Perv on a Japanese Schoolgirl in Tekken Team's Project Morpheus Demo

[Deshin]

Child is a perfectly fine descriptor for someone under the age of eighteen. Both Oxford and Merriam give many definitions, including the following:

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

and

"A person not yet of age."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/child
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

The demo in question is titled "Summer Lesson" and features a young looking girl in a school uniform. What is your issue exactly?

Yes, I would and do refer to people under eighteen as children. The age of majority is a valid definition. If you dispute that, by all means. But your argument is with Webster and Oxford, not with me.

14-18 year olds are not childen. You hit puberty in your early teens and biologically you are an adult and able to reproduce. Age of majority is a variable defined by county, a variable which nature doesn't give two shits about because as far as nature and biology are concerned once your nuts/ovaries start working it's all good for a hormone cocktail to flood the body's systems like niagra falls.

 

[Deshin]

The age of majority here is 18-21. Both Oxford and Webster state that a child may be defined as someone younger than the age of majority. In fact, you quoted my sources.

And in some countries the age is 14, or 16, or 17. Any descriptor that can change based on an imaginary geographical line you can cross is a crappy descriptor. When someone says "child" most people think of ages 5-12.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Then how did I quote one of my earlier comments that addressed the age?

Even if you're referring to your explanation and use of the term "child"...you still didn't.

Stating that it's a "child" in no way addresses the fact that you don't know the actual age, and that is what I was asking of you. You did not address it until that last post.

You're going to have to offer a quote of me shaming someone if you are going to make that claim.

I already did, but here it is a second time.

Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

Again, if you're just not aware of the implication then fine. Honest mistakes do happen, after all.

Without the context of "schoolgirl" one could easily make an argument for an age beyond your "requirements" for the definition of "child." Why? Because it's a young looking woman.

Care to explain why your assumption that she is a "young looking female" that "could easily be argued" to be older than seventeen is valid, and yet my assumptions are not? Is it because you agree with yourself and not with me?

Firstly, I don't assume that she is "a young looking female." You yourself quoted, from the article, that she's a "young looking girl." With that said, I don't think you get what I'm arguing here.

I am not saying that my arguments are more valid. I do not know the age of the person involved and neither do you, but I could, in response to you and your assumptions, make a reasonable argument for something else. The "validity" of either of our arguments on the matter is suspect and ultimately unprovable with current evidence. The difference, however, is that I am not making a point of (consciously or not) shaming others in the thread with my personal definitions on subject matter that I'm making assumptions on.

Once more, we can certainly agree to disagree, and we ultimately will, but please recognize what you're saying and how you're saying it.

 

[Caffiene]

[...]
Reductio ad absurdum -

1: disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
2: the carrying of something to an absurd extreme

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
[...]

If you don't straw man their argument or carry it to some absurd extreme [...]

A little bit off topic, but I feel like I should point out that you seem to have the wrong idea about the use of reductio ad absurdum. It is not a logical fallacy like the strawman... it is a valid and recognised formal logical tactic. As mentioned in the definition you quoted, it is a method of proving a point (/disproving the opponent's point).

The idea is that you take an opposing position and carry it through to a conclusion at an extreme (but valid) point. If those conclusions seem absurd, then you have shown that the opposing position's logic leads to absurdity.

The way to answer an argument like that is to show that it is a false reductio ad absurdum - for example in this case you would say that, because it is based on a strawman of the opposing position, the absurdity is not coming from the opponent's premises and therefore is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

You didn't actually demonstrate shame. You simply quoted me.

You know what? I take it back.

Good day to you.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Oh Japan how I love you.

You know what your audience loves and you just go for it. Kudos for that!

 

[Deshin]

The age of majority here is 18-21. Both Oxford and Webster state that a child may be defined as someone younger than the age of majority. In fact, you quoted my sources.

And in some countries the age is 14, or 16, or 17. Any descriptor that can change based on an imaginary geographical line you can cross is a crappy descriptor. When someone says "child" most people think of ages 5-12.

All language can change based on location. If you think it's an issue, please, get into contact with Merriam and Oxford and argue your case.

Or you could stop being pedantic and contrarian just for the sake of ruffling feathers. Anything past puberty is not a child, quote as many dictionaries as you like no one in their right mind refers to teenagers as 'children'. Puberty is the cut off point where you stop being a child, it's really that simple. No reliance on laws or cultures; "Do your privates work?" If yes, congrats, you're no longer a child. Now I'll agree it doesn't make you an adult, but to still call one a child, especially with the conoctations and implications ("Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?") that go with it would be irresponsible of the speaker.

 

[giles]

Well, if it goes into the hilariously weird territory I can see myself getting something like this and playing it with my sister and her fiance during our gaming nights.

I don't agree with the underlying problem of holing up school girls as some sexual ideal, but that seems to be a problem of Japanese culture, not this game.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I generally turn a blind eye to any "pervy" anime or games from Japan, on account of the fact that I'm not exactly innocent of enjoying them, but like the article says, it does have a very voyeuristic feel to it. The whole thing seems really empty and enclosed simultaneously, as well. Honestly, the preview seemed lifeless and a little uncanny to me, and that actually creeps me out more than the voyeurism.

The problem that I have with voyeurism is that it's generally non-consensual and somewhat predatory. However, it's better if people with fantasies of voyeurism channel them into games like this instead of actually enacting them; no one is hurt or made uncomfortable, since the character in the game is completely fictional. As long as no one hurts anyone or makes them feel uncomfortable, I don't really care what they do in their private time. I'm not really into this sort of thing, but if other people are, then I can't really say anything about it, as long as they don't act like sexual predators in real life.

Also, I found it really fitting, and kind of hilarious, that the game director was wearing an Idolm@ster T-shirt in the video. Not really relevant to the game, just something I thought was funny, considering that Idolm@ster is pretty much about pretty young girls who sing.

 

[NeutralDrow]

So, um...anyone who speaks better Japanese than me want to point out what he's saying?

I mean, there's a little bit of male gaze involved, but otherwise it didn't seem all that pervy.

 

[PunkRex]

The unfortunate reality, and I realize many people will find this difficult to accept, is that if this tech or rather these devices want to ever have a chance of succeeding in a huge way then the porn industry - especially the animated porn industry (which yes is millions of times huger than most people posting here are probably aware as its not just japan in to this stuff in a big way), is going to have to do very well with it initially.

Porn actually helped people accept dvd as a format in a huge way. Online video streaming - again porn industry really made it become a huge thing.

Its a sad truth but a very real one; porn always helps drive innovation and acceptance of certain technologies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number one selling application for virtual headsets in the future is some kind of porn sim game.

Depressing perhaps but then that's humanity for you.

I honestly don't get why it's depressing.

Humanity is more willing to accept something that targets it's baser instincts, yeah, no shizz.

Violent games are a huge seller because of power fantasies, junk food makes ridiculous money because it tastes good, hell the only reason the Australian Crocodile has been saved from extinction is because they're now being farmed for hand bag material.

Basic desires are like raw vegetables, they arn't gourmet but they're still good for you.

I'm not saying VR in the place of actual social interaction and relationships is healthy (although that could be said for any medium) but a bit of porn isn't going to hurt anyone; just like anything else, when used moderately, it's healthy.

I do feel bad for the crocodiles though... over two hundred million years of evolution to wind up strung over the arm of some fashionista... with naught inside but a miniature dog, matching purse and the weeping soul of a predator.

 

[BX3]

Reminds me of that one game that lady tried to come out with when the Kinect was heating up, but, y'know... just a ton more Japanese. Was kinda surprised by the subject matter at first until I realized that the latest Tekken itteration technically has 6 schoolgirls in it. Dat Harada knowin' what he likes.

Also, I think this is my first time seeing a thread so single-handedly derailed. Pretty funny. Good jerb, Rocket.

Also, also, apparently according to parts of this thread, this is porn, which is hella disconcerting, because it means I've been watching, like, a TON of porn. Some of it around my friends and family. Not the kind've revelation you expect to have in the morning.... =(

 

[Deshin]

Anything past puberty is not a child, quote as many dictionaries as you like no one in their right mind refers to teenagers as 'children'.

You are telling me that a dictionary is not relevant to the definition of a word, because you think no one agrees with me.

Puberty is the cut off point where you stop being a child, it's really that simple. No reliance on laws or cultures; "Do your privates work?" If yes, congrats, you're no longer a child. Now I'll agree it doesn't make you an adult, but to still call one a child, especially with the conoctations and implications ("Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?") that go with it would be irresponsible of the speaker.

You state your opinion of when one is not a child, but when I do this, with two reliable sources, my argument is invalid? Hm.

Yup, pretty much.

Now here's me being as pedantic: Only one of your reliable sources mentions "age of majority", the other states "coming of age" which is a vague statement but typically and coloquially means bumping uglies. Also the entry states:

1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dial : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age

So you chose the entry that most accurately backed up your statement instead of one in a higher priority such as "a young person between infancy and youth". Good cherry-picking.

As for the other reliable source: "A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority:" which translates to "A person who is under 13 or under 18" which is an iffy entry at best and downright flawed at worst.

Also, no one so far has agreed with you. In fact half this thread has derailed into people calling you out. As someone else said, you're an intelectual, we get it, you can stop showing off now.