| I always look back on this movie as a sakugafest with some cute moments. A pretty decent watch. I definitely couldn't treat it as seriously as you are lol. |
 |
filler_032 said: Attackonfiller said: yeah but it really hurts me also as a victim of p*dophilia. I don't know about you but I assume you're not one (thank god). stuff like that can really hurt and make people like me feel uncomfortable afI definitely couldn't treat it as seriously as you are lol. I see. It helps to know your circumstances, and I'm sorry to know that. I hope these things don't detract from your watching experience too much, they're usually thrown in with little to no consideration. |
|
| I don't know about sexualized but she's basically the main heroine at this point so she did get a lot of romantic development with the protagonist. Other than that I don't see how her fighting here is any more sexualized than in the original series if her outfit and kicks bother you that much. That aside, this weird obsession with underage characters in anime is just so old and boring at this point. It's been addressed a million times already and I can't believe people are still getting outraged over it. It's a fictional character. Just grow up and let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. |
 |
| It's mikimoto's first anime in ages so we need to appreciate it from many angles. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
filler_032 said: vegeta8639 said: I don't know about sexualized but she's basically the main heroine at this point so she did get a lot of romantic development with the protagonist. Other than that I don't see how her fighting here is any more sexualized than in the original series if her outfit and kicks bother you that much. That aside, this weird obsession with underage characters in anime is just so old and boring at this point. It's been addressed a million times already and I can't believe people are still getting outraged over it. It's a fictional character. Just grow up and let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. are you kidding? so you think that people should "grow up" and stop fighting ped*philia in popculture just because it's been adressed many times? and I'm not stopping anyone from enjoying anything, I try to still enjoy this anime despite the things I mentioned, I'm just trying to raise awareness about the issue. honestly I think you could grow up a little and realise how serious effects can the issue have on the amount of real acts of ped*philia. Yes I do think people need to grow up and stop getting so triggered every time they see something they don't like in a show and then attack everyone else who does like it. Lolis are all over anime, I don't think this is the medium for you if it offends you that much. And where is your evidence that sexualizing underage girls in anime increases the number of real world child rape? By all means if you have the data I'd love to see it although I by default assume this is gonna go the same way as violence in video games. If anything maybe it would give real pedophiles an outlet so they don't have to go after real children if you just wanna use speculative arguments. Lastly Mumei's relationship with Ikoma is so non problematic that I cannot even believe we have to have this discussion here. She's way stronger than him first of all so the power dynamic is already shifted, Ikoma is pretty dense so she's the one instigating it, you wouldn't even be able to tell their ages without reading the character bios, and it's an age gap of 5 years. Maybe problematic in the real world (until another 3 or so years pass) but in the context of this show/world and these characters, fuck no. All she did was lightly kiss him, get over it. At least make this thread under Kodomo no Jikan or something and maybe I'd take you more seriously. |
|
filler_032 said: dude I can't believe you're serious, it's just starting to get funny to me. I've felt the exact same way about you buddy since I read your first post :D filler_032 said: I don't have to find any studies to tell that the sexualisation of minors anywhere in popculture is just plain normalisation of ped*philia. Well okay, then I don't need any studies to tell me that people can tell the difference between reality and fiction, and that seeing a drawing of a fictional underage character isn't gonna cause them to abuse children in real life. Just like people watching Game of Thrones didn't increase the number of rapes and murders. filler_032 said: I don't know how do you expect such studies could have been contucted. Well you want to ban a thing that many people enjoy and that by itself isn't harming anyone, you better have some damn good evidence that it would significantly reduce the amount of child rape if or else I don't know why we're event talking. For starters you could show that Japan has a much higher rate of child sexual abuse than other first world countries because they have all those sexualized lolis right? But instead I'm sure you'll just find that their rate of that is lower just like their overall crime rate. filler_032 said: here's an article I think you should read. a study is also mentioned there. That study talks about people who have downloaded actual CP, not cartoon drawings FFS. Even then they are sampling from people who are already IN PRISON XD. Of course they're gonna find a large amount of them have done things to real children. This has nothing to do with people watching loli shows which are still legal in most first world countries as far as I know. And the rest of the article is just some idiot's opinion which is no more valid than your own. The person is assuming that the frog is an adult (despite the artist saying she sees him as a teenager XDDD) and then complaining about a retweeted picture of him kissing the teenage human girl from the show. Yea that's gonna normalize pedophilia right there. Also bestiality since that's some interspecies shit right there. Try again. |
|
vegeta8639 said: I don't know about sexualized but she's basically the main heroine at this point so she did get a lot of romantic development with the protagonist. Other than that I don't see how her fighting here is any more sexualized than in the original series if her outfit and kicks bother you that much. That aside, this weird obsession with underage characters in anime is just so old and boring at this point. It's been addressed a million times already and I can't believe people are still getting outraged over it. It's a fictional character. Just grow up and let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. That "grow up" thing is a surefire way to get the other person to not listen to anything you have to say. I do not know your age, but a possibly 30-something adult that had they fair share of difficulties in life would never take well to being told to "grow up" on a forum full of teens anime watchers. Just by the fact that you don't seem to realize how much of a fallacy being told to "grow up" is, you probably have some serious growing up to do. Just a heads-up for the future, if you want to have smooth conversations where you have an actual chance of convincing someone. Or you can just disregard this entirely if your objective is to get people fired up and ignore everything you have to say in the process. |
filler_032 said: especially in the movie. I mean come on, she's freaking 12 and is being shown in such weirdly sexual ways and positions, this is just so disgusting and p*dophilic. and Ikoma - a 17 year-old - is in love with her, which is also just so weird. I love this anime but all this stuff just freaking hurts and makes me cringe so hard. The simple answer is "yes". But worry not, this is basically tame compared to other anime. The official reason is that it's targeted to young watchers, but this is BS. The real reason why they do it is simple: they can, and it sells the best like this. Although I would not worry too much about a 17 year old being in love with her, or actually her with him. People can be in love and not do anything sexual, which is the singular problem with such a relationship. Society frowns upon actions, but it can't control emotions and sometimes nor can we. |
Leonhart93Jun 10, 2021 2:55 AM
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: I don't know about sexualized but she's basically the main heroine at this point so she did get a lot of romantic development with the protagonist. Other than that I don't see how her fighting here is any more sexualized than in the original series if her outfit and kicks bother you that much. That aside, this weird obsession with underage characters in anime is just so old and boring at this point. It's been addressed a million times already and I can't believe people are still getting outraged over it. It's a fictional character. Just grow up and let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. That "grow up" thing is a surefire way to get the other person to not listen to anything you have to say. I do not know your age, but a possibly 30-something adult that had they fair share of difficulties in life would never take well to being told to "grow up" on a forum full of teens anime watchers. Just by the fact that you don't seem to realize how much of a fallacy being told to "grow up" is, you probably have some serious growing up to do. Just a heads-up for the future, if you want to have smooth conversations where you have an actual chance of convincing someone. Or you can just disregard this entirely if your objective is to get people fired up and ignore everything you have to say in the process. The argument has been made a million and one times already. They are fictional characters so no real child is being harmed and you don't have any evidence that sexualizing fictional children increases children being abused in the real world so therefore it should be allowed by default until you can demonstrate that sufficient harm is being caused to justify banning it. With that said, if these people still keep bringing up this retarded argument, the way to deal with them IS to not take them seriously and shame/make fun of them every time they bring it up so they understand how unpopular and laughable their position is. It should be on the level of someone seeing a woman showing her legs in a movie and commenting that it's immoral and shouldn't be allowed. Also you're probably the one who needs to grow up since it looks like you heard the world "fallacy" last week in some atheist debate and are throwing it around without knowing what the word means. I'll help you out, writing up your argument and then calling someone an idiot or telling them to grow up at the end is not a fallacy. It would only be a fallacy if I said: "You're and idiot therefore your position is invalid." Without that causal link, it's not a fallacy, it's just me making fun of you. |
|
vegeta8639 said: Leonhart93 said: That "grow up" thing is a surefire way to get the other person to not listen to anything you have to say. I do not know your age, but a possibly 30-something adult that had they fair share of difficulties in life would never take well to being told to "grow up" on a forum full of teens anime watchers. Just by the fact that you don't seem to realize how much of a fallacy being told to "grow up" is, you probably have some serious growing up to do. Just a heads-up for the future, if you want to have smooth conversations where you have an actual chance of convincing someone. Or you can just disregard this entirely if your objective is to get people fired up and ignore everything you have to say in the process. Also you're probably the one who needs to grow up since it looks like you heard the world "fallacy" last week in some atheist debate and are throwing it around without knowing what the word means. And how would you know that? 🤨 It's a fallacy because it's basically the ad-hominem attack in an argument and it's a very specific well known fallacy. You said "grow up" with the explicit intention of making fun of the other party, as you yourself admitted. That is NEVER the way to do it in a valid argument. To the point that the person using this fallacy is instantly disqualified in argument competitions. Think about it, if your point is so superior then there are surely a ton of ways of establishing that with valid points but often people choose this route because they can't think of anything else to say. |
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: Also you're probably the one who needs to grow up since it looks like you heard the world "fallacy" last week in some atheist debate and are throwing it around without knowing what the word means. And how would you know that? 🤨 It's a fallacy because it's basically the ad-hominem attack in an argument and it's a very specific well known fallacy. You said "grow up" with the explicit intention of making fun of the other party, as you yourself admitted. That is NEVER the way to do it in a valid argument. To the point that the person using this fallacy is instantly disqualified in argument competitions. Think about it, if your point is so superior then there are surely a ton of ways of establishing that with valid points but often people choose this route because they can't think of anything else to say. Oh my fucking god, I literally explained the fallacy to you and what I did was not a fallacy and now you're completely ignoring that and still calling it a fallacy without addressing my explanation at all. I DID address the points initially (the posts are all still there so anybody can go back and check) and I addressed them AGAIN when replying to you last time. You're nitpicking my one remark at the end and pretending that was my entire argument. You need to grow the fuck up and learn how logic and argumentation works. Also what a logical fallacy is. Fallacies refer to specific flaws in reasoning, not "You were rude so therefore you are disqualified from this argument and I'm gonna call it a fallacy." |
|
| Cultural Conflict Japan loves them underage of consent thats for sure |
vegeta8639 said: Leonhart93 said: And how would you know that? 🤨 It's a fallacy because it's basically the ad-hominem attack in an argument and it's a very specific well known fallacy. You said "grow up" with the explicit intention of making fun of the other party, as you yourself admitted. That is NEVER the way to do it in a valid argument. To the point that the person using this fallacy is instantly disqualified in argument competitions. Think about it, if your point is so superior then there are surely a ton of ways of establishing that with valid points but often people choose this route because they can't think of anything else to say. Oh my fucking god, I literally explained the fallacy to you and what I did was not a fallacy and now you're completely ignoring that and still calling it a fallacy without addressing my explanation at all. I DID address the points initially (the posts are all still there so anybody can go back and check) and I addressed them AGAIN when replying to you last time. You're nitpicking my one remark at the end and pretending that was my entire argument. You need to grow the fuck up and learn how logic and argumentation works. Also what a logical fallacy is. Fallacies refer to specific flaws in reasoning, not "You were rude so therefore you are disqualified from this argument and I'm gonna call it a fallacy." Yes, I mentioned something you never heard about so instead of looking it up you promptly concluded that it's fake. Because some of us are born knowing everything, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem In this article that comes up as the first result to a simple searchm you can see how it is categorized as a "fallacy of irrelevance". In the same article there is a picture with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and attacking the person directly instead of the subject of the argument is classed as the 2nd worst thing you can do in an argument, aside from direct name calling. And to clarify your other claim that "it doesn't matter because you also put forth some proper arguments", no, it absolutely does matter. In the same way that it's not okay to slap someone in the face after an act of kindness towards them. |
Leonhart93Jun 12, 2021 8:57 AM
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: Oh my fucking god, I literally explained the fallacy to you and what I did was not a fallacy and now you're completely ignoring that and still calling it a fallacy without addressing my explanation at all. I DID address the points initially (the posts are all still there so anybody can go back and check) and I addressed them AGAIN when replying to you last time. You're nitpicking my one remark at the end and pretending that was my entire argument. You need to grow the fuck up and learn how logic and argumentation works. Also what a logical fallacy is. Fallacies refer to specific flaws in reasoning, not "You were rude so therefore you are disqualified from this argument and I'm gonna call it a fallacy." Yes, I mentioned something you never heard about so instead of looking it up you promptly concluded that it's fake. Because some of us are born knowing everything, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem In this article that comes up as the first result to a simple searchm you can see how it is categorized as a "fallacy of irrelevance". In the same article there is a picture with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and attacking the person directly instead of the subject of the argument is classed as the 2nd worst thing you can do in an argument, aside from direct name calling. And to clarify your other claim that "it doesn't matter because you also put forth some proper arguments", no, it absolutely does matter. In the same way that it's not okay to slap someone in the face after an act of kindness towards them. No you kept repeating the same shit after I thoroughly debunked it the first time instead of addressing my actual points. Yes ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance but I did not do an ad hominem and you have no fucking idea what an ad hominem is. That same Wikipedia article shows you what form an ad hominem fallacy would take: A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". And what did I do? Addressed claim x multiple times and then added that person A (and you now) needs to grow the fuck up because this argument is infantile and has already been debunked a million and 3 times. It is only a fallacy if I say you need to grow up THEREFORE your argument is bad. I don't give a shit if you think it's "okay" for me to insult your or OP, this is about whether I have committed a fallacy which is a specific flaw in logical reasoning with a specific form. So I look forward to you Btw I looked at that Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement chart and you are 3rd from the bottom in the "Responding to tone" bit. Except you're pretending that my tone is a fallacy which it is not for the 7th time. I'm name calling in addition, not "instead". Big difference. My entire above refutation AND you're as asshat. |
|
| Damn mumei was 12?? I thought she was hot though god damn, she doesn't look 12 man |
| This anime shit is addictive |
vegeta8639 said: Leonhart93 said: Yes, I mentioned something you never heard about so instead of looking it up you promptly concluded that it's fake. Because some of us are born knowing everything, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem In this article that comes up as the first result to a simple searchm you can see how it is categorized as a "fallacy of irrelevance". In the same article there is a picture with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and attacking the person directly instead of the subject of the argument is classed as the 2nd worst thing you can do in an argument, aside from direct name calling. And to clarify your other claim that "it doesn't matter because you also put forth some proper arguments", no, it absolutely does matter. In the same way that it's not okay to slap someone in the face after an act of kindness towards them. No you kept repeating the same shit after I thoroughly debunked it the first time instead of addressing my actual points. Yes ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance but I did not do an ad hominem and you have no fucking idea what an ad hominem is. That same Wikipedia article shows you what form an ad hominem fallacy would take: A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". And what did I do? Addressed claim x multiple times and then added that person A (and you now) needs to grow the fuck up because this argument is infantile and has already been debunked a million and 3 times. It is only a fallacy if I say you need to grow up THEREFORE your argument is bad. I don't give a shit if you think it's "okay" for me to insult your or OP, this is about whether I have committed a fallacy which is a specific flaw in logical reasoning with a specific form. So I look forward to you Btw I looked at that Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement chart and you are 3rd from the bottom in the "Responding to tone" bit. Except you're pretending that my tone is a fallacy which it is not for the 7th time. I'm name calling in addition, not "instead". Big difference. My entire above refutation AND you're as asshat. The asshat here is you. I wonder how it is possible for someone ever talk to you without you blowing the lid and start a screaming contest. Is it so hard to just talk to someone that is open to discussion and understanding your point of view without resorting to nothing of what you did above? I know I wasted my time trying to talk to the likes of you, but you also wasted your time writing all those long paragraphs, if you use that kind of attitude and language. I will never make an effort to really understand someone if they can't even manage to articulate something in proper neutral language. Nor should anyone for that matter. |
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: No you kept repeating the same shit after I thoroughly debunked it the first time instead of addressing my actual points. Yes ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance but I did not do an ad hominem and you have no fucking idea what an ad hominem is. That same Wikipedia article shows you what form an ad hominem fallacy would take: A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". And what did I do? Addressed claim x multiple times and then added that person A (and you now) needs to grow the fuck up because this argument is infantile and has already been debunked a million and 3 times. It is only a fallacy if I say you need to grow up THEREFORE your argument is bad. I don't give a shit if you think it's "okay" for me to insult your or OP, this is about whether I have committed a fallacy which is a specific flaw in logical reasoning with a specific form. So I look forward to you Btw I looked at that Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement chart and you are 3rd from the bottom in the "Responding to tone" bit. Except you're pretending that my tone is a fallacy which it is not for the 7th time. I'm name calling in addition, not "instead". Big difference. My entire above refutation AND you're as asshat. The asshat here is you. I wonder how it is possible for someone ever talk to you without you blowing the lid and start a screaming contest. Is it so hard to just talk to someone that is open to discussion and understanding your point of view without resorting to nothing of what you did above? I know I wasted my time trying to talk to the likes of you, but you also wasted your time writing all those long paragraphs, if you use that kind of attitude and language. I will never make an effort to really understand someone if they can't even manage to articulate something in proper neutral language. Nor should anyone for that matter. Do you realize that by calling me an asshat you just did the thing you originally accused me of? Even assuming the rest of your response was a perfect refutation of what I said (it's not), you still called me a name so that: "instantly disqualifies in argument competitions" XD But other than that you're just complaining about my tone again without refuting my point so all I can do is repeat that it's not an ad hominem fallacy unless you say: "You're an asshat, therefore your argument is invalid". Refuting an argument, then saying asshat is just insulting someone. It's not a fallacy. And you're not open to discussion or arguing in good faith. You started this argument by accusing me of committing a fallacy and never substantiating that accusation when I challenged it. I still don't even know if you agree with my original point that sexualizing fictional children isn't immoral, and we didn't even get to whether insulting someone in an argument like this is appropriate or not because you wanted to overreach and falsely call it a fallacy. If you actually want to address the core points I am still willing to have the discussion or if not, people can scroll up and decide for themselves which one of us here was being unreasonable. |
|
vegeta8639 said: Leonhart93 said: The asshat here is you. I wonder how it is possible for someone ever talk to you without you blowing the lid and start a screaming contest. Is it so hard to just talk to someone that is open to discussion and understanding your point of view without resorting to nothing of what you did above? I know I wasted my time trying to talk to the likes of you, but you also wasted your time writing all those long paragraphs, if you use that kind of attitude and language. I will never make an effort to really understand someone if they can't even manage to articulate something in proper neutral language. Nor should anyone for that matter. Do you realize that by calling me an asshat you just did the thing you originally accused me of? Even assuming the rest of your response was a perfect refutation of what I said (it's not), you still called me a name so that: "instantly disqualifies in argument competitions" XD But other than that you're just complaining about my tone again without refuting my point so all I can do is repeat that it's not an ad hominem fallacy unless you say: "You're an asshat, therefore your argument is invalid". Refuting an argument, then saying asshat is just insulting someone. It's not a fallacy. I see, so I should just take it when someone punches me and not punch back. I will always start by treating others fairly, but if you refuse to respond in kind after like 3 attempts on my part then I have no qualms paying back in full. And what argument? You threw that like 2 posts back, do you think you can bring that back? Your audacity is shameful. I would feel slighted by just your presence in the same room as me 🤮 |
Leonhart93Jun 13, 2021 12:54 PM
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: Do you realize that by calling me an asshat you just did the thing you originally accused me of? Even assuming the rest of your response was a perfect refutation of what I said (it's not), you still called me a name so that: "instantly disqualifies in argument competitions" XD But other than that you're just complaining about my tone again without refuting my point so all I can do is repeat that it's not an ad hominem fallacy unless you say: "You're an asshat, therefore your argument is invalid". Refuting an argument, then saying asshat is just insulting someone. It's not a fallacy. I see, so I should just take it when someone punches me and not punch back. I will always start by treating others fairly, but if you refuse to respond in kind after like 3 attempts on my part then I have no qualms paying back in full. And what argument? You threw that like 2 posts back, do you think you can bring that back? Your audacity is shameful. I would feel slighted by just your presence in the same room as me 🤮 BHAHAHAHA I'm not the one saying insults are never okay and if you use one you are instantly disqualified from the argument. We just have different standards for what constitutes an insult. You think telling somebody to grow up in response to them calling a movie you liked "disgusting and pedophilic" counts, and I think somebody expressing that position warrants an insult way worse than what I even went with. Btw I'm so glad we ended up derailing this garbage thread into nothing but us arguing about meta topics. It was a fucking joke to begin with, as are your reading comprehension and argumentation skills so it's all pretty fitting. |
|
vegeta8639 said: Leonhart93 said: I see, so I should just take it when someone punches me and not punch back. I will always start by treating others fairly, but if you refuse to respond in kind after like 3 attempts on my part then I have no qualms paying back in full. And what argument? You threw that like 2 posts back, do you think you can bring that back? Your audacity is shameful. I would feel slighted by just your presence in the same room as me 🤮 BHAHAHAHA I'm not the one saying insults are never okay and if you use one you are instantly disqualified from the argument. We just have different standards for what constitutes an insult. You think telling somebody to grow up in response to them calling a movie you liked "disgusting and pedophilic" counts, and I think somebody expressing that position warrants an insult way worse than what I even went with. Btw I'm so glad we ended up derailing this garbage thread into nothing but us arguing about meta topics. It was a fucking joke to begin with, as are your reading comprehension and argumentation skills so it's all pretty fitting. No, if they read it properly it's quite obvious that your way of thinking is extremely convoluted and the way you insult people in order to hope they lose track of things is clearly cynical. What those types of people have to say can always be safely ignored. Grow up already. |
Leonhart93 said: vegeta8639 said: BHAHAHAHA I'm not the one saying insults are never okay and if you use one you are instantly disqualified from the argument. We just have different standards for what constitutes an insult. You think telling somebody to grow up in response to them calling a movie you liked "disgusting and pedophilic" counts, and I think somebody expressing that position warrants an insult way worse than what I even went with. Btw I'm so glad we ended up derailing this garbage thread into nothing but us arguing about meta topics. It was a fucking joke to begin with, as are your reading comprehension and argumentation skills so it's all pretty fitting. No, if they read it properly it's quite obvious that your way of thinking is extremely convoluted and the way you insult people in order to hope they lose track of things is clearly cynical. What those types of people have to say can always be safely ignored. Grow up already. Now you're just making up random claims about me without substantiating any of it. You randomly accuse people of committing fallacies without knowing what the fuck a fallacy is and then when you get called out on it, you focus on tone and unrelated shit without walking back or defending your claim. You pretend that insulting someone instantly loses you the argument but then say it's fine to insult someone if you feel like they insulted you first, unless of course someone has a different opinion than you about what constitutes an insult. But keep derailing please and wasting your time by your own admission. What was the thread about again? Explaining to morons what fallacies are and why tone policing doesn't count as an argument? Yea sounds about right. |
|
|
| She was simply in a dire need of dick. |
| Stop the sequels high-ranking stupidity. Group franchises in Top Anime page. Because Gintama is just "one" anime and not 5. |
| I didn't see her sexuallized, I just saw her as a good character as well as Ikumo. Plus, shes not human, I don't remember if it was spoken of in the anime in huge amounts of detail but she could be much older than you think. I don't recall when exactly her brother turned her into a kabaneri, but she could of just stopped aging. Big deal out of nothing imho I loved the anime and the movie adaptions and end. Really wish there was more, or hope that there will be more ♥ Either way, that ending was sooooo cute |
Treyv0n said: Nigga to me she looked like your average petite woman I wasn’t even paying attention to the age just the story and it’s a drawing it ain’t real so you should at least be happy about it and it’s anime fam this shits been in so much shows it’s best you just don’t think of the age unless that character clearly looks like prepubescent child/loli🤷🏽♂️ Well, in real world measurements, she is not even petite. She could easily pass as a 18-21 year old in the show. She is not portraying herself as a 12 year old; not in looks or in personality. Pedo's are equally attracted to the innocence and power dynamic they have over their victims, Mumei would kick a pedo's ass |
| "I hate to lose more than I like to win, the only reason I like to win is so I do not have to lose." - Manti Teo |
| Take a shot each time the gaslighter vegeta8639 is a hypocrite. |
 |
Bunille said: Hey why don't you actually tag me or respond directly next time so I actually get notified about your post instead of being a coward. That way I can ask you to provide 1 example of me gaslighing anyone in this garbage thread or of me being a hypocrite. I'm waiting.Take a shot each time the gaslighter vegeta8639 is a hypocrite. |
|
More topics from this board
Poll: » Koutetsujou no Kabaneri Movie 3: Unato Kessen Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )bastek66 - May 10, 2019 |
119 |
by Ricky16
»»
Nov 16, 9:16 AM |
|
» Season 2?RedS7 - May 14, 2019 |
22 |
by archeotech
»»
Sep 6, 8:23 PM |
|
» is this completely original anime??NaughtySempai - Mar 9, 2022 |
3 |
by AnlmeHeaded
»»
Jul 21, 2022 1:38 PM |
|
» Why this is called movie 3? Where is the movie 1 and movie 2?salsalsalsal - Jul 6, 2020 |
1 |
by Theo1899
»»
Jul 6, 2020 7:03 AM |
|
» Why the netflix version is longer than the BD version?FireShadowWolf - May 26, 2020 |
1 |
by StalkerFairy
»»
May 30, 2020 1:36 AM |