Why is Capcom promoting zoophilia?

[Doson・ザ・ロリ好き紳士]

As it always is these days, they remove the ability to create short characters because some people are going to make loli characters. Let's not pretend there's any other reason. They're always doing this to appease the western moral busybodies because "what if people sexaulize them?"

That means what they've left us they're ok with being sexualized. Well, what have they given us? These cat things. They're not even your typical furry characters either, but just full blown realistic cat faces. What the hell?

Edit:

itt: I critisize zoophilia

A bunch of people make it about the P word.

Really makes you think. Did somebody say... PROJECTION!?!?!

[Jobko]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Wazii の投稿を引用：

Loli in Japan is used to refer to victorian era style clothes also called Lolita. Some Japanese anime/manga fans have adopted it to refer to kids without realizing it was specifically the style of clothes. While many in the western world associate it to children P***. You have people who see the word referring to three different things and only one of them is morally bad.

yeah but we aren't in japan right now are we. this isn't a japanese message board and the people complaining about loli are clearly focusing ont he sexualization of child or child like people.

Stop using "child-like" as if its a winning statement. Adults can be "child-like", "youthful". You sound like you really don't like people being attracted to Asians/short-people.

[[-iD-]]

Jobko の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

yeah but we aren't in japan right now are we. this isn't a japanese message board and the people complaining about loli are clearly focusing ont he sexualization of child or child like people.

Stop using "child-like" as if its a winning statement. Adults can be "child-like", "youthful". You sound like you really don't like people being attracted to Asians/short-people.

give me one example of a person who insists on dressing like a child in media. i'll wait.

[Jobko]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Wazii の投稿を引用：

We're going off track now, Yes Loli can refer to Lolicon (Definition 1)
But also Lolita (definition 2)
Lolita fashion emerged in Japan during the 1990s as a radical form of street style born out of the Japanese taste for Hello Kitty cuteness.3 It is inspired primarily by the clothing and general aesthetics of the Rococo and Victorian periods. Lolita fashion has grown to be relatively popular all over the world. (Often on children or child-like characters but not always)
And with anime thrown into the mix and people NOT being from Japan it also got opted into definition 3 (Childlike character, your six hundred year old vampire or w/e). from people who kept hearing the therm but didn't realize it was related to fasion.

again we aren't in japan here and the agreed upon translation for the slang term lolicon is pedophile due to the nature of the two words used. COMPLEX and LOLITA.

You do realize that Lolita is a nickname for the main character of the book Lolita right? Lolita doesn't mean pedophile, it never has meant pedophile.

[[-iD-]]

Jobko の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

again we aren't in japan here and the agreed upon translation for the slang term lolicon is pedophile due to the nature of the two words used. COMPLEX and LOLITA.

You do realize that Lolita is a nickname for the main character of the book Lolita right? Lolita doesn't mean pedophile, it never has meant pedophile.

no lolita means a precociously seductive girl
loli means child-like character.
put two and two together and you get pedophile.

[vaanomega]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

vaanomega の投稿を引用：

People ? Character are people now ?

you can make some seriously real looking people in this game so yeah sure.

Sure, but they sill are real people
I know you use this of argument because the argumentation here is awfull, Doson using Beastern for example is pretty bad
The only Furries that i could considere as weird as Lolicon content is things like non humanoid furries, and the Beastern are Humanoids

To be honnest, i don't mind those people, it's weird, but they aren't hurting anyone, that's why i don't understand why it's such a big deal, it's not like DD 1 had sexual content in it, i doubt DD2 will

[[-iD-]]

vaanomega の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

you can make some seriously real looking people in this game so yeah sure.

Sure, but they sill are real people
I know you use this of argument because the argumentation here is awfull, Doson using Beastern for example is pretty bad
The only Furries that i could considere as weird as Lolicon content is things like non humanoid furries, and the Beastern are Humanoids

To be honnest, i don't mind those people, it's weird, but they aren't hurting anyone, that's why i don't understand why it's such a big deal, it's not like DD 1 had sexual content in it, i doubt DD2 will

they hurt the image of capcom giving them a kind of medium for their disgusting perversions.

[vaanomega]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Jobko の投稿を引用：

You do realize that Lolita is a nickname for the main character of the book Lolita right? Lolita doesn't mean pedophile, it never has meant pedophile.

no lolita means a precociously seductive girl
loli means child-like character.
put two and two together and you get pedophile.

Honnestly, i only saw loli-con being related to 2D media, not for true things

[Jobko]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Jobko の投稿を引用：

Stop using "child-like" as if its a winning statement. Adults can be "child-like", "youthful". You sound like you really don't like people being attracted to Asians/short-people.

give me one example of a person who insists on dressing like a child in media. i'll wait.

Dressing? I'm sorry, that conversation is with the other guy talking about Lolita fashion. I'm talking about looking child-like, which you can apply to anyone, regardless of how they dress, if they fit the category. Belle Delphine, Bella Poarch, Jenna Ortega, come to mind as popular people you might know. However most Asians fit this definition, and there are many JAV idols that look young, and dress young.

[Jobko]

vaanomega の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

no lolita means a precociously seductive girl
loli means child-like character.
put two and two together and you get pedophile.

Honnestly, i only saw loli-con being related to 2D media, not for true things

Because it is. It's a fictional exclusive thing. There is no where that will tell you otherwise. Wikipedia specifically says " lolicon in otaku (manga/anime fan) culture is generally understood as distinct from desires for realistic depictions of girls, or real girls as such,[1][2][3] and is associated with the concept of moe, or feelings of affection and love for fictional characters as such (often cute characters in manga and anime)."

[CadaveR]

Jobko の投稿を引用：

𝐂𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐑 の投稿を引用：

Just a question, any source by the devs on this or is just your immagination?

Look up "Lusty Argonian Maid". Elder Scrolls has sexualized its non-human races for ages.

I've play tes since arena, read everything on the imperial library and i never found any sexualization on any race for "ages". just that book, that is nothing more than a joke.
Sexualization. lol.

[Jobko]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Jobko の投稿を引用：

Lol. So as long as they look real to you, they are real. They are fictional characters, literally - not if, ands, or buts. If you think these are real people, and that short people = children, then you NEED TO GO OUTSIDE AND TOUCH GRASS LMAO.

i never said short people are children i said imaginary people that look like children are off limits and because the devs agree maybe you should just cope harder.

So fictional characters that are child-like are bad, but adults that are child-like are okay? Why do you apply logic for fictional things and not real things, if you see the idea itself as a bad thing. If the idea itself is bad, then wouldn't the real existence of that thing be worse that a fictional existence? Something that cannot affect reality vs. one that is apart of reality?

[[-iD-]]

Jobko の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

give me one example of a person who insists on dressing like a child in media. i'll wait.

Dressing? I'm sorry, that conversation is with the other guy talking about Lolita fashion. I'm talking about looking child-like, which you can apply to anyone, regardless of how they dress, if they fit the category. Belle Delphine, Bella Poarch, Jenna Ortega, come to mind as popular people you might know. However most Asians fit this definition, and there are many JAV idols that look young, and dress young.

belle delphine is her own style not the style attempting emulate a child. i dont know about the others and i dont care but i guarantee its the same.
and if you do find some one trying to emulate the look of a child plz report to chris hansen. as we all know how that works out for them.

[[-iD-]]

Jobko の投稿を引用：

-iD- の投稿を引用：

i never said short people are children i said imaginary people that look like children are off limits and because the devs agree maybe you should just cope harder.

So fictional characters that are child-like are bad, but adults that are child-like are okay? Why do you apply logic for fictional things and not real things, if you see the idea itself as a bad thing. If the idea itself is bad, then wouldn't the real existence of that thing be worse that a fictional existence? Something that cannot affect reality vs. one that is apart of reality?

there is a difference in virtue signaling youth and trying to emulate that of a child.

[vaanomega]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

vaanomega の投稿を引用：

Sure, but they sill are real people
I know you use this of argument because the argumentation here is awfull, Doson using Beastern for example is pretty bad
The only Furries that i could considere as weird as Lolicon content is things like non humanoid furries, and the Beastern are Humanoids

To be honnest, i don't mind those people, it's weird, but they aren't hurting anyone, that's why i don't understand why it's such a big deal, it's not like DD 1 had sexual content in it, i doubt DD2 will

they hurt the image of capcom giving them a kind of medium for their disgusting perversions.

Highly judgmental post, i don't understand how you ger so angry agaisnt them for nothing, there is some weird ♥♥♥♥ i can't stand, but i wont be aggressive toward people like those

[Jobko]

-iD- の投稿を引用：

Jobko の投稿を引用：

You do realize that Lolita is a nickname for the main character of the book Lolita right? Lolita doesn't mean pedophile, it never has meant pedophile.

no lolita means a precociously seductive girl
loli means child-like character.
put two and two together and you get pedophile.

You misread the etymology you looked up. "fem. proper name, diminutive of Lola (thus a double diminutive). Title and character name in the 1958 novel by Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977)" is the defining of the word, with "fem. proper name, diminutive of Spanish Dolores." being the expanded defining, which is correct because the female main characters name in Lolita is Dolores. What you took was the description of the book by Vladimir Nabokov, which starts the sentence with "about".

Since you like to go to the original etymology, the original usage of the word was a nickname for Dolores in the book Lolita. However, in the 1960s they used the word for "to designate people and situations resembling those in the book.", which came after the book. Even after that, in 1995, it was used to describe a "doll-like Japanese fashion is mentioned in English circa 1995; the reference is ultimately derived from the Nabokov book, but in Japan the term had evolved a sense of "babyfaced adult" or "physically underdeveloped adult" and so became applied to the fashion style which tends to eschew any clothing elements traditionally seen as erotic or sexualized in favor of appearing cute and innocent."

The etymology matters for words to see how they were once used, or where they came from, but just like the word "gay" we no longer use it to mean happy. Words have multiple definitions, and it's considered a word-concept fallacy to diminish other definitions of a word, and say the opposition in an argument is using another definition. My agreed upon definition for loli/lolicon/lolita does not mean pedophile, so if you want to keep strawmanning me, and keep using the word-concept fallacy, than you simply have no argument.