• Is Rule 34 immoral?
    39 replies, posted
I'm going to regret asking this. :smith: But yeah, post your take on this. Specifically, if such a thing were possible, would you support something meant to eliminate and prevent the creation of artwork typically categorized as "Rule 34"? What would be your reasons for supporting/opposing such a measure (if support, don't just say "because it's gross", say [i]why[/i] it's gross). Would you let all forms of Rule 34 be eliminated or only forms meeting certain criteria? Note that I am mainly interested in the opinions of those who don't already have a fetish. Don't forget to send me rainbows and boxes.
No
Nope.
Immoral No way I mean, whats immoral about two cheese slices going at it?
Well, no. If some guy wants to fuck Frankie Foster, Lara Croft, or April O'Neal, let him fantasize it and draw porn of it, it's not like he's ever going to be able to stalk them and fuck them in some alley or anything. Granted it can turn into an unhealthy obsession, but I don't see anything extremely immoral with it.
Just so people know, I'm not voting in this poll myself. [b]Edit[/b] Part of my motivation for creating this thread was wondering, given Facepunch's anti-furry reputation (furry is covered by Rule 34, since it's Rule 34 of the entire animal kingdom), how the [i]fuck[/i] did a [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?970171-The-Dargoon-Megathread-V.9]scalie megathread[/url] get in General Discussion.
Sure it's not "nice to the childhood", but beside a copyright infringement, it's mostly harmless. Beside, I'd say it's a matter of what it is based on and how well it is made.
I don't see how it's immoral. My view on rule 34 is that it should be allowed to exist and be made since some people like it. However, I do think that people should be less quick to make rule 34 of things. Often I dislike people who respond to rule 34 saying "This ruined X for me/my childhood" since they're exaggurating far too much. But when the new Pokémon have only just been announced and I find that there's already been rule 34 made of it, I start to question my faith in humanity, and I hope when I get the next Pokémon game, I'll be able to think of anything other than the disturbing images of them I've already seen. So yeah, I'm fine with rule 34 existing, but I think people should make it for the people who actually like to see it, not for the sake of rule 34 of it existing.
Long answer: Generally no, but there are those rare times were I think it is, but it really depends on what the contents of the certain images is. Short answer: Nope
[QUOTE=GuyNumbers;25449115](if support, don't just say "because it's gross", say [i]why[/i] it's gross).[/QUOTE] That implies it's okay to ban something because [you feel] it's gross.
No, if I want to fap to a bottle of milk fucking a cow, I will. :v:
Rule 34 is awesome.
I don't see how it's any worse than regular porn, which is a lot like modeling, just a lot less classy and not as socially accepted.
brb going to rule 34 thread.
It's good at times, but then comes stuff like Conker's Bad Fur Day and Banjo Kazooie. :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Pruneyman;25449353]Rule 34 is disgusting yet funny.[/QUOTE] Fix'd
What people wank to makes no difference to me.
Haha no that's stupid
How can a drawing be immoral?
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;25450465]How can a drawing be immoral?[/QUOTE] what if its god giving jesus a
[QUOTE=<VET>Jasper;25450508]what if its god giving jesus a[/QUOTE] Most people don't consider masturbation immoral.
[QUOTE=Rasrap Smurf;25449250]But when the new Pokémon have only just been announced and I find that there's already been rule 34 made of it, I start to question my faith in humanity, and I hope when I get the next Pokémon game, I'll be able to think of anything other than the disturbing images of them I've already seen.[/QUOTE] I have pretty much take it for granted that there is rule 34 on ANY pokemon, not to mention the human characters.
[QUOTE=gufu;25450894]I have pretty much take it for granted that there is rule 34 on ANY pokemon, not to mention the human characters.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it does ruin it a bit for me that I find out what new Pokémon/human characters look like from rule 34 posted on facepunch before I even check to see if there's any news about the new games.
It's not the issue of Rule 34 being immoral, but it's more like it can be disturbing. Very disturbing, given the wording of it.
no its fine
I have no problem with it. what ever gets you off is your own buisness
Rule 34 is a form of recognition.
[QUOTE=Rasrap Smurf;25449250]I don't see how it's immoral. My view on rule 34 is that it should be allowed to exist and be made since some people like it. However, I do think that people should be less quick to make rule 34 of things. Often I dislike people who respond to rule 34 saying "This ruined X for me/my childhood" since they're exaggurating far too much. But when the new Pokémon have only just been announced and I find that there's already been rule 34 made of it, I start to question my faith in humanity, and I hope when I get the next Pokémon game, I'll be able to think of anything other than the disturbing images of them I've already seen. So yeah, I'm fine with rule 34 existing, but I think people should make it for the people who actually like to see it, not for the sake of rule 34 of it existing.[/QUOTE] Porn of something recent, HUMANITY IS IN THE SHITTER!! ! Seriously?...
no
Nope.avi I think it's a hilarious rule. Good way to wreck childhoods and fond memories.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.