For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 733)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 446 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 158191476627.jpg - (329.98KB , 850x1253 , __drawn_by_xetton__sample-89209a457d712de5935253f0.jpg )
733 No. 733 [Edit]
Can Nazis and fundamentalist Christians and Muslims be otaku? Iran is kind of like modern Nazi Germany. Look how that turned out.
29 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 769 [Edit]
>>768
>Your life sounds like torture
Firstly, I'd like to kindly ask that when you speak with me that you don't use the Lord's name in vain like that. It's a violation of a commandment. Of course, you're not obliged to comply since I have no authority, it's just that since you're conversing with me, I think I'm obliged to both request that you stop as well as warn you of what you're doing.
Nonetheless, like I said, I'm quite casual when it comes to Anime and so I don't really hate using CrunchyRoll and I have no real reason to hate using Funimation. I know that it's common to find Anime fans on imageboards that bash CrunchyRoll (I've never seen discussion of Funimation) but I'm quite certain their reasons are things I wouldn't particularly care for. Spoiler'd for blogging.
I remember when I used to try hard to fit in with the elitists on 4chan/a/, I would pirate Anime in Hi10p rather than stream it and play it in Media Player Classic rather than VLC Media Player even though I couldn't see the difference. It's true that with a stream, the quality can be temporarily bad but it's only temporary and I believe that's just a connection issue. The quality drops simply because that's the best you can get at that instant. Anyway, nowadays I'm willing to be more honest with where I'm at. If, one day in the future, I act upon my desire to take art more seriously and so I actually begin to notice the supremacy of Hi10p then yeah, I'll try to pursue it but otherwise, as it's not noticeably enhancing my experience, I see no reason to care.
/a/ used to have a rule that it was forbidden to discuss Naruto. There was a belief that if discussion of Naruto were to ever be tolerated, /a/ would get its fanbase and so posting quality would plummet. I was exposed to arguments for why Naruto was bad that I didn't really understand (I think one reason was its pacing but even now, I can't tell what good or bad pacing is and I don't think I really know what it is). I vividly remember blindly bashing Naruto in conversation with an acquaintance in some attempt to assert myself as superior and knowledgeable. Nowadays, I'd be more willing to admit to liking Naruto if I liked it (in fact, I haven't watched it in some years and I think I'll try to get back into it if possible). If, at some point in the future, I come to make proper study of Literature and I come back to Naruto and find that it is poorly written, then yes, I'll disregard and critique the show but for the time being, if I like it then that's that.
I believe I did once see a critique of the CrunchyRoll subs of an Anime. They did something which wasn't approved. I think it might've been something like, using slang in the subs because the character speaks using Japanese slang or something. To me, I don't really mind such things. All I'm bothered by is the fact that I'll be looked down upon by the elitists for not minding such things however I'm beginning to let go of that in favour of an honest acceptance of where I'm at although I am curious to know why CrunchyRoll is so despised. I do intend to learn Japanese some day so I can watch Anime, read Manga and read Light Novels raw, so I can pick up any series that fancies my interest without being forced to consider whether or not it's been translated and to be able to follow Virtual YouTubers (my understanding of Japanese is that there are rude words but no curse words. Being able to watch someone play games I find interesting without hearing curses would be nice) but to me, with regards to Anime, Manga and LNs, the pursuit of Japanese would really just be the perfecting of an experience I already find acceptable.
I used to be the kind of person that would buy headphones that /g/ recommends but now, knowing that I'm not an audiophile and that I probably won't be able to distinguish between the quality in sound between a pair of Sennheisers and a pair of Beats by Dre, I don't mind buying the Beats. The only thing that could put me off is the price.

Basically, I feel no suffering regarding my situation regarding Japanese media because I believe I have what I believe would be considered to be, putting it gently, a rather "undeveloped" taste. Now, I imagine there's room for growth with serious self-study but that would take a lot of time and unfortunately, I've only recently begun to seriously pursue self-development (I'll be entering my late 20s in less than three months. ...Just giving you an idea of the volume of time I've wasted).
There was one time where, in relation to my situation regarding Japanese media, that I did suffer. It was when someone tricked me and others into reading his Mahoiku fanfiction that he passed off as legitimate translations of the LNs. I'm partly motivated in my desire to learn Jap to never be humiliated like that again.
My final point on this topic will be that for me, the true suffering isn't in how my life is regarding the consumption of Japanese media. It's the fact that I have to constantly monitor and control my mind because even thinking about sexual matters is severely sinful (assuming you're unmarried) and demands confession before communion and especially before death lest you eternally damn yourself.

>Yes, you're right. You were never free.
What does it even mean to be "free"? In my mind, being free would be to not care about what follows on from death and just be content blindly pursuing your individual hobbies. Now, I think this "freedom" becomes a bit of a problem when what you want is to raise a family. You're going to want to your children to be in a particular environment as you raise them and so everyone else's behaviour becomes something you want controlled. Well, I suppose this presumes that you're not so radically left that you're comfortable with your child being read books to it by a drag queen. Nonetheless, I had an interest in topics regarding the mystical and I believe I was freely pursuing that interest. I believe the most common lesson in the works I was reading was that you were God. They would teach that you were the master of your destiny but then this would mean that you have to assume responsibility and attain self-mastery so I feel there was always some kind of shackle.

>Try starting from scratch and embracing personal choice as a good thing
I believe free will is a good thing since it's something God gave us. It's just that we need to choose the right thing. I also wanted to say that, upon seeing the existence of Trotskyist Anime Reviewers, I wanted to be a Thomist Anime Reviewer however, I'd only review the shows that I wanted to talk about rather than every single show that comes out every season and make it my job to review them. I mention this because you seem irked by Thomism. In any case, with my belief in the Church's teachings, I fully embrace the belief that everything can be objectively evaluated and that there is an objectively correct way to live one's life (depending on your calling of course).
Do you perhaps have some sort of attachment to Jung?

Thanks for posting the Bible quote. My issue though is that Christians of all denominations have a desire to, say, see the Third World uplifted for instance. I was really hoping for something specific about other Christians that was spoken by a high-ranking member of a particular denomination of Christianity. Or perhaps even, a collection of various accounts by various high-ranking members of various denominations, all saying more or less the same thing about positivity towards Christians of the other denominations.
>> No. 770 [Edit]
>>767
>I've never heard anyone say that Christians are obligated to love other Christians.

>1 John 4:20

>If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

And then there is the love thy neighbour as they love thyself one but I can't be bothered finding it. But then Christians have a history of not following their own teachings anyway(although to be fair often it can be interpreted in many ways, but not so much in this case).

>>769
It's funding evil. But anyway, Horrible Subs just rips directly from Crunchy Role and Funimation so it's the same but free, it also has anime not from Crunchy role or Funimation, (although they are lazy so often they don't, Fate Being a good example of that Even though it's literally the example they use in their search engine). Another issue with Crunchy role is licensing, you can't even use Crunchy Role to watch some anime in certain countries.

Post edited on 27th Feb 2020, 4:24am
>> No. 771 [Edit]
>>769
How did you find tohno-chan?
>What does it even mean to be "free"?
To not have any restrictions on what you can think and consume and not obsessively search for answers that don't really exist. All of that mysticism crap is poisonous. Reality, as described by math, is what's real, and it doesn't expect you to do anything.
>when what you want is to raise a family
It's overrated and expensive. Great for control freaks though.
>I believe free will is a good thing since it's something God gave us
Yeah, how nice, expect it's the reason why everything bad ever happens. And God knew that's what the consequences would be, and he knew what the consequences would be for making Lucifer, but he still did it according to your religion. He could have done things in a way that what happened wouldn't, effortlessly. Nothing ever surprises God. In heaven, people will never want to do bad things, so will they have free will, or will it be taken away from them? If free will is necessary to love God, then in heaven people must have free will, then free will doesn't necessarily have to have the consequences it did. Plus there's no marriage in heaven, so any family you make will be pointless ultimately.

Post edited on 27th Feb 2020, 4:45am
>> No. 772 [Edit]
>>770
You haven't explained the evil of CrunchyRoll but yes, despite subscribing, I've been a victim of the licensing issue as well a few times. Truly, the sooner I can start understanding and importing raw anime, the better.

>>771
>How did you find tohno-chan?
I believe, around the time there was talk about 7chan over on 4chan, I got curious about the other chans so I googled something along the lines of "list of chans" or "list of imageboards" and then I found a list. I believe the website was called "overchan" (I don't know if it's still up). Tohno-chan was listed as well as britfa.gs, lainchan, uboachan and I believe wizardchan (now wizchan) was added to the list eventually. I've known about tohno-chan for years, forgetting it and remembering it.
>Reality, as described by math, is what's real, and it doesn't expect you to do anything
But doesn't Godel's Incompleteness Theorem prove that Math can't be perfect? If you rely solely on Math then you can't have any kind of Metaphysics, surely?
Also, I remember reading a complaint somewhere that most Mathematicians don't consider themselves Logicians or Philosophers but the fact is, they are taking a particular Logical and Philosophical stance, it's just that they pick the one they see as "neutral" culturally.
>Yeah, how nice, expect it's the reason why everything bad ever happens
There's an Ascension Presents video I watched on YouTube that's titled "The Lesser-Known Last Judgement" that I thought was very interesting. Supposedly, at the end of time, when Christ finally returns and the story of Creation is truly concluded, God will reveal, to the fullest extent, to every human being that ever existed, the consequences of every good deed they did and didn't do. I've seen your complaint before. "If God is so merciful and he foresaw the consequences of Adam's sin, he predicted all the death and carnage and suffering that would ensue, why didn't God scrap Adam and Eve and start afresh?" Only at the end of time will we finally find out what the purpose of creation was.
>In heaven, people will never want to do bad things, so will they have free will, or will it be taken away from them?
I'm quite certain that if you're in heaven, it's because you're perfect. You're still free-willed however your will is in perfect subjection to God. You will nothing but to serve him totally.
>then free will doesn't necessarily have to have the consequences it did
Right. We Catholics uphold a Marian Dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived i.e. from the moment of conception, she was preserved from original sin and throughout her life, she was preserved from ever experiencing temptation. God could've done this with the rest of us but he made Mary an exception. Just as I've stated, I believe we'll only know the truth behind this decision in the end.
>Plus there's no marriage in heaven, so any family you make will be pointless ultimately
You and your spouse not being together eternally doesn't negate marriage's purpose because its purpose is that it creates a good environment for God's future worshippers and Earthly servants to grow up in. Marriage may fulfill your desire to be with someone but that is not its purpose.
What do you think should be the point of a family?
>> No. 773 [Edit]
File 158293327997.jpg - (275.75KB , 850x1554 , __original_drawn_by_ohoo_7am__sample-9fb53195c9ea8.jpg )
773
>>772
>you can't have any kind of Metaphysics
Yep you can't. I believe whatever can't be expained by physical phenomena now, will eventually be.
>God will reveal, to the fullest extent, to every human being that ever existed, the consequences of every good deed they did and didn't do.
That's nice, is it anywhere in scripture?
>You're still free-willed however your will is in perfect subjection to God
Unlike on earth? What changes? Or do only perfect people get into heaven?
>What do you think should be the point of a family?
I don't believe in having children. I hope there's no such thing as families in the future. In my ideal world there isn't. Relationships would just be two minds, co-dependent, loving each other and synchronizing their thoughts and actions to each other and having sex just for enjoyment.
>> No. 774 [Edit]
 
>>773
>I believe whatever can't be expained by physical phenomena now, will eventually be.
Well I'm afraid that seems to be your own unfounded belief. I believe presently, as things stand, the attempt of Physics to have a Metaphysics can be summarised as "things just happen". E. Michael Jones talks about this in his talk with another fellow. Do you have faith then that in time, the Metaphysics will be developed beyond this? I remember watching a talk by Bob Lazar on the Joe Rogan show where he talks about how the US Military is in possession of alien spacecraft.
>That's nice, is it anywhere in scripture?
I'm pretty sure this is something strictly found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'm very young in my faith so I don't know how this conclusion was reached.
>Unlike on earth? What changes? Or do only perfect people get into heaven?
Matthew 5:25-26
If you're a normal person then no, your will is not in perfect subjection to God. You may be willing to follow him but the defects we carry due to original sin are deep. Fr. Chad Ripperger explains in a series of videos in the "Spiritual Life" playlist on the Sensus Fidelium YouTube Channel that even if you reach a point where you have stopped even venially sinning, you still need to go through the passive purgation - a process where God will reach down into the depths of your soul and uproot the imperfections. The only way to endure it is if your love for God exceeds the pain. If your love for God does exceed the pain then yes, after a "Dark Night of the Senses" and some other "Dark Night" (I don't recall), you'll become a living saint - someone who, upon death, will go straight to heaven (i.e. not need to spend time in purgatory). According to Fr. Ripperger, you can indeed become perfect. It is a known process.
If you fail to attain perfection but died in a state of grace (i.e. your soul was not stained with a single mortal sin), you'll have to spend some time in purgatory. I believe, according to one saint, one venial sin requires seven years in purgatory. God is merciful but he is also just. The imperfect will not be in his presence.
>I don't believe in having children. I hope there's no such thing as families in the future. In my ideal world there isn't. Relationships would just be two minds, co-dependent, loving each other and synchronizing their thoughts and actions to each other and having sex just for enjoyment.
You seem to desire the destruction of the nuclear family and have a focus on individuals. I feel like you're bitter due to a bad family but rather than desire good ones and hate the factors that led to your family's poor state, you desire to be rid of the family altogether but I suppose that's just armchair psychology.
In any case, in your ideal world, I suppose you would have the government demand regular egg donations and sperm donations from its citizens and then, with IVF, the eggs could be fertilised and with artificial womb technology, the children could be gestated and birthed, then raised by the government. After all, even as you desire nomore families, I'm sure you acknowledge the need for new people in order for a society to perpetuate itself. Even if you maintained a low population and used advanced robot technologies to automate all the jobs real people were originally needed for, somebody has to have children and so government-mandated egg and sperm donations along with IVF and artificial womb technologies as well as government-hired child carers seems to be the only way for such a family-less society to work.
Although there is that communist idea of how it takes a village to raise a child. Perhaps you would rather community-raised children? And what are the values of this community?
>> No. 775 [Edit]
File 158310240792.jpg - (197.56KB , 850x1214 , __original_drawn_by_tokiti__sample-b2e22d33879e0fb.jpg )
775
>>774
>Do you have faith then that in time, the Metaphysics will be developed beyond this?
I don't see how considering how contrary it is the scientific method. Math which hasn't been connected to any physical phenomena is the closest thing to metaphysics which I think can be "developed". Math is "meta"physics without the philosophy.
>something strictly found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
This aspect of Catholicism is bothersome to me. If the scripture is true, you can't add to it. You also can't elect a "venerated" man to listen to as if his word carries more weight than any other mortal man. The spirit of it is disagreeable to me.
>passive purgation
Another Catholic-add-on. Why is it more compelling to you than Protestantism? I understand if it's a familial thing, but you're a convert.
>I feel like you're bitter due to a bad family but rather than desire good ones and hate the factors that led to your family's poor state, you desire to be rid of the family altogether
No, my family was okay. There's probably better out there, and there's much worse too. It was okay. What I dislike is the role families play in society. Having kids changes people. It messes with their priorities. They become protective of their own families and others. This gets in the way of the individual's freedom. Among adults, individuals are in the minority.
>Perhaps you would rather community-raised children? And what are the values of this community?
Machines would do it, not anybody hired. It wouldn't be in a communal way either. There would be separate homes. Adult people wouldn't be concerned in the least about them.
>> No. 776 [Edit]
>Iran is kind of like modern Nazi Germany.
Phahahhaa oh wait you're serious
>> No. 777 [Edit]
>>776
Militaristic, obsessively ideological, similar groups to the gestapo, nationalistic and prioritizing race, hatred of Jewish/western influence, led by former revolutionaries, has a supreme leader that picks everybody else in charge, has socialistic, state controlled enterpise. So yes, they are kind of similar.
>> No. 778 [Edit]
>>775
edgelord
>> No. 779 [Edit]
>>778
normalfag
>> No. 780 [Edit]
>>779
Only normalfags call people normalfags.

>>778
Same with this.
>> No. 781 [Edit]
>>780
>Only normalfags call people normalfags.
So you're a normalfag? If you weren't, maybe you'd both have more to say than buzzwords and how much you agree with each other.
>> No. 782 [Edit]
>>781
>If you weren't, maybe you'd both have more to say than buzzwords

That was the implication of my post...
>> No. 783 [Edit]
>>782
Make a shitpost, get a shitpost response.

Tell me how i'm an "edgelord". Explain it to me on the same board people say they want niggers and chinks to die. On the same site people constantly talk about hating people and hating going outside.

Post edited on 8th Mar 2020, 7:51pm
>> No. 784 [Edit]
>>783
No, I was implying that by saying he was an 'edgelord' you were a 'normalfag' as well but I can see how it could be read the other way.
>> No. 1268 [Edit]
File 161971370735.png - (379.58KB , 640x460 , 6bcb6307c9ad927f63eb654a0f029ed1.png )
1268
I just came across nude cartoons in a BF 109 manual and I rememberer that there are nude cartoon of girls in the Tigerfibel and Pantherfibel as well. This is from the Tigerfibel.
>> No. 1269 [Edit]
File 16197138323.jpg - (76.01KB , 740x523 , 07_tiger_77832.jpg )
1269
>> No. 1270 [Edit]
File 161971386339.jpg - (114.43KB , 988x707 , tiger-pic.jpg )
1270
>> No. 1271 [Edit]
File 16197139284.jpg - (64.76KB , 512x367 , unnamed.jpg )
1271
>> No. 1272 [Edit]
File 161972538056.jpg - (147.24KB , 961x1323 , musik.jpg )
1272
>>1268
Wow, how tantalizing. Nazi Germany really was a paradise of free expression. Just ignore everything to the contrary.
>> No. 1274 [Edit]
>>1272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC
>> No. 1275 [Edit]
But anyway, this was more in response to something someone had said before(I don't even think it was in this thread) where somebody said lewd cartoon images would never be allowed in Nazi Germany. I kept thinking of that when I come across these and thought I should post them.
>> No. 1276 [Edit]
>>1274
One broadcast station isn't the same as a nation-wide ban.
>>1275
nudity =/= lewd, let alone pornography. Nudity being conflated with sexual content is a puritan thing.
>> No. 1277 [Edit]
>>1276
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_BBFC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene_Publications_Acts
>> No. 1278 [Edit]
I can't even find the post I was thinking off...
>> No. 1279 [Edit]
Maybe this one.


>>752
'another commonality between these ideologies is a strong preference for "realism". Communist realism for example. Art has no value to them unless it propagates their ideology, their perfect reality. Mao states that clearly in his little red book. He didn't believe non-political art existed.'
>> No. 1280 [Edit]
>>1277
The UK is also a free expression shit hole legally. What's your point? At least they're not fascistic enough to strongly enforce obscenity laws, unlike Nazi Germany, Iran and China.

Did I ever say no other place has censorship? No. Do you just revel in having a thick skull and idealizing a society which had a state-enforced ideology? Do you like larping as a Nazi? Don't infect this site with poltard bullshit.
>> No. 1281 [Edit]
>>1280
All you are doing is shifting hurdles. Anyway, that was not the point >>1279 was. So I won't argue on it further.
>> No. 1282 [Edit]
>>1281
It's called abstract reasoning. Too bad it's not something everyone can learn. Your Wikipedia articles didn't disprove anything I wrote.
>> No. 1283 [Edit]
>>1282
Your reasoning is certainly abstract and this does explain a lot.
>> No. 1284 [Edit]
>>1283
You used the word lewd without even understanding what it means. Throw in the towel and stop making yourself look even more dense. What was your goal exactly? A misfired attempt at pedantically correcting someone? Go back to looking at tanks and stop pretending you're capable of understanding people, society or culture.
>> No. 1285 [Edit]
>>1284
I was using lewd in the way that it most often used online(which is not the definition) but I guess that would have required abstract reasoning to understand. Too bad it's not something everybody can understand.
>> No. 1286 [Edit]
As for my goal, >>1275

Maybe your abstract reasoning can deduce something out of that?
>> No. 1287 [Edit]
>>1285
>I was using lewd in the way that it most often used online
>nudity =/= lewd, let alone pornography.
You completely ignored that. Very simplistic, cartoonish outlines of a nude women aren't lewd. Neither is the birth of Venus. Nobody would refer to it as that but you.

Aren't you an autist? Maybe asexual too? Now that would explain things.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 1:58am
>> No. 1288 [Edit]
>>1287
...Maybe your abstract reasoning will help you understand why exactly I would have posted >>1279 . I was not talking about Pornography at all. I was referring to this idea that all Nazi media has to be political or realistic depictions of men in factories or men fighting wars.

I think http://tohno-chan.com/ot/res/33905.html#i34105 was the post I was thinking off.

>Nazist outlook on media is similar to bible-belt conservatives. They're obsessive about the family unit, being "family friendly", protecting the precious childrens as much as possible, and reinforcing "healthy thinking". It's based on protestant "stoic" culture. Anything they deem "degenerate" gets purged. They were book burners. They only see media as tolerable fluff, ideological, or subversive. It must be "realist". 99% of otaku media would either be entirely unacceptable or need extreme changes to fit their standards. If you don't love and embrace "degeneracy", you're not an otaku.

>Mecha? Must only have burly men fighting for the good of the state. Loli??? At best chemical castration, at worst execution.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 2:02am
>> No. 1289 [Edit]
>>1288
>I was not talking about Pornography at all.
>somebody said lewd cartoon images would never be allowed in Nazi Germany
Huh. But did you never talk about "lewd cartoon images"?
>I was referring to this idea that all Nazi media has to be political or realistic depictions of men in factories or men fighting wars
>They only see media as tolerable fluff, ideological, or subversive
Tolerable fluff includes non-lascivious nudity in art. Maybe that even served ideological purposes in some cases.

Go back to your tanks instead of dredging up something from months ago.
>> No. 1290 [Edit]
File 161977468720.png - (852.89KB , 914x458 , Screenshot 2021-04-30 at 18-52-01 Pantherfibel.png )
1290
>>1289
You abstract reasoning really is quite defective isn't it? But then it's not something anybody can learn.

>Tolerable fluff includes non-lascivious nudity in art.

Moving the hurdles again now?

>>Mecha? Must only have burly men fighting for the good of the state.

I would not call these the most burly of men(or realistic).
>> No. 1291 [Edit]
File 161979787224.jpg - (100.59KB , 625x850 , 4d754965f2088b20bbb4278680df2d43.jpg )
1291
>>1290
I'm not going to have to same argument with you twice where your try pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha" while outright ignoring everything you have no response to and the general message, because you're incapable of perceiving it.
>> No. 1292 [Edit]
>>1291
Well it's not the same argument, I already gave up on that >>758

Your abstract reasoning is failing you again I see, I am not looking for a 'gotcha' and as for outright ignoring everything you have no response to and the general message, because you're incapable of perceiving it.' Well I mean, I outright told you here >>1285 what I had meant by lewd, you then followed up with this >>1287 completely ignoring that and I responded(again) that I was not talking about pornography and you ignored it(again) with 'Huh. But did you never talk about "lewd cartoon images"?' I had told you what I meant by that already.

If somebody is incapable of perceiving things here it is you.
>> No. 1294 [Edit]
>>1292
>I had told you what I meant by that already.
And I told you you were wrong, because you were. You can't even pick up on that apparently
>>1291 the image here is lewd. The image here is not >>1268
Somebody who's not an asexual autist would understand that.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 10:00am
>> No. 1295 [Edit]
>>1294
...

>pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha" while

Who is the one doing that I wonder? I already told you, multiple times what I meant by it, I told you multiple times I was not referring to the literal definition, that I was not referring to anything pornographic but to the internet usage of the word lewd(which is basically anything that is revealing in anyway even if it is not lascivious, in fact most the time somebody says lewd it is not lewd, even the image you say is lewd by the literal definition is barely lewd if at all). Even making fun of your abysmal abstract reasoning is getting tiresome now.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 10:11am
>> No. 1296 [Edit]
>>1295
>but to the internet usage of the word lewd (which is basically anything that is revealing in anyway
Where on the internet? I don't know what you're talking about, so it can't be as wide-spread as you think it is. If you mean people who are clearly joking, why would you ever use "that definition" when even the people who use it that way aren't being serious?
>> No. 1298 [Edit]
File 16198034477.png - (100.51KB , 210x256 , Screenshot 2021-05-01 at 02-51-16 Tigerfibel esn 0.png )
1298
>>1296
Everywhere, all the time, you just did it yourself.

>Definition of lewd

>1a : obscene, vulgar lewd remarks
>b : sexually unchaste or licentious (see licentious sense 1) lewd behavior
>2 obsolete : evil, wicked


That slime is doing no such thing. She is just sliming around being a slime, just like this image is just a girl in a bath. When people say lewd they usually just mean a naked girl or even a girl that has her underwear visible.
>> No. 1299 [Edit]
>>1298
>That slime is doing no such thing. She is just sliming around being a slime
This proves my earlier point about you not being able to understand what makes something actually lewd/lascivious. That can't be taught. At least you've admitted it now. Last reply.
>> No. 1303 [Edit]
>>1299
The definition for lewd is right above your post if you would have cared to read it.

This is all is ridiculous and 'pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha"' anyway. I had told you numerous times and I am telling you again, whether the image is lewd or not by the literal definition doesn't matter as I had never meant it by that. Your abstract reasoning keeps fixating you on this pointless thing while ignoring the elephant in the room, is this because your abstract reasoning cannot even see the elephant to begin with?
>> No. 1307 [Edit]
You realize that dumb cartoon tank manual was never issued, right.
>> No. 1308 [Edit]
>>1307
Source? I am fairly sure it was and I also know they were both approved.
>> No. 1309 [Edit]
>>1308
>It's not a myth. As I said however, It's a waste of effort searching for when you have no ability to even address the basis of this.
You have no ability to to understand what makes something obscene/vulgar/lewd because you're autistic and probably asexual, so you think it's just about nudity. Pose, style, detail, subject-matter and context don't register in your disabled mind. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted those manual images as if they prove something. Apparently you're a blatant hypocrite too.
>> No. 1310 [Edit]
>>1309
I have told you so many times now, I never said it was just about nudity and in fact have said the opposite quite a few times, I even posted the definition that you constantly ignore. And AGAIN!!!!!! This is not even relevant it's arguing semantics and ignoring the actual point. I had said, right from the beginning that I was not using lewd in the literal definition yet you keep going on as if I was regardless of how many times I try to get through your thick head that I wasn't.

And again, it's just a slime sliming.

And also where is the source?

Post edited on 1st May 2021, 6:53pm
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]