Game Whores Lolicon 3d
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Game Whores Lolicon 3d
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 001.jpg
Look up lolicon in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Are there no lolicon covers that don't have a half-naked girl holding a dildo bear on the cover? Another cover is also a reasonable solution to the argument.-- Prosfilaes 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Since there's a good number of people on either side of the straw poll, I believe this is the only solution. Whoever wants to try this should find a picture that meets the following standards:
If you would like to attempt this Herculean feat, you can try http://danbooru.donmai.us/ where I found the image that I tried to propose. I wouldn't be arsed uploading it until after it's been vetted. Ashibaka tock 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Some of the archived comments on this discussion make the claim that viewing the article, with the image, is illegal in Canada. I'd like to point out that the Canadian government is itself linking to the article, and presenting it as information on the definition of "lolicon", not as an example of an illegal Web site: http://ncecc.ca/fact_sheets/anime_e.htm 69.63.62.226 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
KEEP IT and add more child pornography as long as Mohammed cartoons are visible here at Wikipedia. Because it's a right to love child porn. A kind of freedom of expression.
Okay, so the result of the straw poll seems to be something of a draw (tho we should prob give it some more time)... in the mean time & for future reference, what significance does the draw have for keeping it inline or linkimaging it? Where is the onus? That is, should the image be kept inline only if there is community support for keeping it, or should the image be kept inline until there is community support for linking it? I'd suggest it's the former, not the latter. Quoteth Jimbo Wales (citation: Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions#Thus_spoke_Jimbo ):
I didn't delete the image, and I didn't decide the case. What I did was make a change to the article which is consistent with the ongoing vote. There is no reason (at all!) to have a disgusting and idiotic picture on the article until there is community support for keeping it. And that wasn't about to happen. And yes, SPUI, my edicts are still case law, at least, if they ever were then they still are. But in this case, the edict is just this: follow the will of the community, and out of respect for different opinions, follow the benevolent and inoffensive route while seriously discussing the merits of the image. If that's tyranny, well... --Jimbo Wales 08:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) {emphasis added}
I think this makes a clear case for linkimaging it... I therefore ask one of the users on the OTHER side of the argument (i.e. those wanting to keep it inline) to make the necessary changes... (I won't, learnt my lesson about edit warring on this page already... :) Mikkerpikker ... 20:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
In any case, Will Beback seems to have found a good replacement. Ashibaka tock 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
User:JabberMonkey 's image, on the other hand, portrays penetration and is therefore illegal in Florida. He needs to stop adding it. Ashibaka tock 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I just realized that google is censoring this article.
You are trying to censor images. JabberMonkey 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
" Will Beback (Talk) (rv please goive a reason on the talk page for changing to an image that does not have consensus)"
A) Reasons were ALREADY given, claiming they weren't is a lie... you shouldn't lie in edit comments.
B) It does have consensus, despite a group of petty censors showing up out of nowhere to try to overturn it.
C) If it DID lack consensus, then ew default to what was here previously, which means keeping it.
D) replacing the image does not have consensus either, so how can you justify doing something new without consensus because you claim the existing thing didn't have consensus.
E) It is against Wikipedia's policy's to censor images that you personally find objecionable that otherwise have encyclopedic purpose, see WP:NOT .
The bottom line here is that unless you have consensus to MAKE changes, you cannot make them. For you to claim we need consensis to KEEP what's ALREADY here is completely against how this site works. DreamGuy 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
They are both an erotic depiction of a little girl. They both illustrate the topic, one as good as the other; a dildo doesn't really inform. There is no particular political reason to choose this over that , other than "I think this one's prettier" or whatnot, which we can't determine using any policy or guideline. It would probably be best to just include the more legal one, then, in the aim of furthering Wikipedia's aspirations to best serve worldwide interests. // paroxysm (n) 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Can we stop it already and decide on an image on the talk page? I'm sure we ALL have better things to do than rv-ing... Mikkerpikker ... 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Alright, DreamGuy is claiming that the former state of this article can be called a "consensus", although there was very little debate about it until recently. I don't want to hold another straw poll about this, but is it obvious to everyone else that the current debate overrules whatever there was before?
We can assume everyone in favor of linking the old one prefers the new one, and Paroxysm has asked everyone to keep the new one so to end the revert warring, so that puts us 9 to 5 (64%, or a two-thirds majority) in favor of the new one. Ashibaka tock 16:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Let me count this out, with some assumptions based on the previous poll:
9/13 = 70%. Ashibaka tock 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is there a non- WP:NOT violating argument for removing this? Hipocrite - « Talk » 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is there a reputable source that says that the US legal issues discussed (specifically, the PROTECT act) apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults? Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 71, Sec. 1466A, Para C.
"c) Nonrequired Element of Offense. - It is not a required
element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted
actually exist." -- Jack Schitt 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I read through the PROTECT act and it states "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." That would seem to rule out Lolicon as illegal, at least as it is traditionally defined in America. - Kuzain 10:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
What about this : we keep 2 images but have the contentious one linkimaged? This addresses concerns about "censorship" but does not force ppl to commit crime & is not gratuitously offensive... (can we please keep it like this for a while and see what ppl think?) Mikkerpikker ... 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Responses can be found at:
Talk:Lolicon/NewComp
...work it out here please. · Katefan0 (scribble) / poll 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I was going to add the old image to the bad image list per Hipocrite's suggestion but this would be an obvious misuse of admin powers. Instead, I requested protection for this page so that the edit war would stop. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Please don't put any positioning here. Put your real arguments and what you really believe. Please sign anything acceptable to you.
(Per Hipocrite, please debate this under a separate heading, below.)
Would signatories of "Single new image" accept linkingthe butt image? I would be strongly opposed to removing the butt image entirely, but the linking is something I'd be willing to discuss (though I do not support it). Hipocrite - « Talk » 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
For what it is worth, the current version is lacking in only one respect... the Hiyashibara needs to be left side because the section dividers are screwed up when it's on the right. Sweetfreek 23:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Getting back to the compromise that Hipocrite suggested, is it agreeable to all? I don't objection. - Will Beback 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
So if I said I'm upset we can remove the image? - Will Beback 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The image in debate it NOT lolicon, it's toddlerkon. Those (most) in debate over this are not fans of the genre, those who are would agree that that picture does not belong in this article. And that toddlerkon is NOT a subgenre of loli, but a genre on it's own. Saying toddlerkon it a subgenre of loli is like saying loli is a subgenre of the "18 and legal" genre. Request to create seperate page for Toddlekon and remove the section and image from this page.
I propose changing this:
Under the 'Controversy' heading, change the phrase 'crime against children in Japan' to 'reported crime against children' in Japan.
I suggest this in the spirit of accuracy. No crime is reported 100% and some are reported at low rates, such as rape in the US: 39% according to Wikipedia.
All these arguments are only in favor of adding the word "reported" to the article, once. Thank you for your consideration. Please offer reasoned comments/critcism.
(Maybe I don't understand how to suggest changes to a locked article?)
-- Zaorish 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Some stuff for a "see also" (perhaps): Gothic Lolita and Lolita fashion . Didn't see either linked in the article, but didn't look hard for 'em either. Just FYI. -- DanielCD 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If indeed as the article states, the PROTECT act covers simulated child pornography and it is illegal to possess- we need to ask if we are putting out American readers at risk for prosecution ot at least liabilty for viewing the pictures posted, (as we all know we "download" every picture we view on the net in order to view it). Beyond the question of decency is that of *responsibility*. No one here wants to break the law and so I advocate removing the pictures completely. I would have advocated it completely before but now there is a more practical reason. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angrynight ( talk • contribs ) .
Just FYI: It's not illegal to depict womens faces in the Islamic world. A least not after the fall of the Taliban, they were the last. In spite of media depictions, such depictions have been present from a long time ago (centuries). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angrynight ( talk • contribs ) .
This is not the place to discuss this, I'm sure you'll agree. Though as to legal codes- I disagree once again. Angrynight 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Is this ready to be unprotected? It's been locked for a good bit now. · Katefan0 (scribble) / poll 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I don't see any disagreement either. It's been protected long enough. Let it be free. -- Cyde Weys 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
So, is there anyone who disagrees with moving the images below the first screen? - Will Beback 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
This link was given to me from the 3rd opinion wikipedia page. WP:3O
My opinion is that there should be no image censorship on wikipedia, whatever the case, so long as it violates no laws in the land of the server's location (in this case, I believe, Hillsborough county, FL, USA . Or pinellas county, I'm not sure, but it was Tampa/st. pete area I think). Should you want any further clarification on my statement, please ask me on my talk page. Now removing 3d opinion entry as per rules. Thanks for flying delta. ⇒ SWAT Jester Ready Aim Fire! 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
For those of you not aware of this, Wikipedia is running the images of Muhammad at Muhammad cartoons , although these pictures are controversial and illegal and apparently also violence-inspiring in much of the world. But they're not illegal under Florida law, and they're notable and informative, so we run them. QED. Babajobu 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm thinking that since the image in question is a magazine cover, and it's being used in an article which isn't about that magazine, it's not fair use? Alph a x τ ε χ 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Ignis, a contributor to Wikimedia Commons, has recently taken photographs which are both illustrative for this article, and might not carry the potential problems regarding law and susceptibilities that the present images do.
The second one, in particular, might be a good candidate. Any thoughts ? Rama 10:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
That's not lolicon by any stretch of the imagination. :/ // paroxysm (n) 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
No need to show actual lolicon pictures at all. If you must have pictures, there are many alternatives, for example: pictures of prominent lolicon authors, people perusing the lolicon aisle at a manga shop obscuring the front covers, an array of lolicon titles with them stacked in such a way that the pictures are obscured etc etc etc. It is gratuitous and unnecessary to show the current picture, or any picture that depicts children in a sexual manner. The definition and discussion alone are enough to alert us to what lolicon is. AlwaysNever 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
If the books in the current images are more "lolicon" than the books in the proposed images, I am in favor of keeping the current images, as seemed to have been decided further up the page.
I do think pictures of artwork illustrate the subject better than pictures of book spines, manga artists, manga stores, etc., although there is no reason we can't use pictures of those, too. Joey Q. McCartney 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
OK moral arguments aside, (though I think moral concerns are VERY relevant here) BTW the argument that it should be included for the sake of freedom of speech is a moral argument itself ;)
Rama, I am glad you raised the question of whether the picture is 1)harmful to Wiki and 2)legal.
It is harmful to Wiki-it undermines the ability of Wiki to be an encyclopaedic source. Remember, this article is not for the editors. It is in an encyclopedia thus, it is for a [I]general[/I] audience. Keep that in mind. The veteran editors have lost sight of the fact that a general audience may not have [I]any[/I] knowledge of lolicon. They , like I did when I first wiki'd this article, may have no knowledge at all. You can't reasonably suggest that people wiki'ing this page should already know that it may be illegal to view this page, and that it could be offensive!
And there is a very high likelihood this is illegal. We can never know all the places that it may be illegal, but you can be sure that it is illegal somewhere, or will be soon. It is the very stuff of case law. I know that in itself is not an argument not to include it (yes, I know the vagina argument *rolls eyes*). However, since Wiki is an encyclopedia, the onus is on US. Remove the picture, and replace it with something that doesn't feature a sexually suggestive picture of a child.
If you want so badly to have images, do it in your own websites, not a public encyclopedia. People cannot take responsibility for things they don't know about! AlwaysNever 03:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Back to the main topic :P Unfortunately, we are already in the thick of ethical judgments, whether we like it or not.. Ok, take the objectivity requirement. Why do we have to be objective? Cause Wiki says so, cause Jimbo told us to, cause everyone else told us to….well, maybe. But why does Wiki want us to? It comes from a moral theory-that it is right to let all sorts of views and ideas get a hearing, whether we like it or not. Whether we acknowledge or not, ethical judgments are being made. Cest La Vie. :D When we are aware of them, then we can make sense of them…
Kotra, I like what you are saying about the needing to be a line between offense and information! Hmmm, so you say the first picture is somewheres around the border. I don’t, I think its way past the border. Where do we draw the line? I would wager that a large proportion of the population would agree with me that any picture depicting a child for the purpose of sexual fulfillment is repulsive. But who is qualified to judge? Me? You? A roving vigilante group? An Unrepentant paedophile? An ethics professor? The editors of this article?...*rolls eyes dramatically* Jimbo?
I propose that all of the above are equally unqualified. No-one should be able to decide for someone else. But, it seems those that voted in favour of the picture felt they were the ones qualified. That is POV-they decided that they were the ones that knew what was offensive and what wasn’t. And they also seem to think they can choose for others. They give people no chance to disagree with their moral decision. As soon as they click, they have no choice but to see it. And it is already in their cache.
Like you say give people a chance to decide for themselves. Give a definition and a discussion of lolicon. Give pictures related to lolicon, but not lolicon itself. Give links to pictures, with a description of the content, and risks involved eg. legality issues. It is common practice for encyclopedias to omit some details, and give bibliographies for people to follow up.
And yup I know, Wiki has a no censor for minors policy. But, firstly, it is a community standard-these are the more agreed upon standards, but they are still open to further refinement. I would argue at the moment the community standards are ill-defined, and in conflict with each other. The minor guideline simply says that the organization Wiki can’t guarantee it will be safe for minors. But it goes on to say obviously inappropriate material will be deleted, but does not define what inappropriate is. It is simply describing the typical Wiki process. It isn’t prescriptive. As far as I am aware there are no agreed on censorship policies. Of course, it is a difficult subject!
Thoughts on link proposal?
AlwaysNever 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I am strongly for keeping the pictures of lolicon in the article. That's what the article is about after all, if pictures are available let's use them. I agree that drawings of children havig sex is more then a little... offputting to say the least but an encyclopedas job is to give the facts of what happends in the world, and to use other media (video, pictures, sound) to help where available. Gerard Foley 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I just had a thought. What about having a panel that hides the pictures with a warning about the content. People that want to read the Wiki without seeing the picture can, and those that want to see the pictures can click on them to unhide them. That way they can stay on the site, and gets around issues of consent AlwaysNever 02:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Can someone please add {{wiktionary|lolicon}} to this page. Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It wouldn't have been my choice to unprotect the ar
Porno Foto Little Junior
Nylon Hand
Big Tits Teen Handjob