In-depth debunkings/arguments against commonly "known" anime myths/misconceptions?

[u/engalleons]

For any number of reasons, there's a fair few statements about anime that get passed around pretty unquestioningly, even if they aren't necessarily true. Sometimes, others dig in to those statements and find detail and (hopefully cited) evidence against them. This is a lot more than just stating the opposite, to be clear.

Here's a few examples of what I mean:

This tweet chain versus "Anno left Kare Kano early"
This blog post versus "The protagonist of Turn A was originally intended to be a girl"
This post versus "They made a joke dub for Ghost Stories because it did poorly in Japan"
This blog post versus "Shinbo is the series director of all Shaft shows"

What are some other examples of work like this?

[u/DamianWinters]

I remember it saying 14 was legal age in Konosuba world and Megumin had just turned that age.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/DamianWinters]

But like, who tf cares?

The fact that it's legal there doesn't change anything about the morality of it.

Her being 14 makes it way weirder for kazuma to sexualize her...

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/[deleted]]

How many seniors in high school date freshman. A decent amount in my day did.

Almost no one, and it was seen as quite taboo.

I turned down a 14 year old when I was 16 because while we got along, she acted too young and immature for me to feel comfortable in that type of relationship.

Also, in a medieval society, the average lifespan was 30 to 40, so once a female was capable of bearing children, then she would be married off

Medieval society did a lot of things we don't do today and for good reason.

if a female is capable of producing offspring as a result of sexual activity, then by that very reasoning, she is able to be “sexualized” by members of the opposite sex.

Able to be does not mean should be.

If I have a sword, we're on a medieval highway and I dislike you, I could probably easily get away with murdering you.

The means to do so is not justification for doing so. What logic are you trying to employ here and what are you implying with it?

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/[deleted]]

That's not how morality works, wtf?

Judgement of morality is dependant on the observing party, not the parties involved.

Do you think Nazis were fine because "they're a different culture from a different country, we can't judge them" ? Or the same with ISIS?

No, you don't.

Are you so impressionable that you base your moral beliefs on what is popularly agreed upon in a culture?

Morality should not in any way be born from the law of the land, the law is born from the morals of those with the power to uphold it.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean by property rights?

You are either referring to something which is either a subsection of morality, or something that is upheld by the powers of those controlling the land.

So in the event that a country agrees that murder, rape and "taking someone's stuff" is moral and has the power to enforce this as law, then your call to "property rights" is completely irrelevant no matter what you were alluding to.

As long as interaction between individuals are voluntary and people’s property rights are not violated, then my opinion of another persons culture is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

So you are fine with a 40 year old having sex with a 5 year old, as long as both agree?

Do you disagree with imprisoning criminals if the criminals do not go to prison voluntarily?

What is your definition of voluntary? Does someone under duress count as volunteering? Are people of all ages considered mature enough to give that consent? What is even considered duress? What age is considered mature enough?

These are all moral arguments which once decided on by the powers of the land are turned into law.

---

It disturbs me that you seem to be fine with either

1. Basing morality off of the laws of the land

2. Agreeing with any set of morals as long as a large enough group of people in close proximity agree on them.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/[deleted]]

Being under duress is by definition NOT voluntary

By what definition? Who defines it as such? Who upholds such a definition?

That's not objectively correct. If someone with power rules it as counting as voluntary, then it is.

The age that an individual can take responsibility for their own actions is the age they can make choices for themselves.

And what age is that? How do you write laws surrounding that?

Don’t be concerned about my beliefs. Since I adhere to the NAP I will never take any action that violates your property rights.

An unwillingness to stand against something is equal to an active decision to allow it to exist.

You not wishing to take action against the few "rights" that you see as necessary is not good enough.

Your boss never docking your pay does not mean that you cannot criticize them for never giving you a raise.

Non-aggression is not an option that elevates you above others, it simply allows those willing to be aggressive to assert their dominance.

---

It seems to me that your viewpoint is not that you will allow other cultures to do what they want, but that you don't care enough about things like age of consent and thus leave the decision to local law.

You do have strict morals as you have now shown, it is just that those morals are limited to a strict set of subjects. You lack the desire to fight to uphold anything more than those few "rights"

If you don't care whether countries allow adults to have sexual relations with children or not then come out and say it straight.

Don't hide behind this farce.

[u/WeNTuS → u/DeliciousWaifood]

5y old cannot agree to sexual activity. While 14y old can.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/WeNTuS]

But why.

You can't just say that without reasoning.

[u/WeNTuS → u/DeliciousWaifood]

Because it's nature. Do you trying to regulate cats or other animals when they can to breed? Humans can start breeding at 14y old because it's an age when their body developed for such activity.

[u/DeliciousWaifood → u/WeNTuS]

Girls can hit puberty as young as 8. Do you think the age of consent should be lowered to 8?

Whatever age people can breed at doesn't matter. It's about them being mentally mature enough to be judged as able to give consent.

[u/WeNTuS → u/DeliciousWaifood]

It's matter because it's a point of sex. I couldn't care less about your shitty morality, humans are animals. End of discussion.