The Internet

[Archangel]

[Uchiha Barles]

Not that U2 is the most difficult band in the world to cover, but that was quite solid. Respect.

[Buffalobiian]

Well here's a first. I can understand the words of a U2 song.

Haha, so true. "What? These are... lyrics!"

[Archangel]

[Xelbair]

that is pretty cool, even more so if it was hand drawn.

[Buffalobiian]

Pretty awesome. I suppose one thing that ticks me off (even with pro-works) is the constant change in camera angles and/or overuse of slow motion when someone lands a hit. It ruins flow, and should really be used to make up for a lack of stuntmen's martial arts skills and choreography.

That's harsh criticism, but overall good work.

[Assertn]

Pretty awesome. I suppose one thing that ticks me off (even with pro-works) is the constant change in camera angles and/or overuse of slow motion when someone lands a hit. It ruins flow, and should really be used to make up for a lack of stuntmen's martial arts skills and choreography.

That's harsh criticism, but overall good work.

Well, I imagine one 19 yr old kid would lack the martial arts skills and choreography of an animation department, though really I think the point here was for him to mimic a current popular style as a showcase of his capabilities.

[Buffalobiian]

That is true. I don't blame him for lacking it. Pros lack them too.

My intent was to point out something that could be improved upon, and also put into perspective that this is still a solo work by a young adult.

Martial arts in film in general isn't as good as it was two or three decades ago. I attribute this to a decline in action stars.

[Abdula]

Reminded me of Yu Yu Hakusho for some reason. The only thing I am curious about is how long it took him to make it.

[UChessmaster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...n_4286730.html

So china is saying kid blow up dolls, or whatever they call, people on my facebook are grossed out and stuff, I feel weird for not actually seeing the problem, can anyone enlighten me?

[Abdula]

Just wow. Well that is certainly the most disturbing thing I have seen so far this month. UC the problem would be that this caters to and encourages what most people would describe as unhealthy fantasies and I would think most would wonder how long it would take before someone gets tired of their doll and decides to get a flesh and blood substitute.

I wouldn't know but I don't think people who have sex with dolls are the most mentally stable people to begin with.

[shinta|hikari]

Yawn. 3dpd.

[Buffalobiian]

Unless there is data or proof that shows such tendencies to "tire of dolls and move onto the real thing", such good shouldn't be restricted since no harm is done in and of itself as far as I can see.

This reminds me of a few years ago where Australia (South Australia?) amended laws such that actor/actresses in pornographic films must not be below the age of consent, nor appear to be below the age of consent. If you look too young, or your flat boobs suggest you might not have finished puberty - you're a kid not a woman and can't be in porn.

I think it's very important in law to properly evaluate things based on what is true, not what we think is true or what we fear.

[UChessmaster]

Unless there is data or proof that shows such tendencies to "tire of dolls and move onto the real thing", such good shouldn't be restricted since no harm is done in and of itself as far as I can see.

THANK YOU! that`s exactly my point, you could argue that it will lead to the real thing, I could argue that it could be the best coping mechanism, EVER.

[Animeniax]

I put this right up there with casting Natalie Portman as the love interest for Thor.

So what some of you are saying is that child porn is ok, as long as actual children aren't used to make that porn. A child-like sex toy as a coping mechanism?? I think severe beatings and electro-shock therapy make more sense to control those feelings.

[Buffalobiian]

So what some of you are saying is that child porn is ok, as long as actual children aren't used to make that porn.

Yes, assuming that there is no true, proven risk to actual child harm.

Just because I don't like something isn't enough to make it a law and ban other people from doing what they like. To infringe on that you need to have a better reason like public safety. Not fear for public safety, but actual risk.

You guys live in America right? You'll have to start with banning guns before you move onto child sex dolls.

The evidence there is quite a bit stronger. Thing is, so are the lobbyists - which is what matters ultimately.

[Animeniax]

Yes, assuming that there is no true, proven risk to actual child harm.

Just because I don't like something isn't enough to make it a law and ban other people from doing what they like. To infringe on that you need to have a better reason like public safety. Not fear for public safety, but actual risk.

You guys live in America right? You'll have to start with banning guns before you move onto child sex dolls.

The evidence there is quite a bit stronger. Thing is, so are the lobbyists - which is what matters ultimately.

Guns have an actual legitimate purpose, they are just unfortunately used for criminal activities, but that could be said of anything that is misused like knives or medicine. Child-like sex dolls have only one purpose, and that isn't to give pedophiles an outlet so they won't act out their urges on real children.

[Kraco]

A person who would buy and own such a doll must be a real no life king who never gets visitors. It would be an instant end to all social life if somebody sees such a thing lying on the bed. I also wouldn't want to go to the customs and open the box in front of the official, regardless of whether it's illegal or not. But I guess there are people who wouldn't care.

[Buffalobiian]

Child-like sex dolls have only one purpose, and that isn't to give pedophiles an outlet so they won't act out their urges on real children.

Let's not talk about purpose. That idealises things, because anyone can make up a "purpose" or talk about how much potential something has to be good/bad. What you want to talk about is solid statistics. For every 10'000 guns you have in circulation, how many lives are saved because they "shot" the perpetrator? And for that 10'000 guns in circulation, how many people are killed when they should not have been? In clinical papers, these are called Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

You mentioned medicines. If a medication causes more harm than good, it's not used.

I must iterate as I've said before that data behind sex dolls is lacking. I'm not going to argue that they decrease child abuse because they're an alternative outlet. That data is lacking too. What I will argue, is that given we know pretty much nothing about any of this, on what basis do we have to outlaw this? Should society start passing bills based on fear and speculation?

I think not.


--------------------


The word paedophile has become a taboo word, and I think some people think the word implies more than it means. Paedophiles are not criminals. Sex offenders are criminals. F1 drivers are not by default traffic offenders.

[Animeniax]

Let's not talk about purpose. That idealises things, because anyone can make up a "purpose" or talk about how much potential something has to be good/bad. What you want to talk about is solid statistics. For every 10'000 guns you have in circulation, how many lives are saved because they "shot" the perpetrator? And for that 10'000 guns in circulation, how many people are killed when they should not have been? In clinical papers, these are called Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

You mentioned medicines. If a medication causes more harm than good, it's not used.

I must iterate as I've said before that data behind sex dolls is lacking. I'm not going to argue that they decrease child abuse because they're an alternative outlet. That data is lacking too. What I will argue, is that given we know pretty much nothing about any of this, on what basis do we have to outlaw this? Should society start passing bills based on fear and speculation?

I think not.


--------------------


The word paedophile has become a taboo word, and I think some people think the word implies more than it means. Paedophiles are not criminals. Sex offenders are criminals. F1 drivers are not by default traffic offenders.

Yes but what is a crime? It is an act that is statutorily defined as being against the law because it violates our sense of morality and justice. That doesn't give enough weight to the moral and societal wrongness of an act, just in some cases it's clearly defined as wrong, either through obviousness (murder, rape, theft) or through historical evidence of its negative influence on society. I don't think we want to wait for historical evidence in this case, as that would mean a lot of innocent lives ruined. Pedophilia for all intents is criminal because sex with children is almost universally prohibited by law. In your example, if an F1 driver drove 180mph on city road ways outside the confines of a race venue, he would be charged with a crime.