Inocencius: @sol_efn: Of course I have room to talk. Your judgment is incorrect, let me tell you where the false conflict resides.
It seems that he has obviated that I have indicated that the Rule is clear, Rule 34 is clear regarding the creation of pornographic content of anything as long as it does not violate the rights of another person who is used as a means to reproduce it. Therefore, it is incidental that I positive to certain images, because to do so I consider other things before. His statement is fallacious, it is like saying that we must imprison all communists preventively to prevent them from committing crimes because we already believe they are criminals.
Now, since I appreciate the character for its history and context, it is not my pleasure to see it that way. The unacceptable thing here is not the style of art, but the content. Note that despite my disgust, I have not reported the image for an invalid reason, nor have I voted negative. What is the point of making a scan for that? You have to get used to it.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
It seems that he has obviated that I have indicated that the Rule is clear, Rule 34 is clear regarding the creation of pornographic content of anything as long as it does not violate the rights of another person who is used as a means to reproduce it. Therefore, it is incidental that I positive to certain images, because to do so I consider other things before. His statement is fallacious, it is like saying that we must imprison all communists preventively to prevent them from committing crimes because we already believe they are criminals.
Now, since I appreciate the character for its history and context, it is not my pleasure to see it that way. The unacceptable thing here is not the style of art, but the content. Note that despite my disgust, I have not reported the image for an invalid reason, nor have I voted negative. What is the point of making a scan for that? You have to get used to it.
- Reply