Danbooru

Comments

Blacklisted:
[hidden]

I am the author of this work.

All unauthorized reprinting to external sites such as this one is prohibited.
Please do not post without permission.

Please delete all the following posts immediately.
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=soui_manshin&z=1
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?page=2&tags=soui_manshin

私はこの作品の作者です。

無断でこのような外部サイトへ転載することを全て禁止しています。
勝手に許可なく投稿をしないで下さい。

すぐに以下全ての投稿を削除して下さい。
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=soui_manshin&z=1
https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?page=2&tags=soui_manshin

  • 0
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    CrimsonLine said:

    Wait I don’t have the game. Will it be cool for you to explain 😅

    Mamechin (nickname for Fenomeno) and Justa (short for Just A Way) are both yet-to-be-implemented horses that are not just contemporaries to Gold Ship, but the former is Golshi's rival and the latter is his stablemates/BFF.

    Since they're both contemporaries to Golshi (and 'Donna et al), the two would make for some wild generational pairing, much like the 97 (Suzu, Taiki, Dober) or 98 gens.

  • 2
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    Jnglmpera said:

    Mamechin (nickname for Fenomeno) and Justa (short for Just A Way) are both yet-to-be-implemented horses that are not just contemporaries to Gold Ship, but the former is Golshi's rival and the latter is his stablemates/BFF.

    Since they're both contemporaries to Golshi (and 'Donna et al), the two would make for some wild generational pairing, much like the 97 (Suzu, Taiki, Dober) or 98 gens.

    Oh I see! Thanks for the explanation mans 👍

  • 1
  • Reply
  • Show 15 more comments
    [hidden]

    high_status_bastard said:

    Wtf is this hot garbage, why a person who just for expample, wants to play a simple silly game or whatever shit is in appstore, compare to literal pedofiles, I know that you will say "achtualy is a drawing of a girl, not a literal girl", it is still by definition an attraction to minors, and what is it about society to demonize video games as if they were Hitler's machination to destroy minorities or something similar, jeez

    you just answered your own question in what you said. some people react to video games the way you did over a drawing. they see video game violence and correlate that into being actual violence.

  • 1
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    compositenlf said:

    you just answered your own question in what you said. some people react to video games the way you did over a drawing. they see video game violence and correlate that into being actual violence.

    I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act.
    The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.

  • 2
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    CitrusC said:

    I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act.
    The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.

    The same points have been made about fictional violence in media, but most people don't really seem to care anymore and gamers have always defended violence's place in video games, so it's still hypocritical to argue against loli/shota art and not argue against fictional violence based only on those points. The only difference is that the former is more geared toward getting people off, which makes some people more willing to cross the line from "This is gross and I won't look at it" to "You're gross for liking it and I will judge you" or even "They're gross for promoting it and should be shut down/arrested." The above complaint of "literal pedofiles (sic)" is a good example of this.

  • 0
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    CitrusC said:

    I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act.
    The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.

    The argument has always been playing violent videogames makes you violent in real life. "If you play violent videogames, then you will become more violent, or have violent fantasies, or even have plans to commit violence." When this criticism of videogames was at its peak, several convicted murderers of various ages cited videogames as being why they did it, lending credence to the claims that videogames made people violent.

    However, decades of scientific studies have repeatedly failed to find any correlation between playing violent videogames and a tendency to engage in real violence. Anytime a study claims to have found a connection, it always turns out that they heavily misrepresented their findings or used extremely flawed scientific processes resulting in heavily biased results. Several studies even found evidence that playing games actually reduces the likelihood of an individual to commit violence.

    Now, what about loli/shota? That's harder to research, mostly for the taboo surrounding the subject, but studies have been conducted, and they've mostly returned the same results as the studies on violent videogames. That is, there's little practical correlation between someone that consumes fictional content of subjects with the appearance of a minor, and someone who actually consumes real life CP or even predates on real children. There's some overlap, but it's the same kind of overlap as seen with videogames. Many people consume the fictional content without ever posing a danger to a real life person, some people never consume fictional content but still go on to create victims, and some consume fictional content and are actual predators. But there's never been any evidence found that consuming fiction leads to committing real life crimes.

    It's a stupid argument no matter what the topic, because studies always return the same results. That being that for the average person, X does not cause Y, and someone who commits Y showed all of the signs that they were already predisposed to it with or without X's influence. Consumption of X may even reduce a desire to commit Y.

    Tldr: Claiming fictional content creates criminals is scientifically unsupported thought crime BS. Maybe stop doing things like letting pro smash players hang out unsupervised with people half their age instead of screaming at random people on the internet for stroking it to an anime character if you care so much about child abuse.

  • 0
  • Reply
  • Show 10 more comments
    [hidden]

    FRien said:

    And don't get me started on the Sisters of Battles, they're "just" highly trained warrior monks, they aren't the barely humans that the Space Marines are.

    Besides them more or less ignoring that the all-female factions exist, fans of them can rest assured that GW will never doing something stupid like saying they can have male members. Because we all know what kind of response that would get.

    If only everyone else could have that assurance.

  • 0
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    Monsieur_Safior said:

    Clumsy retcon, but people overeacted way to much aboot it.

    True
    Retcons, rewrites and 'unreliable narrator' are part of WH40K's identity so I don't really care that much.
    I do hope SoS doesn't get abandoned because of this.

  • 2
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    blindVigil said:

    Besides them more or less ignoring that the all-female factions exist, fans of them can rest assured that GW will never doing something stupid like saying they can have male members. Because we all know what kind of response that would get.

    If only everyone else could have that assurance.

    I mean, at least in Dawn of War (don't ask me about Gladius), Sisters of Battles do have male members, but they're part of the secular clergy, while the sisters themselves are part of the regular clergy, so it's a clusterfuck but it's understandable.
    And I really like that Sisters of Battle can weaponize their faith, that alone made me do a 180° on them, from considering them discount Marines to being actually very interesting to play and read about.

  • 3
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    FRien said:

    I mean, at least in Dawn of War (don't ask me about Gladius), Sisters of Battles do have male members, but they're part of the secular clergy, while the sisters themselves are part of the regular clergy, so it's a clusterfuck but it's understandable.
    And I really like that Sisters of Battle can weaponize their faith, that alone made me do a 180° on them, from considering them discount Marines to being actually very interesting to play and read about.

    I've read they're also the best equipped army in the Imperium. The church is the wealthiest organization around, and they're owed alot of favors by basically everyone. As such, they get first dibs on what money can buy.

    Why are the SoBs female only? A legal technicality that forbade the church from "men at arms" after attempting to take over the imperium that one time, cap stoned by the fact the chief warrior nun personally ended the coup. All very intricate and interesting as Imperium internal politics should be.

  • 1
  • Reply
  • [hidden]

    Steak said:

    I've read they're also the best equipped army in the Imperium. The church is the wealthiest organization around, and they're owed alot of favors by basically everyone. As such, they get first dibs on what money can buy.

    Why are the SoBs female only? A legal technicality that forbade the church from "men at arms" after attempting to take over the imperium that one time, cap stoned by the fact the chief warrior nun personally ended the coup. All very intricate and interesting as Imperium internal politics should be.

    And also, Living Saints, and they're well-respected among the Imperium.
    Space Marines wish they were as popular as sister of battles, but all the surgery they go through to become space marine make them impotent, while some sisters of battle end up marrying lucky Guardsmen, and grow up raising plenty of stalwart imperial citizens.
    The SoBs are honestly fun, but the female custodes are fucking retarded.

  • 1
  • Reply
  • 1 2 3 4 5