I'm still on this because the original point wasn't thoroughly addressed, especially considering your rather lengthy and seemingly condescending response where, once again, you appear unable to make an argument without attacking my character or misconstruing my points. If you can't understand why someone would latch onto a conversation where they are falsely accused of being a child predator then I don't know what to tell you.
You openly articulated a desire to see sex between a child and adult. I didn't misread this, right?
I openly articulated a desire to see a fictionalized representation of a sexual relationship between two fictional characters, both within the boundaries of a fantastical world, created within the framework of a larger narrative designed specifically to explore themes and concepts not necessarily rooted in reality. The fact that you perceive that to be the same as actively "desiring sex between a child and an adult" illustrates your inability to understand, comprehend, or appreciate the very real distinction between reality and fiction.
For many morality is a social construct. They believe right or wrong is influenced by the rules, values, and ideas of the society they live in. Without them society collapses. This is true to a point. I somewhat disagree. I believe basic morals are a universal truth. Whether the majority agrees or not.
We aren't here to have a debate on whether real-world morality is objective or subjective, that was never a point of contention. Let's agree to disagree on the subject. If you want to posit moral absolutism, do it on a TED Talks stage.
And While actions speak louder than words. Its also true if someone tells on themselves, believe them.
My words merely indicate what I would want to see in this manga. I'm not telling on myself in any capacity. They say nothing of my personal beliefs, or any action I intend to pursue.
"I want Robert (Denzel Washington) and Teri (Chloë Grace Moretz) to have sex." (The Equalizer 2014)
and frown at the idea. Regardless if the character are "real" or not.
Your objectively personal judgments about society don't necessarily indicate the validity of your point. In this sweeping statement of an example, you're citing real actors and comparing them with drawn manga characters. An adult actor (Denzel was 59) playing a adult character having on-screen sex with an underaged actor (Chloe was 17) playing a minor can make society feel uncomfortable because the REAL age gap is intrinsic to the characters being portrayed which, in turn, can make them feel uncomfortable because of real-life implications. However, it's very clear in this discussion that we're talking about fictional manga characters whose actions are represented through ink lines on paper, not live-action enactments.
You put words in my mouth that you could build a rebuttal against, but your argument is still weak.
No, what I did is called turning the argument around on you, and using your same argument to illustrate its flaws and the lack of logic. That doesn't make my argument weaker. It makes it clear that if we were to accept your reasoning and use it for your argument itself, it would not stand. In other words, your logic is faulty and has been proven as such.
You talk of my "baseless claims" and higher than thou "moral high ground" but that simply isn't true.
Yes, you have repeatedly tried to insinuate an issue with morality and made baseless assumptions about me - someone who did nothing but express their opinion on fictional characters in an internet comment section - as indicative of my personality, actions, and moral stance in real life. You went out of your way to call me morally flawed when you've already made it clear that your view on morality is very opinionated and doesn't allow for any nuance. That seems awfully high and mighty of you.
You said something. And I believed you.
and someone called you out. (albeit rudely) than you said.
You seem to believe my original comment translates into reality. I said it doesn't. End of story. That's what's being discussed here. But you are choosing not to believe the rest. If me saying something is all it takes for you to believe me, then believe EVERYTHING I'm telling you.
I could have taken the first as nonsense sh*t posting. But in the second post I took issue.
What's the 'issue' in the statement? It wasn't a call to action. It wasn't a threat, a suggestion, or an admission of intent to commit real-life harm to any person, minors or otherwise. I was asked why I personally don't care about the baggage in this story being a minor, and I gave my reasoning. It was never a matter of me trying to assert my moral code on others, like you're so desperately doing. It's objectively not real, and as such, my enjoyment of fiction does not reflect any desire or intent to engage in said scenario in real life. If you can't accept that, that's on you. I'm not going to keep explaining why that is.
Pointing a finger back at me wont help your case.
I never pointed a finger at you. I satirically turned your accusations around to show you how arbitrary they are. If you want to attack someone's character based on their consumption of media, then you must also accept that others can do the same to you. It's an age-old tactic that you tried, but you just couldn't seem to hold your ground because your arguments aren't backed by anything valid.
But your reaction does say a lot.
My reaction says that I'm not going to sit idly by while you make groundless statements about my character and motives.
I got vices just like everybody else. But no, I can't say fantasizing about kids is one of them.
Good for you? Tell me that you eat, sleep, and poop while you're at it. I never truly believed that you're viceless nor that you fantasize about children. This clarification is moot. As I said above, I was merely turning your argument against you to show you why it's illogical.
I stand firm on all my previous claims but one. I called you a creep and name calling isn't civil.
This will be the last time I reply. Not even mad. I just got better things to do.
I appreciate your admission that name-calling isn't civil. However, it seems like you're trying to have the last word and disengage from the discussion without actually addressing the points I made without resorting to accusations. I could continue on, but I don't wish to take more of your precious time than you've already so graciously allotted.
