
>
> as you can see, your side is clearly responsible. come on sue, you're
> even posting your articles from dejanews. there is no excuse for you
> having missed this unless you are desperately clinging to another
> stereotype. yep, them rascally republicans, always stirring up
> trouble.
I fail to see how somebody I don't know can be on my side. (?? explain,
please ??) And no, I did not see the posting referenced above, possibly
because it had a different subject header on it at the time.
However, his opinion does have some basis on valid fact. Read the
contents of the URL referenced above. Today's proponents of censorship
in the US are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican.
>
> --
> My father said that during his lifetime the Presidency has gone from
> a chicken in every pot to a chicken smoking pot.
> Walter White (c...@netcom.com)
C Sue Shambaugh
Liberal: adj., meaning generous, magnanimous.
sue.sh...@trw.com
In article <19970228121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> >about Nixon?
> >
> >Maybe you'd better notify Janet Reno about this "treason," hm? Quick!
> >Call the FBI! Maybe they haven't noticed, without your valuable input!
> >
> >Put your actions where your mouth is, boy - Or shut up.
> >
> >
>
>
> Sue, turn on your TV. For the past week Janet Reno has been questioned to
death over when she's going to appoint a Special Prosecutor in this
matter and her answer is that there's already an ongoing FBI
investigation. That investigation essentially centers on whether
campaign contributions from foreign sources affected U.S. foreign
policy-- an action that falls rather easily into the definition of
treason. Next time duck the bullet, don't lean into it.
Oh, my TV's on - every night. (Biased news is still better than none at
all.) However, I reiterate an earlier point: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY.
So can we *ALL* refrain from calling people traitors until it's proven in
a court of law? Anything else is just prejudice.
>
> Point to Walter. Sure, he's bombastic and if you don't keep close track
you're not likely to have any idea what he's talking about, but he
usually just points out the fallacies of knee-jerk assumptions.
Nobody who has his own large set of knee-jerk assumptions should be
throwing stones, IMO.
>
> (Actually, Walter, how about a NON-political post sometime? It'd go a LONG
way toward building up that credibility Sue was talking about.)
>
> the pig
>
> ************************************************************************
> Washington Times, January 1997:
> "The Democratic National Committee claims to have foiled a plot to take
over the world by returning a $2.7 million dollar campaign contribution
to The Brain."
Now, THAT would be news! :)
>
> ---C.J. Scott (the pig)
> ************************************************************************
> Linna Sylia Nene Priss Jeena Nausicaa Kiki Fio
> ...and Bell-chan, of course.
C Sue Shambaugh
(Still Defying Classification)
Carl Walter White, Jr
sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
>c...@netcom.com (Carl Walter White, Jr) wrote:
>>sue.sh...@trw.com wrote:
>Instead, how about this: what is YOUR definition of a communist? (Let's
>see if it jibes with *accepted* definitions or not.)
communists advocate the elimination of private property. that nicely
describes most of the liberal environmentalist groups. al gore is a
big environmentalist.
marx described communism as the final stage of society in which the state
has withered away leaving happy people who are socially and economically
equal and who control the means of production. marx believed that
capitalist nations would have to go through a period of state ownership
of the means of production before reaching the communist ideal. this
transition state is called socialism. implicit in this definition is the
redistribution of the wealth. democrats (using your euphemism) are good
at getting this done by way of a severely graduated income tax, the
capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and more social welfare programs
than you can shake a stick at. every time clinton, gephardt, bonior, etc.
rant about taking from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich, what
they are really complaining about is that their precious wealth
redistribution schemes (which are used to buy votes basically) are being
dismantled. i know for a fact that clinton has said that the rich are not
being taxed enough to support the poor. from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need, right out of the communist
manifesto.
as theories go, especially theories about society, things have turned out
differently when applied to real world situations. not once has a socialist
state withered away to leave marx's communism. ironically, this means
that hitler and stalin should have been best buddies. both of them were
leaders of what could be best described as a socialist dictatorship. that's
right, hitler was a leftist. he didn't call his party the national
_socialist_ party for nothing. the only reason that hitler attacked
the ussr was because he had this idea that "this town isn't big enough
for the two of us". he practically said so in "mein kampf". it had
nothing to do with political ideology.
>No, you started it by injecting politics into it in the first place.
why can't you just give it up and admit that your side started this.
here is the spark again:
Cory Patton <Eff...@cris.com> wrote:
>If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
>with anime, fuck 'em.
[back to sue again]
>Do you REALLY want to know what groups are the strongest pro-censorship
>right now? DARE you do some actual research?
>Check the following website:
>http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/BCFE/bcfenatl.html
>It is a list of the most active pro-censorship organizations today. It is
>provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you crave a reference.
>By all means, check out the self-described political affiliations of the
>members and founders of these groups. You will not find that the results
>coincide with your preconceived delusions. The vast majority of them (one
>might say, OVERWHELMING) are conservative Republicans.
as a matter of fact, i was probably viewing that page as you were typing
in the previous noise. you are the victim of what is called a biased
sample, a favorite trick of propagandist for quite a while. quickly
looking over that list, you can probably pick out the token liberal
censorship advocate. i say token liberal because ms. mackinnon appears on
that list only so they can point to her and say "look here, we're not
biased." why didn't they bother to list the examples of liberal censorship
that i have cited in previous articles.
>Well, any time you feel like getting brave, and charging at the head of
>the revolution towards the White House, be my guest. By all means, join
>a militia; they'd appreciate your enthusiasm.
i did all i could short of that last november. i think i'll leave it in
the hands of the fbi and any special prosecutor that may be assigned the
task for now.
>BTW, there is only one communist dictator left in this world, and he'll
>be dead soon (Castro). Will you happy and relieved then? (Cuba sure
>will be!)
good god, you have your head buried so far into the ground that i'm
surprised that you haven't pushed it all the way through the planet
and popped out in china where approximately 20% of the worlds population
is controlled by a communist dictatorship. or are you trying to deny that
china is a communist dictatorship so you can feel better about having
voted for clinton? what about vietnam, north korea, and several other
countries in asia and africa.
what sickened me was the "man on the street" interviews with people in
china after their last dictator died (no i'm not even going to try to
spell his name). everyone was heaping praise on him for allowing them
to start up some piddling little family business. and enough couldn't
be said about how good he was to actually allow them to keep part of
what they earned. "oh thank god for the man. without him, we would
not have been able to do anything". god damn sheep! they sound just
like all of the welfare addicts that your liberal buddies have enslaved.
>>but you skip the step where you prove that most censorship advocates
>>are conservatives.
>
>See the URL listed above. Educate yourself.
see response above.
>>>- Humans are just derived primates; we're apes, so get over it
>>>- Gays are people, too, and children should be taught to be tolerant of
>>>them (and everybody else, too, for that matter)
>>>- A woman's body is her own
>>>- Masturbation won't make you go blind, and won't give you AIDS, either
>>>- Lack of religious belief does not automatically make you a bad person
>>>- There is no such thing as one absolutely correct belief system
>
>Nowhere do I see PROOF that this is shouting ANYBODY down.
it is called political correctness. it is a way to intimidate those
who do not agree with your point of view. specifically, the points
you cite suggest that you want to portray me as intolerant and close
minded. then you depend on your cohort's pavlovian reaction to this
portrayal to drown out any useful debate. there are instances of this
being encoded in the law. i wonder why i don't see any information
about this liberal technique of censorship at http://www.eff.org/
another example of this technique in use occurs whenever clarence thomas
tries to speak and the leaders of the naacp shout "uncle tom".
>>hitler was also very fond of gun control. does that make him a
>>liberal? anyone who describes hitler as a conservative are only
>>showing their ignorance.
>
>Hitler was a Nazi, in case you'd forgotten; that's about as conservative
>as this century got.
>
>By all means, please present your proof that Hitler was a left-wing
>liberal. (He HATED communists, by the way; so the two of you have at
>least that much in common.)
see the discussion of communism at the beginning of this article.
as far as hitler is concerned, i have just as much venom and hatred
for him. i have several relatives who helped to defeat him. in fact,
one of them parachuted into normandy ahead of the d-day invasion. he
was also involved with liberating one of the death camps. he never
cared much to talk about it though. i'm sure it was quite painful to
have witnessed that.
>There are certainly some whacked-out far-left terrorist groups - Mostly
>consisting of environmentalists, like Greenpeace, and the more militant
>tree-huggers. Unabomber was certainly of the last variety.
>
>But the vast majority of fringe groups resorting to terrorism today, are
>conservative. "Army of God" is left-wing? How about "Operation Rescue?"
>If you called them liberal to their faces, they'd whip out their
>control-free guns and shoot you.
i think you are stretching the definition of terrorism to the breaking
point to include operation rescue. their leadership does not condone
destruction of property or the use of violence. such a compromise of
beliefs would be totally discrediting.
as for army of god and their ilk, i am just as certain that these groups
are a miniscule minority associating themselves with conservatives as you
are certain that the radical environmentalists are an equally small
minority of liberals.
>If you're truly that open-minded, then you will check out the URL I
>listed.
if you are truly open-minded, then you will consider my argument that
you are being presented with a biased sample at that page.
>Since when is insisting on proof and facts, pitching a fit? You're not
>going to trot out that old conservative saw about "hysterical women," are
>you? :)
no such saw. are you going to continue to use political correctness to
stifle the debate?
>>>...since he obviously enjoys starting flame wars...
>>
>>here is the spark that started this flame war:
>>
>>Cory Patton <Eff...@cris.com> wrote:
>>>If the tight-ass middle age republicans of America develop a problem
>>>with anime, fuck 'em.
>
>Again, see the above URL and do some research. The overwhelming majority
>of organized groups calling for censorship today, describe themselves as
>Republicans.
you totally ignore the point i was making here. as for that page, again,
see my response earlier in this article.
>>as you can see, your side is clearly responsible.
>
>I fail to see how somebody I don't know can be on my side. (?? explain,
>please ??)
you are really stretching your credibility here. it is obvious to
everyone that both of you are arguing for the same position.
>However, his opinion does have some basis on valid fact. Read the
>contents of the URL referenced above. Today's proponents of censorship
>in the US are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican.
if you care to dig past the obvious bias at that page, you will find
_equal_ amounts of censorship coming from _both_ sides.
Carl Walter White, Jr
Susano Orbatos <Chan.Meni...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>c...@netcom.com wrote:
>>i try to avoid using such unjustified stereotypes.
>
>What, you think I'm trying to trick you or something?!? For christ's
>sakes, man!
no, i don't think you are trying to trick me. but i am puzzled at
your response. you asked which of the two parties i would associate
with censorship.
>BOTH parties push for censorship in many ways. Examples:
that's why i will not stereotype only one of them as a bunch of censorship
advocates. if you asked me to consider the two parties lumped together,
i still wouldn't stereotype them as censorship advocates.
>)Janet Reno and TV censorship
>)Republican senator who said that the recent NBC airing of Schindler's
>List totally uncut was "shocking, and an outrage"...
did everyone watch nightline last night? it was concerned with the tv
rating system. now i'm not sure about the context of that republican
senator's remarks about schindler's list, but i suspect it was in regards
to the inadequacy of the current tv rating system. nightline presented
several democrat politicians complaining about the inadequacy of the
current tv rating system. a representative of one of those family first
type groups that sue is so concerned about was even included in the
discussion that followed.
do you know what resulted? there were _NO_ calls for censorship. in
fact, they all agreed that a rating system that better described the
actual content of tv shows was needed. a similar discussion in this
news group came to the exact same conclusion. i don't think anyone
can argue against giving the consumer more information.
so, everyone take it easy. nobody of any significance wants to take your
anime away from you.
Susano Orbatos
Carl Walter White, Jr wrote:
>
> >c...@netcom.com wrote:
> >>i try to avoid using such unjustified stereotypes.
> >
> >What, you think I'm trying to trick you or something?!? For christ's
> >sakes, man!
>
> no, i don't think you are trying to trick me. but i am puzzled at
> your response. you asked which of the two parties i would associate
> with censorship.
>
> >BOTH parties push for censorship in many ways. Examples:
>
> that's why i will not stereotype only one of them as a bunch of censorship
> advocates. if you asked me to consider the two parties lumped together,
> i still wouldn't stereotype them as censorship advocates.
I DID. I simply asked "Who do you think is guilty of censorship?" and
you immediately jumped to party terms.
> >)Janet Reno and TV censorship
> >)Republican senator who said that the recent NBC airing of Schindler's
> >List totally uncut was "shocking, and an outrage"...
I can't believe I forgot the guy's
> so, everyone take it easy. nobody of any significance wants to take your
> anime away from you.
"Your anime"..? You know, you haven't _ever_ posted anything anime
related in the RAA* at _all_; what kind of fan are you..?
--
R J in Alb
I'd like to address the idea of government censorship. Is it really
necessary?
It was said that it should be up to the individual to decide these things
and not up to government involvement.
Well then, let me put it in this light:
Was the U.S government censoring Hitler's beliefs by fighting against him?
Or should we have left it up to the individual (the Jews) to decide that
it was wrong, and not have any government (ours or any other's)
involvement?
My main point is that censorship, like any other thing has it's place, and
can be abused.
Am I bible thumper? You bet. Am I also a conservative? You got that
right. Do I also think that censorship is necessary? Sometimes it is.
The refrence to linking anime with *kiddie porn* is a half truth. It is
not based on the voice actors and thing like that, but rather on the
content of the anime. Remember that the target group for animation (as
most toy makers will tell you) in the U.S. is the children, for those who
are concerned about cultural diffrences. They still make up the majority
of animation watchers.
The problem is that people lump together all anime as being evil. The U.S.
has enough stereotypes already, don't you think? Unfortunatly, people's
first impressions lead them to believe that if something is bad, and it
can be related to something else, then that other thing must be bad too.
Does everybody remember what happened in Waco, TX? What if David Koresh's
cult was linked with Christianity? Is it right to think that all
christians are like that? Obviously not.
And yet, can we overlook (or justify) things that link together? We
shouldn't do that either. (There was an unusually high suicide rate
amongst D&D players. And over 70% of men in prison today grew up without
a father in the home; not that all women who raise their sons by
themselves do a bad job mind you.)
Some things link together, and some are just assumptions.
So let's look at the original question: "Is government censorship really
necessary?"
When it comes to anime, I'd have to say yes. If for no other reason,
people (in general) are still altogether too unfamiliar with anime to make
an informed decision about viewing it.
But if there is to be censorship, let's at least get some people who know
what the heck they are talking about. Let's have someone who is informed
make decisons for the uninformed untill they have enough info themselves
to make a conscious desicion about what kind of anime they want to see.
Lastly, I am an anime fan myself, and I don't want to see it taken away.
So let's just get people in there that know what they're doing, and we
will get a little farther with censorship than we would have ever gotten
without it
Ron Duncan
Susano Orbatos
> But if there is to be censorship, let's at least get some people who know
> what the heck they are talking about. Let's have someone who is informed
> make decisons for the uninformed untill they have enough info themselves
> to make a conscious desicion about what kind of anime they want to see.
Conscious descision?! When was the last time _that_ happened?! ^_-
Carl Walter White, Jr
R J in Alb <rji...@aol.com> wrote:
>Was the U.S government censoring Hitler's beliefs by fighting against him?
>Or should we have left it up to the individual (the Jews) to decide that
>it was wrong, and not have any government (ours or any other's)
>involvement?
fighting against hitler was not censoring him. it could not be
because he _acted_ on what he said.
>Do I also think that censorship is necessary? Sometimes it is.
because we all have the right to speak freely, we also have the
responsibility to do so when someone says something that we think is
wrong. censorship is what happens when we shirk this responsibility.
>When it comes to anime, I'd have to say yes. If for no other reason,
>people (in general) are still altogether too unfamiliar with anime to
>make an informed decision about viewing it.
the best solution is accurate description of content. also people
who sale or rent these videos should have to balls to not coddle
idiots who complain that they got more than they bargained for. they
should bop them on the head and then point out the accurate description
of the content. no censorship is necessary.
Carl Walter White, Jr
>BTW, if Clinton's "committed treason," by talking to the Chinese, how
>about Nixon?
president nixon didn't go to china to sell out his country. he
went there to find a face saving way out of vietnam. where was
clinton?
[referring to president reagan...]
>>you can not
>>identify any policies of his presidency that are unique identifiers
>>of a fascist government.
>
>Oh, yes I can:
>
>Attempts to control the breeding habits of
>the US population (and others) by revocation of family planning funds,
>information about women's *legal* medical choices, as well as attempts
>to outlaw such choices
totally ignoring the fact that the unborn child might have rights
which are much more legitimate than the "right" to an abortion,
totally ignoring the fact that the father should also have some say
in the matter, i asked you to point out any unique identifiers of
fascism accountable to reagan's years as president. pointing out
that the radical feminist view that a woman's body is her own when
it is obvious that a child and a father are also involved does not
come close to equaling fascism. what if your mother had claimed
her "right" to control her body and aborted you? what happened
to your right to control your body? you see, true rights do not
come at the expense of others.
if the lack of funds worries you, then by all means supply the funds
yourself. i would rather the federal government use its funds for
more appropriate functions of federal government.
how does this make president reagan a fascist?
> - Heavy stacking of the judiciary with candidates
>that met his political and religious litmus tests (ie, political biasing
>of our justice system)
ignoring the fact that the people elected him knowing that he
would have the opportunity to do so, the judges had to be
approved by the senate which was not controlled by the
republicans at the time. just because these judges have not
been activist judges discovering "rights" out of thin air does
not mean that they have been unfair. in fact, they have defended
freedom of speech on many occasions where it could be justified
by the constitution. how does this make president reagan a fascist?
>- Undermining elected representatives of the people (Congress)
do you mean like your communist friends in the unions have done
with republicans. how does this make president reagan a fascist?
>and breaking the law by dealing with the Nicaraguan
>contras via the CIA and his own White House staffers (ie, furthering a
>personal political agenda against the wishes of the people)
you mean setting back the agenda of communist members of congress
who supported the sandinistas, don't you? let's not forget that
due to president reagan's efforts, the nicaraguan's got the right
to elect their government and overwhelmingly choose against your
communist buddies, the sandinistas. the way he accomplished this
was an abuse of power, but it was made necessary due to the control
of congress by communists. how does this make president reagan a
fascist?
>- Allowing
>his wife to have undue influence over important affairs of state,
>because of (get this) HER ASTROLOGER
admittedly, this was stupid, but clinton is also guilty of allowing
his wife to have undue influence over important affairs of state.
how does this make president reagan a fascist?
> - Putting such a heavy emphasis on
>national defense
defending against outside aggression is fascism? i don't think so.
how does this make president reagan a fascist when this duty is
clearly spelled out in the constitution. are you ready to through
out the constitution because it does not suit your mislead beliefs?
> that we built up a huge deficit
due to your communist buddies in the congress trying to redistribute
the wealth. the fact is that president reagan's tax cuts worked to
increase government revenues. if your buddies had not gone hog wild,
there would have been plenty for legitimate federal expenses such as
national defense.
>(USSR would have collapsed anyway, we didn't cause it) - Leadership
>through charisma and "feel good" rhetoric instead of talent
the fact is that soviet officials have said that this was the straw
which broke the camel's back. who knows how long the soviet union
would have survived otherwise. the fact is that reagan accomplished
more than your anti-nuke communist front groups ever proclaimed to
want.
>Due to the many gaffes and outright inaccuracies that I witnessed coming
>out of that man's mouth during his tenure, I conclude that the onset of
>his disease began during his tenure as President.
better have clinton's head checked then.
>And if I'm nasty for pointing out this man's mental shortcomings, why
>aren't YOU nasty for calling all democrats communists? No double
>standards, please.
reagan's disease is out of his control and did not effect his ability
to accomplish many good things during his terms as president. the
same can't be said for your communist buddies.
>>>I am a Democrat, and registered as such. I am NOT a Communist.
>>
>>why do you support politicians who have fraternized with communists
>>and who constantly paraphrase from the communist manifesto?
>
>Tell me, how long have you HAD this rare mind-reading ability? Please, by
>all means, continue to tell me what I think. :?
i don't think it takes a mind reader to reasonably assume your
support for such politicians as clinton, rangel, gephard, etc.
>I haven't knowingly supported ANY politician who has fraternized with
>communists.
then you will denounce clinton and rangel? you will denounce all
the congressmen who supported the sandinistas during the 1980s?
>The politicians I voted for do not quote from the communist
>manifesto.
then you are ignorant.
>If I had supported such politicians (and there are some who
>*call* themselves communist, you know), gee, why didn't it
>show up on my many national security background checks?
because people like you have been using euphemisms such as
"democrat" for so long that nobody questions it.
>The US government is, always has been, and will probably continue
>to sell off public property (ie, forestry, mineral, and grazing
>rights) for a pittance to - get this - PRIVATE INTERESTS.
and this is wrong. the government should charge the true value of
the property and get out of the real estate business as soon as
possible.
>Government property is being privatized at an alarming rate, and it
>is not slowing down. How do these actions, continued during the
>Clinton administration, constitute a LACK of support for private
>property?
that's funny. clinton is responsible for government control of lands
out west with rich coal reserves. it seems he didn't want any competition
against his buddies in indonesia. more treason from clinton.
>You may not presume to comment on the political constituency of any group
>to which you never have a hope of being a member, and which you have
>obviously inadequately researched (as demonstrated by your ignorant
>slander that NOW is a communist group) because as long as you're forced
>to remain an outsider, you can have no access nor insight to what its
>members truly believe.
NAG's opinions are clearly stated at their web site. their site is
dripping with propaganda strait from party headquarters.
>I, on the other hand, can comment about conservatives because I can
>choose to become one any time I choose. When you choose to become a
>woman, you can comment on women's PACs.
you will not stifle my opinion with such a stupid argument.
>Consider yourself damned lucky. I had to work with one of those, and he
>would never shut up about political subjects in the workplace. He was a
>staunch Dole/Kemp supporter, BTW.
don't like having your beliefs questioned, do you? i'm sure you did
want him shut up, but that would be censorship, wouldn't it.
>>i don't think that any militia member has been elected to anything
>>either.
>
>No, but David Duke came close.
about as close as jesse jackson, known to have made anti-jewish
and other racist statements on numerous occasions.
>But if you don't wish fringe groups to "coopt" your party, please
>do your part to stamp them and their illegal activities out. Hint: it
>will take more than voting.
right back at you.
>Were you aware that dealers have had shipments of manga seized by
>customs? That happened within the last 2 years. Who alerted customs to
>take special looks at Japanese imports?
and once everyone saw how stupid it was, that was the end of it.
meanwhile, this sort of thing happens quite regularly in canada
where your radical feminist buddies at NAG have been more effective
at legislating their censorship.
>Why are some stores marking virtually EVERY anime title with an "over-18
>only" sticker? Is this what will happen to Disney's release of
>Miyazaki's Kiki? (She says in a desperate attempt to put this back on an
>anime-related track.)
this is laziness or fear of law suits from an overabundance of shysters.
it is nothing to do with censorship.
>Why do some comics stores refuse to carry manga titles? Or were you
>unaware that, instead of targeting individual stores, conservative
>activist groups are now targeting coast-wide comics *distributors* in an
>attempt to cut off what they consider obscene, at the source? Several of
>our local comics shops went out of business after this happened to their
>East Coast distributor; they couldn't get ANY new titles for months, and
>down they went.
if it is appropriate to boycott segregated busses in alabama, then
these boycotts must be acceptable also. any other position advocates
censorship. if you do not agree with them, then by all means support
those businesses. a democracy cannot survive citizens who are as timid
as yourself.
>(I have yet to detect ANY liberal bias in
>the media; being a liberal, I think I'd recognize one if I saw it.)
you're joking right?
>>why do you think that conservatives want the government to control
>>everyone's mind.
>
>Because it's almost never liberals who want books banned from schools and
>libraries? (I admit a *few* exceptions; but they are extremely few.)
they have banned bibles and other religious texts. books by limbaugh
and other conservative thinkers have been banned. these exceptions
are not as extremely few as you claim. but in fairness, there are
roughly as many book bannings on both sides.
>Because it's conservative groups who don't want sex ed taught? (As if
>lack of knowledge about sex ever prevented a teenager from trying it
>anyway :)
because it is used to introduce children to homosexuality. as long
as the scientific argument concerning whether homosexuality is a
learned behavior or a genetic defect is unsettled, i don't blame them
for not wishing to have that sex ed taught. are you so arrogant that
you would force them to do this? where do the parents count in your
idea of a free state?
>Personally, I believe the death penalty is wrong because innocent people
>DO get falsely accused and imprisoned. At least, with imprisonment,
>there's always a chance to rectify that mistake. Once they're dead,
>well, then what?
name any innocent person who has been executed since the death penalty
was reinstated.
>Never heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the bible? How about
>the Mormons' version? (And how non-conservative are THOSE groups? :) The
>"new age" translations that came out this century, ostensibly to make
>them more readable? (These are VERY widely used today.) How about the
>Apocrypha?
i don't know about the jehovah's witnesses, but the mormans still study
the new and old testaments. i'm sure that all of these groups would
not want the king james translation to be censored.
>Do not conclude that these add up to an "infinitesimally small minority"
>just because you never did any research or heard of them.
i know about the mormans in particular. several family members are
mormans and i have many very good friends who are morman. every one
of them is a staunch supporter of the first amendment.
>Hey, *I'm* not the one who dragged dirty name-calling politics into an
>anime newsgroup discussion on censorship.
no, i never said that you started this. however, you have come to
the defense of the one who did. where did that little weasel go
anyway?
>(And you excised my praise of Mr. Limbaugh - Tsk! CENSORSHIP!)
that is not censorship.
>>i mentioned limbaugh as another data point which proves how silly it
>>is to stereotype conservatives as censorship advocates.
>
>I do not stereotype conservatives as censorship advocates. I merely
>point out that the vast majority of censorship advocates are
>conservatives. (Logic, dear: A leading to B does not mean that B leads
>to A)
and i have pointed out otherwise.
>BTW, it's only a very poor scientist who bases his theories on a single
>data point.
please make note that i "mentioned limbaugh as _another_ data point..."
with emphasis added to "another" in hopes that you will not miss it
this time.
>>yes they do. however, they have also intimidated other groups into
>>not allowing mr. thomas to speak.
>
>Which other groups? I really want to know!
he was scheduled to speak to at least one high school graduation,
but the naacp wouldn't stand for it.
[referring to clinton's activities oversees while he was dodging the draft]
>And I believe he only ran as far as England (Rhodes scholar) as far as
>residence is concerned. No American with a brain would want to live in
>Moscow for more than a few days, considering how poor its conditions were
>then (and still are).
his trip to moscow is well documented.
>Jailing political dissidents is something that communist dictatorships
>are fond of doing, I hear. Do you approve of this practise?
funny that you should bring this up. wasn't it one of your buddies,
mr. johnson or mr. kennedy i believe, who was president during the
time when most draft dodgers were jailed?
Enrique Conty
In article <19970301111...@ladder02.news.aol.com> rji...@aol.com (R J in Alb) writes:
>
>Was the U.S government censoring Hitler's beliefs by fighting against him?
The US Government pretty much left Hitler to his own devices until the
Japanese military pulled that Pearl Harbor blunder. Only when the
country's own well-being was endangered did they the government decide
to fully intervene.
>But if there is to be censorship, let's at least get some people who know
>what the heck they are talking about. Let's have someone who is informed
>make decisons for the uninformed untill they have enough info themselves
>to make a conscious desicion about what kind of anime they want to see.
Of course, *you* are one of the informed ones, right? So it's allright
if you're the one who makes these "conscious decisions". Of course,
if someone else is doing these decisions and you disagree with them,
eventually you'll start screaming about "unfair censorship", or some such.
Do you see where I'm going with this? You have to define who's informed,
who's uninformed, and what the information is. Until you come up with
an acceptable definition, I have no choice but to oppose your idea.
And I really, *really* doubt you'll find a definition which we'll both
find agreeable: you the (self-described!) bible-thumping conservative,
me the one who wants to make the world safer for lesbian single mothers.
As an aternative, I have to side with Carl White on this one: if they're
uninformed, INFORM THEM. Describe what's on the show in the box.
Aside: why is it that people in this country have this damn obsession
about protecting individuals from themselves? If you treat everyone
like children for long enough, they either start acting like children
or they rebel where "dad" can't reach them. And I suspect we're seeing
some of both...
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
http://www.mcs.net/~conty
"There's what's legal, there's what's right, then there's what we do."
Vance Palodichuk
In <5ekt62$m...@news.alaska.edu>, fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Carlos F. Salgado) writes:
>Most of us know that our mutual interest has a weakness. This is the
>large availability of what some in this country would consider
>pornography. I refer of course to H-Anime. Thanks to distributors like
>AD Vision, Anime 18 (CPM), and others, a great amount of reasons have been
>provided to give Japanese Animation in this country a very hard time when
>ever someone brings the subject up. Thanks also to those who support
>this aspect of Anime, those companies continue to bring the stuff over.
>It is just a matter of time to the day when some parents or enemies of
>Japanese animation will make a *big* issue of this. Should we wait?
>Should we suffer while "Dateline" or "Hard Copy" have a grand day telling
>the rest of America about the evils of Anime?
>Consider this, not only does some of these H-anime titles portray women
>on very controversial circumstances, but some of these women would be
>considered underage and in possible violation of child pornography laws!
>Can we afford to allow this stuff such an easy availability?
>The industry must "clean house" to insure the future of Anime
>availability in the U.S.!
I agree that H-anime could put a lot of heat on anime in the US. In fact, last year
Hard Copy ran a story on Japanese rape videos, claiming that they were 'too
real' or something like that. It's only a matter of time until they're focus turns to
anime.
BUT, "cleansing" is not the answer. That's actually pretty hypocritical. We
whine about how cartoons never have any adult content, and here you are
saying that we get rid of the more risque aspects of anime!
There are both "good" and "bad" aspects of anime, hopefully the good aspects
wont be lost on the media.
Vance
--
Vance Palodichuk - vpal...@usinternet.com
http://www.usinternet.com/users/vpalodich/
Susano Orbatos
Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> Vance Palodichuk (vpal...@usinternet.com) wrote:
>
> : I agree that H-anime could put a lot of heat on anime in the US. In fact, last year
> : Hard Copy ran a story on Japanese rape videos, claiming that they were 'too
> : real' or something like that. It's only a matter of time until they're focus turns to
> : anime.
>
>
> If DateLine or 60 Minutes ran a story about "those dirty Japanese
> cartoons..." then I'd worry. Most people know that Hard Copy is
> not much better than the tabloids you can buy in the grocery store. Take
> anything they say with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Everest.
You know, does anyone realize how MANY tabloid stories involve sex and
porn? They seem to 'research' the subject _very carefully_... ^_-
Doug Jacobs
Susano Orbatos
Adam M. wrote:
>
> Susano Orbatos wrote:
> > porn? They seem to 'research' the subject _very carefully_... ^_-
>
Really? I bet the producers were up researching their topic *all night
long*
>:)
Adam M.
Susano Orbatos wrote:
>
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Vance Palodichuk (vpal...@usinternet.com) wrote:
> >
> > : I agree that H-anime could put a lot of heat on anime in the US. In fact, last year
> > : Hard Copy ran a story on Japanese rape videos, claiming that they were 'too
> > : real' or something like that. It's only a matter of time until they're focus turns to
> > : anime.
> >
> > Oh yeah...like I'm worried about Hard Copy running a story on anime...
> >
> > If DateLine or 60 Minutes ran a story about "those dirty Japanese
> > cartoons..." then I'd worry. Most people know that Hard Copy is
> > not much better than the tabloids you can buy in the grocery store. Take
> > anything they say with a grain of salt the size of Mt. Everest.
>
> You know, does anyone realize how MANY tabloid stories involve sex and
> porn? They seem to 'research' the subject _very carefully_... ^_-
20/20 did a story on "Japanese Pornographic Comics" 5 years ago...
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
< Ad-chan (Adam Marshall) >
> kul...@citynet.net <
< >
>"Hey guys, there's only one ticket <
< >
> left for the 'Iron Butterfly' <
< >
> concert and you're going to <
< >
> have to fight for it" <
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Lumraptor
: 20/20 did a story on "Japanese Pornographic Comics" 5 years ago...
Hah! No one cared! Seems nougthing needs to be done about H anime, so
why doesn't this thread die? Why are westerners so obsessed with sex?
Why isn't there a thread called "What to do about violent anime?"
Why? Because westerners can't seem to divorce them selves from the idea
of sexual sin. Taboo's against violence are there in the religions of Islam,
Judaism and Christianity, but sexual sin is the one everyone seems the
most worried about! Seems silly to me, but I'm an agnostic. To be fair,
there certainly are sexual taboos in the eastern religions too but the
taboos I think are in different context. There certainly seems to be more
of an acknowledgement of human sexuality being a part of life rather than
being something to transcend (Buddism being the exception).
If you don't want 20/20 doing another expose~ on porn anime, why don't
you stop posting about it and drawing attention to it?
" Don't draw enemy fire, it annoys those around you"- old saying from
the Vietnam War.
-Lumraptor
Hiroyuki Hironaga
Lumraptor (lumr...@indy.net) wrote:
: : 20/20 did a story on "Japanese Pornographic Comics" 5 years ago...
: Hah! No one cared! Seems nougthing needs to be done about H anime, so
: why doesn't this thread die? Why are westerners so obsessed with sex?
: Why isn't there a thread called "What to do about violent anime?"
Media has been doing for years. It's called self-ego boosting.
Like when Times did their article on how nasty Japanese women are, who
are appearantly all obsessed with fantasy of getting raped by men.
It's not unique to American publishers. Many countries publishers
purposely make other country look bad, to boost nationalistic ego. What
do I feel about it? sure, I think they are f*ckin lamers, but such
concept will never go away from any country. Human history proves this.
: Why? Because westerners can't seem to divorce them selves from the idea
: of sexual sin. Taboo's against violence are there in the religions of Islam,
That's only a part of it. It could have been anything else.
Anything the country doesn't feel "fit for their moral" in ANY way,
they would emphasise, AND exaggerate it to the point of disgust.
: If you don't want 20/20 doing another expose~ on porn anime, why don't
: you stop posting about it and drawing attention to it?
Fight abuse of 1st amendment by non-acknowledgement? Sure,
it might work. But _I_ for one, would refuse such, simply on principal.
: " Don't draw enemy fire, it annoys those around you"- old saying from
: the Vietnam War.
in other words, it's a take on "see no evil, hear no evil".
heh, sounds like NY City or Tokyo. :P
--
Hiro^2
--
Hiroyuki Hironaga (広永博之) / susa...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
susa...@anime.net / http://susanooh.anime.net/index.html