₦airaland Forum

nani667:
Black Clover latest..

I started this show and I hated it, it was generic and Asta was annoying af. Then I found myself watching the first 8 episodes in one day and going to collect more episodes from my friend.

I am trapped in an abusive relationship with this anime.

jeff1607:
anyone with loads of anime on HDD?

I have like 20-something anime on my laptop.
Where do you live?

jeff1607:
to pay for of cos

I got my anime for free, so I'll share them for free.

IMAliyu:
Let's talk about one of the weirder anime out there.
FoolyCooly or FLCL.
It has wacky action and animation, Great soundtracks and a "WTF is happening" story and a good English dub.
Just 6 episodes. I give it a 9.5/10 because I really enjoyed it.

Of you liked this, you'll probably like Panty and Stocking w/ Garterbelt. Insane plots, profanity-filled dub, also by Studio Gainax.


You may (a big may) also like Pop Team Epic.

IMAliyu:
Didn't know it had a dub, but the show gave me super human subtitle reading speed.

Only season one has been dubbed.

IMAliyu:
Dubs are not always bad and there are shows you dare not watch it in anything other than the English dub (Hellsing ultimate, bacano, black lagoon, Cowboy Bebop etc.)

The Disastrous Life of Saiki-K. Try reading super-fast dialogue, narration, and internal monologue at the same time. I dare you.

nani667:
He is one of the things wrong with the Castlevania Anime.... There are only three things wrong with that Anime, and they are those three Stooges that Supposedly defeated Dracula

Other than the Plot armor in and around them the Anime was excellent

My face I saw Sypha cutting members of Dracula's elite army in half.

PreciousRahl:
I won't lie, I have no idea how to use Mega

Enlighten me please

1. Go to mega.nz, it's like Google drives or dropbox.

2. Open your Mega cloud storage account. Login.

3. Get any megalink and download. Downloads are quicker on Mega.

4. Optionally, you can download the megasync app. This allows you queue multiple downloads and gives you bonus storage.

5. If you use megasync make sure to uncheck the box that transfers megalink files to your own cloud drive. That way you only download directly to your computer.

AmunaNo1:
Best Picks for 2018

Houseki no Kuni (Thank me later)

Ancient Magus Bride

These two really touched my Soul.

You mean 2017, right?

Anyway throw in some Made in Abyss, and Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid into that mix.

PreciousRahl:
I'll definitely check it out.

Where do you download your anime from tho?

High quality

Anidl.org is fantastic if you know how to use Mega.

PreciousRahl:
KonoSuba.

Season 2

Humor level is over 9,000

Can definitely second this recommendation. Fantastic show.

johnydon22:
and if they generally accept the opposite?

Then that society will fail (i.e., be absorbed or obliterated by others) in a couple of generations. That is why most societies in existence try to preserve themselves.

johnydon22:
Is it moral?

You are a relativist innit?

Not to me, not to most people.

johnydon22:
Epericism doesn't make any moral suggestion. And as you rightly put, the observer makes the conclusions.

Which is where again relativism creeps in again, conclusions defer.

There are no moral facts, morality is an imagined order, no matter how you try, it is never empirical.

If morality is emperical then it is purely objective.

But that is the problem, the moral conclusions you make are relative, there are no empirical moral facts.

It's a belief

I never said my judgment was an undeniable fact, that was never my argument. I said that paedophilia is immoral and that there is overwhelming consensus against it. All true.

You said I shouldn't be making such judgments as a moral relativity which is nonsensical because we all make judgments based on our beliefs. If you don't, then morality doesn't even exist.

johnydon22:
You are at least a deist, you can believe in moral objectivity hence this statememt is more rooted.

However the guy is arguing on the logic of a moral relativist (atheist) to condemn pedophilia as it was practised within a moral provision 1,500 years.

How can a deist believe in moral objectivity when he doesn't believe that God interferes with the affairs of humans?

johnydon22:
Again, you are assuming consequences have an inherent moral nature which is another way of saying morality is objective.

No, it isn't. it is just very generally accepted for members of a society to try to preserve it.

johnydon22:
No, they are not necessarily the same thing.

E:G - The holocaust was legal in Germany
Slavery was once legal

Were these actions moral even though they were legal?

They were moral to the Nazis and the Germans who felt that the Jews were the cause of all their problems.

johnydon22:
Quality of moral positions remains a subjective conclusion.

The point remains; Is morality an inherent quality (objective) which you seem to be leaning towards now to the detriment of your initial position that it is subjective (relative)

Simply means it is arbitrary and doesn't follow for everyone else.

Stop trying to railroad this argument into two options. Morality is, as you put "intersubjective". So is empiricism, because it relies on the subjective judgement of the observer. For morality to be objective, it would be have to be unchanging through time, which is observably untrue. Judging by what we know today regarding paedophilia, I can say that it is a negative action. Mohammed and co probably didn't have the APA performing such studies and collecting such data, so they came to different conclusions, which is normal for a man living in his time but unacceptable for a character we're supposed to model our behaviour after.

johnydon22:
So, morality is objective then?

Good!!!

That's just your subjective opinion, bro.

johnydon22:
Oh i agree, but then relativity comes in when determining which consequence is wrong or right. This society can conclude this consequence means wrong another conclude the exact opposite.

That is moral relativity.

So my question remains, on what ground do you as a moral relativists make moral judgement on a different moral framework/society/time as yours? Unless of course you are saying morality isn't relative.

On the best available information of the consequences of a given action.

johnydon22:
LOL. Again, morality and legality aren't exactly the same thing.

What is the point of this statement? Morality and legality are inextricably linked. Legality is government sanctioned morality based on the principles and values of society.

johnydon22:
Actually yes i am going to ask you that. What is wrong with a society declining?

What facts? There are in fact no moral facts because morality is an abstract concept.

You still aren't even grasping the implications of your own arguments on moral relativity.

Make up your mind bro; is morality relative or objective? You don't seem to understand what both implies.

And I can go on and on telling you that morality evolved to sustain society, the failure of a society is the failure of its morals. Morality is the combination of evolutionary traits, if your society fails then your morality was wrong or at the very least, ill-suited for that space and time.

One more thing, there's nothing wrong with making judgements based on your own morality. It's just that your opinions cannot trump reality.

johnydon22:
So?.

So, actions that have been proven to be bad for society are in fact, bad for society. Its not an opinion.

johnydon22:
Does this preclude the sovereignty of each country?

Common men, international relations have always been there - obviously the world is different today in terms of application and tech.

Neither precludes the sovereignty of each society and neither eliminates the practice of moral relativity.

What is wrong in Nigeria isn't necessarily regarded same in America..

A country is only as sovereign as more powerful countries allow it to be. Lets see what would happen if Nigeria starts trying to go nuclear.

Morality wrong the world is slowly but surely converging, I'm not sure if the convergence would ever be complete, but over time each new generation is more westernized than the last. This will continue as long as we consume their media.

Their ideas have led to their prosperity which is why they can now display their ideas to us. Isn't it rational to adopt ideas that stood make your society prosperous?

johnydon22:
You are simply making moral assumptions on the consequence of an action. It is funny when people do this but most people do.

See, empiricism is never the determinant of abstract concepts like morality, never works like that because such concepts take derivative basis from a fundamental belief that transcends empirical application.

See, my argument with you isn't on morality, my argument here remains on the position that morality is subjective hence relative.
if morality is relative then your moral basis is just as relative
therefore you cannot using the moral framework applicable within your own intersubjective clime, condemn an action with coincides with a different moral framework within an unrelated intersubjective clime.

By all means say that muslims today are wrong if they practice pedophilia, that is correct.

Say that people 1,500 are wrong?

There are no more wrong than you are on actions we deem moral today that would be considered immoral 1000 years from now.

Only an objective moral basis can make the argument that something is wrong across time and society not a moral relativistic argument.

So, you have to make up your mind; if you think morality is subjective (relative) then you can't say Muhammed was wrong.

if you however think morality is objective (not-arbitrary) then you can say Muhammed was wrong.

You're argument is lacking in that it tries to divorce empiricism from morality when morality was developed in us through the empirical consequences of natural selection.

That is why your analogy is flawed. Asking why hurting people is wrong is such a vague question that it is almost useless in this discussion. The answer is to simply bring up the ill effects of child molestation and the trickle-down effects of the aforementioned effects and so on.

Your logic is inadequate in this matter because it treats all actions as fundamentally equal before we attach moral significance to them. But the truth is that all actions have different consequences to them, and it is the evaluation of those consequences that gives them moral significance.

So it is false for you to say that I'm attaching moral significance to empirical facts when all I'm saying is this act that has been proven to have net negative effects on society is indeed, negative".

johnydon22:
Then your argument isn't on the moral position of the action but the physical implications?.

Actions don't exist in a vacuum, their consequences play a big part in determining their morality. As a matter of fact, cause-and-effect is the reason why morality evolved in the first place.

johnydon22:
You have to first of all assume these things are wrong - moral relativity again comes into place.

LOL. Again you are assuming they are wrong based on your moral relativistic standpoint.

This is a cheap cop-out. There's no society that thrives in lawlessness and anarchy. Can you compare the quality of life in Honduras to that of Norway? There's no need for all philosophy when the facts are starting you in the face. Or are you going to ask me what is wrong with the decline of society? Or a high crime rate? Or a low quality of life?

johnydon22:
Something being allowed or not is not same thing as being moral. Something can be legal but still immoral and vise versa.

Your statement is true but you fail to realize that morality itself evolved from a utilitarian viewpoint; i.e., behaviours that benefit the group are good and those that cause harm are bad. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but this underlying premise still till today.

johnydon22:
LMAO. Actually, societies have always been isolated. International relations have always been something present in earthly politics from the ancient times..

That's a blatantly false statement to make in these times, with ICT, air travel, and the global stock market, we depend on each other more than ever. This phenomenon is only going to get not pronounced if we continue in this trajectory.

johnydon22:
You have to make up your mind; it is either morality is relative (subjective and local) or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

But it remains; it is blatantly illogical for a moral relativist to make moral conclusions on the actions of others outside his intersubjective clique because there is absolutely no basis for that.

With all due respect, this where my empiricism trips your sophistry. With hard facts and evidence of the negative consequences of an action, my "opinion" on paedophilia is only as much of an opinion as any scientific theory.

tartar9:
I guess you ignored this on purpose:

"You're merely being thoughtless..What are the reasons minimum age of marriage began to be legally set up? think about that and see why,for the most part,it becomes absurd applying it, exactly,to such a time and environment and even terming such "barbaric".Also,I think I've read an hadith of her already having mensuration at the consummation of their marriage.
If any was a pedophile,wouldn't it have been quite obvious ...in fact,most of his wives he married as widows,married to spend the remainder of their lives together( just how long would she have remained a "child" )even if she lived more than a hundred years...All this makes your pedophilia tag even more absurd.
Were we not to be aware of the hadith about His marriage to Aisha,the Islamic stance on marriage would almost remain the same.Justifying marrying nine year olds today because He(SAW) probably did it then Its in parallel to refusing modern healthcare because the Prophet didn't use them...they are both wrong.
Aisha(RA) was probably the greatest of His(SAW) wives,the most jovial,and from every indication they had a happy married life"

No I was actually getting to that.
From another post:

CoolUsername:
You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml



I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

The above shows why a minimum age of consent should be instituted.

Also, about the part with menstruation, couldn't that just be internal bleeding?

johnydon22:
Because to suggest to be perfect was to reflect the morality of your own time is by implication an argument that your own moral position is better - again this consequentially implies that morality transcends social definition therefore objective.

You miss the point that the are several negative effects caused by child molestation. This isn't just a matter of preference but rather, a matter of societal problems that child molestation exacerbates in a statistically significant way.

www.aswllp.com/Sexual-Molestation-Abuse/What-are-the-Long-Term-Effects-of-Childhood-Sexual-Abuse.shtml

johnydon22:
Actually, no muslim can say the prophet messed up because he didn't - His actions were simply in coincide with the moral framework of his society and time. Even you cannot argue the prophet was wrong because that would be just like pouring a fanta into a bottle of stout.

If you are saying the prophet is wrong then you are arguing that morality is objective and transcends whatever the society or time defines it as.

So, your argument here is like eating your cake and having it again.

If morality is defined by society and time - then any action that falls within that social framework is moral - therefore Muhammed on this ground isn't wrong.

You are arguing that morality is socially defined and also insisting that a man whose actions coincides with the social moral framework of his time is morally wrong, how the fuccccck does that work?

Unless of course you are saying morality is objective and whatever is wrong is wrong no matter what a society or a particular timeline of human history thinks - but you are not.

I think that there's a very general consensus that mental illness isn't good for society, that criminal behaviour, alcohol abuse, and antisocial tendencies after not good for society. Paedophilia has a strong correlation with these things. It is only rational to protect children.

Which brings me to my point that Allah should have known about this and should have not let the ideology he inspired become synonymous with it.

nani667:
The Visuals wasn't really that impressive... The story on the other hand was Great... The ending was Epic


Overall a very good Anime... 8.5 / 10 rating for me

Wow 8.5! Is it because of the ending? I thought the ending was a decent set piece but the build-up to it was rushed and almost nonsensical. I mean...why would Akira continue working with Ryo even when it was obvious that Ryo was a murderous sociopath? Especially when he wanted to kill Miki. The plot just seemed so railroaded that the payoff at the end didn't have the effect it should have.

johnydon22:
Again, the problem here is moral relativity. You seem not be understanding the implication of that position.

Let me try and simplify it.

it means any given action is objectively morally neutral.

society A says it is wrong - then it is wrong for society A not for everyone else.

society B says it is right - then it is right for society B and not for everyone else.

As a moral relativist, you cannot say someone who conforms to the standards of society B is wrong because that directly contradicts your idea of moral relativism.

Only an objective moral basis can be wrong or right across localities or time.

That's where you're wrong. Demonstrating, the negative effects that an act can have on an individual and societal level can be used to argue whether it should be allowed or not.

Also, in modern times, societies are no longer isolated. So society A and B have to come to some sort of compromise in order to coexist.

tartar9:
"Sexually attracted to young children"...really

Yeah, like diddling a 9 year old.

rekinomtla:
You labeling him as a paedophile according to the customs and views of your society. People of his time did not share your views. You can't subscribe to moral relativism and at the same time condemn people from different societies as pedophiles.

He's a paedophile by the literal definition of the word. He was a fully grown man who was sexually attracted to young children.

Most people who subscribe to moral relativism still know that general societal consensus is used as the standard although subject to change. So, sorry to say, most people are against paedophilia.

rekinomtla:
They have a different view than you regarding marriage. You can't condemn them for that and simultaneously say morality is relative.

Also you seem to forget that objectively weighing the effects of paedophilia, there are marked negative social, economic, and mental effects to it.

johnydon22:
This reduces moral judgements to opinions, you may say Muhammed was wrong, another may say he is right - since we are all making subjective moral judgements, neither opinion out weights the other.

A subjective moral basis is meaningless. Morality at best is intersubjective and require fundamental beliefs about the moral subjects that translates into the moral weight of a given action.


Since Muhammed was clearly acting based an accepted moral structure of his time - he is far from being wrong.

Judging something that happened 1500 years ago with the moral or even legal framework of today, doesn't follow. Unless you are saying that morality is objective and remains unchanged and binding - which i am sure you are not saying.

I think intersubjectivity is a simple enough way of describing what most moral relativists really mean when we say that morality is subjective since a lot people seem to misunderstand it.

However, the case still stands that the best that a religious leader and a supposedly perfect man could do was reflect the morality of his time.

This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that even in modern times people still is his actions to justify their own padephilia. Do you see any Muslim on this thread saying "yes, the prophet messed up here"? No they defend his actions, ironically using some variation of one of the responses in the meme I posted.

johnydon22:
You did not really answer his question bro.

READ IT AGAIN

While I believe that morality is indeed subjective, we all still make judgements based on it, no matter how socially libertarian you may be, you still make mortal decisions based on your personal view.

Or else, there's really no other way for anyone to make judgements.

Also, I don't think that supporters of paedophilia outnumber people who are against. So, even going by that standard, Mohammed is still in the wrong.

Has anyone seen Devilman Crybaby here? Do you think it lived up to the hype?

This show has had rave reviews online since it dropped in back in January 2018, but after watching it, I can't say that I see where the hype is coming from.

In my view, the story seemed contrived, the plot progression was inconsistent, the characterization and character development was lacking, and the dialogue was atrocious. I personally liked the visuals and the sound direction, though.

If you've seen it can you tell ne what you think?

.

rekinomtla:
How are atheists criticizing aisha marriage when they believe society is the source of morality? If the marriage was normal and accepted by the society back then, then the atheist has no valid objections. You can't have your cake and eat it too, either morality is relative/subjective or it is not.

Simple, if Mohammed was not a perfect man - which he wasn't, since he was a paedophile - Islam is a baseless belief.

In addition, his sexual perversion is used in the Islamic world to justify their own sexual perversion. Making Islam an actively dangerous belief.

tartar9:
There is nothing wrong in their marriage.Not a single soul complained even from amongst his enemies who were ever in search of any excuse to discredit Him.Just in the 19th century in your so-called "advanced countries",the legal age of marriage was 12 for women.

Which is horrible, but at least there's a significant chance that a 12 year old girl has begun puberty. Also, marrying a 12 year old does not fall under the strictest definition of paedophilia but rather hebophilia, which is still horrible but marginally less so than paedophilia.

Furthermore, you would expect that a man chosen by Allah, a so-called perfect man to not be paedophile. Why should he follow the barbaric ways of the past when he's supposed to be a timeless example of perfection?

CAPSLOCKED:
AND HIS FOLLOWERS IN THIS DAY DIDDLE UNDER 12'S, ALL IN THE NAME OF EMULATING THE PROPHET, AS IF SÈX WITH CHILDREN WAS THE ONLY FEAT HE ACHIEVED THAT QUALIFIES FOR EMULATION.

Give them some credit, they also wage war on unbelievers and stone women to death. As Allah intended.

Martinez39:
I am not trying to downgrade certificates and academic qualifications but I have seen people with PhD, MSc, BSc, MBBS, BDS etc. that think and say stupid things that a layman isn't expected to say.

Being good in a particular field doesn't necessarily mean you are good in others,