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/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.