@ZorokiHanuke said in The censorship on being short should be removed.:
@HarmlessSyan Yep. And this is the part where I feel the line was crossed multiple times. One thing is to say "nope, creeps could come it and ruin it". And I completely understand that. Which is different from saying "you are a creep for asking for what I'm against." Similar wording, different meanings.
Actually, if you read my very first post, it was much more friendly and i even stated that i did not think anyone in the thread was a creep or a pedo, which i truly believed, based on what had been stated so far, and stated why the censorship had to stay.
However, upon claiming that the "Lewd lolis of PSO2" were morally wrong, our friend @XenoBladeX37645 posed what is commonly known as "The Gamer´s Dilemma" to me.
The Gamer´s Dilemma basically states, that virtual crimes against children are not more morally reproachable than virtual crimes against adults, the most commonly used example, is that if virtual murder is okay (Grand Theft Auto) and we do not find it morally wrong, despite the fact that IRL we would find the act appalling and illegal, then by the same fashion, crimes against children should not be moralized.
This, to my point of view, was already weird and creepy, but it continued.
@XenoBladeX37645 Also claimed, that in PSO2JP, the lewd lolis never bothered him because to him, what is an actual child and what looks like a child are two different things, so as long as canonically ARKS are adults, those characters are okay.
After we went back and forth about the age of PSO2 characters, and i pointed out that canonically, most ARK characters are 16 or under, and that our character belongs canonically to their generation @XenoBladeX37645 claimed "It´s a Japanese game" and left it at that.
This, combined with the previous issue, made it quite suspicious.
Finally, when i asked people to just be clear and plain about their intentions, and simply state whether they agree with the sexualization of that specific age bracket, @XenoBladeX37645 refused to answer, and instead began claiming i accused him of being a pedo.
Yes, i did claim that people refusing to answer such a basic question were sketchy and that it was very telling, and i still think it is.
But the truth remains, that if he had simply clarified what he meant each time, as i asked him like 200 times and he refused to answer each time, this entire conversation and my suspicions about him would have never happened to begin with.
He proposed the gamer´s dilemma, which claims virtual underage fetish is not morally worse than virtual murder or crimes.
He stated that lewd lolis, no matter how chidified, did not bother him because one thing is an actual child and one thing is what looks like a child, and that it´s not the same to him
He answered "It´s a Japanese game" when i told him that Arks are 16 years or younger and that our character belongs to their generation, and pointed out how Western laws differ from Japanese´s 16 age of consent.
Refused to answer when asked if he thought the sexualization of said 16 yy old characters is okay.
I think there was a very good reason for me to feel suspicious about his intentions and character, and i maintain this now.