>that essay by the translator at the end

Base +6, blsboner +8, king or kami +6, thatfuckingduck +6, Genki for Life +5, TheQuasar +5, JimmyG17 +4, shanyc +4, poopyface +6

Anti... Anticrack-kun? Is that you?

Base +8, MaartenAr +4, tomoki18 +6, TheQuasar +5, JimmyG17 +4, Krugger +6, ffxxffxx +2, shanyc +4, poopyface +6

I'm not entirely sure why he thinks five paragraphs of bitching about how evil and disrespectful it is to read pornography of underage fictional characters in non-canon pairings (as opposed to pornography of underage fictional characters in canon pairings, which is a wise and eminently moral decision that affords them nothing but the highest honor) would improve the experience.

But whatever. Madohomu is Madohomu is lovely. Thanks, anticrackfag! You've proven that if you took the time you spent writing inane tracts and put it into translation, you might be a respectable fellow instead of /u/'s favorite whipping boy.

Kindly keep doing that. The best way to make people love MadoHomu and KyouSaya and so forth over other pairings is to give them lots of material for it, not ramble on and on about those wicked degenerates who dare to imply that Kyouko might be cuter with Mami.

Base +6, demeaener5 +9, akaikem +6, flare79 -6, reculeor -9, Kukri +6, MaartenAr +4, archit +6, TheQuasar +5, Occisor -6, ffxxffxx +2, soupiewg +5, Person8 -7, and 2 more...

pg 8 should be "why didn't you say anything?" instead of "why did you say anything?"

Base +6, blsboner +8, Genki for Life +5, archit +6, TheQuasar +5, SPitts -9

Acefighter159, I can't help but laugh at how pathetic you are. Running around and downvoting everything you don't like, never even trying to propose a counter argument. And how I was able to predict exactly what you would say, and wrote a reply to it in advance. "lol it's bitching and wrong because it says things I don't like." Yeah, already covered why you're an idiot. Read the last couple lines.

And what you fail to realize, because you're inane and literally retarded, is that you are the one in the wrong here.
"I'm respectable, and you're not respectable because you say not to insult the characters."
Do you realize that insulting things is not a good or respectable thing to do?

And yes, you are a degenerate, you're also worthless as a person. And it couldn't matter less who likes what, because that's not a factor in whether content is degrading to the characters or not.

I'm still laughing at your dating profile by the way, consider renaming.

Edit:
Haha, you're so pathetic all you can do is cry and whine on /u/ that you're not smart, and how your downvotes just prove what low caliber trash you are. You know that no one will protect you here, so you reply on /u/ instead where you know if anyone says anything against you they're get their posts deleted.
You can't disprove anything I said, so you turn to other people who like to insult the characters so they'll make you feel better because they share your opinion that it's perfectly fine to insult the characters.

Don't get upset you get called stupid when you act like it. All you did was say "lol it's bitching and wrong because it says things I don't like." But you didn't even read it, because it's already explained how that's not a real rebuttal.

Last edited on 16 March 2015, 16:35 UTC.

Base +1, crunch fizzlebeef -3, akaikem -6, thatfuckingduck -6, flare79 +6, archit -6, TheQuasar -5, JimmyG17 -4, Occisor +6, ffxxffxx -2, Kukri -6, soupiewg -5, tueddel -8, and 5 more...

That note at the end was unnecessary and doesn't make sense. But the art is nice.

Base +2, Genki for Life +5, TheQuasar +5, Person8 +7, shanyc +4, SPitts -9

Yeah, Meganneko-Fishorigu? How does it not make sense?

Sidenote:
And there's nonegiven. One of the other other people that consistently downvote rather than make an actual argument.
It's funny how self righteous shipperfags are when they're the ones insulting and degrading the characters.
They just cry and whine when anyone says their taste is bad, and think they don't need anything other than their opinion to prove it's not.
You, as a matter of fact, are bastardizing the characters for the sake of shipping, and think that you are a positive force for doing so.

Oh, and Acefighter159. For the record, I've always been more worthwhile to the community than you have been. I just did this because I was bored, and thought it'd be funny to show stupid and predictable people like you are.
These eight are just a drop in the bucket of everything I've done.

Base +1, akaikem -6, Genki for Life -5, Kukri -6, archit -6, TheQuasar -5, soupiewg -5, tueddel -8, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Red_Piotrus +50, SPitts +9

Really? A 7 paragraph dissertation about ecchi, hentai and lesbian sex of cannon/not cannon pairs of characters?

Wow.
THIS
IS
EX-HENTAAAAAAIIIII

Base +7, king or kami +6, Genki for Life +5, archit +6, TheQuasar +5, Person8 +7, shanyc +4, poopyface +6, SPitts -9

Is there a way to get that last 'image' removed? It contributes nothing and doesn't function as a credit page, either.

Base +6, Genki for Life +5, reculeor -9, Kukri +6, TheQuasar +5, Occisor -6, ffxxffxx +2, soupiewg +5, Person8 +7, shanyc +4, poopyface +6, SPitts -9

@Exhausted
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it contributes nothing.
What really contributes is you, both in terms of providing content, and it terms of furthering the discussion.
If you just want to cry about things you don't like, why don't you just go to reddit and downvote things. Because that's all your post amounts to.

Base +1, Genki for Life -5, Kukri -6, archit -6, TheQuasar -5, Occisor +6, tueddel -8, Person8 -7, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, SPitts +9

Hey, hey! Exhausted!
Do you know what else "contributes nothing?"
This credits page. /g-hentai/?s=e7bf4325dc/760920-27
But I don't see you looking for it to be taken down. The real difference is that once credits page fully forms an argument, rather than just being petty spiteful and treating the characters like shit.

Base +3, reculeor +9, TheQuasar -5, Noderlol -6, soupiewg -5, akaikem -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, SPitts +9

It's funny to watch people downvote because it shows they're too stupid to make an argument.
They're not voting based on the quality of the comment, but on what they do or don't like.
Because it's not about being off-topic either, or you'd be downvoting Acefighter159 as well.

The last few sentences in the credits page covers everything perfectly. You think your downvote proves your "right" or whatever, and that you don't have to prove how something is wrong.

P.S. To the anon on /u/ asking about Momoya. Be buys doujin about Sayaka and Kyouko getting raped by faceless men. So he's garbage and I will never translate his works.

Base +1, Genki for Life -5, reculeor +9, akaikem -6, archit -6, TheQuasar -5, Person8 -7, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

tl;dr a normal credits page with a good kyousaya pic would have been better i think
oh well, time to go back to my blasphemous and degrading alternative pairings

Base +7, TheQuasar +5, Person8 +7, SPitts -9

>reading the comments on /u/ a a result of these uploads
https://viid.me/9Mw6e

Oh my god, I'm dying here, I can't stop laughing. People on /u/ are so inhumanly stupid.
>-m muh interpolations
He says the message is wrong, and then goes and shows he didn't even read it. Because it addresses everything about interpretations.

"interpretation"fags are the bane of all intelligence and discussion. If the only thing that mattered was your personal interpretation then there would never be a wrong answer to anything. Because you are using a personally formed value to confirm validation, which circular logic.

In short they're idiots who don't know the difference between deduction and interpretation.

Base +3, TheQuasar -5, Noderlol -6, soupiewg -5, Kukri -6, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, SPitts +9

OK I usually don't comment but... was that rant in credit page necessary? Or do you really think it might change anything, that it even matters? That someone will take it seriously?
That someone cares?
I don't think so.

Base +6, SPitts -9

@Izmaeil
Delusion is the key factor self righteousness. It's not a matter of taking anything seriously, it's a matter of being correct and incorrect, that's all there is to it. The words speak for themselves, whether the typist is "serious" or not is wholly irrelevant.

And of course the people who like insulting and degrading the characters will not care about it, because they don't care about the characters in the first place. They just care about amusing themselves. But just because they don't care about it doesn't make it wrong, it just means they're delduing themselves into self righteousness, that they can do no wrong, and that no matter how they treat the characters they are still in the right.

Base +1, Heno -9, Mkerd -6, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

These characters were created for amusement and for profit therefore there is no correct or right way of treatment, after all these characters are not living human beings which means "they" have no right applicable on real human being. There is no right or wrong way of treatment.
Creators of the show gave us toys and it's up to us what we will do with them, with certain limitations of not using them to make profit and all that is against licensing policy of rights' owner.

Base +6, Red_Piotrus +50, SPitts -9

Melonbooks - https://www.melonbooks.co.jp/detail/detail.php?product_id=119721

Pixiv - https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=48128351

Base +33, Red_Piotrus +50, poopyface +6

@Izmaeil
I already proved everything you said wrong with the credits page.

Edit:
Guess I'll go into more detail because you clearly didn't understand it the way it was worded.

It doesn't matter what "rights" you think the characters do or don't have. The fact of the matter is that you are making negative statements about them, thus, due to the being negative, they are degrading, as to degrade means to make lesser in value.

This is a really simple concept, and I'm not sure how you don't understand it.

Last edited on 17 March 2015, 00:05 UTC.

Base +1, soupiewg -5, Heno -9, shanyc -4, Mkerd -6, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

Heh, people are still going on /u/. It's funny to watch the most concentrated tumblrtards flip their shit over the idea that everything might not be subjective, and they can be wrong in their perfect little world.

https://viid.me/9Mw6e

Base +3, soupiewg -5, Kukri -6, Heno -9, shanyc -4, Mkerd -6, Waki_Miko -5, SPitts +9

Reminder that posting from two different accounts doesn't make you two different people.

Base +6, akaikem +6, Kukri +6, SPitts -9

nonegiven, I forget, have we been over this? The whole "the only people who samefag are idiots who think the number of people on their side means they w"win" more" thing? Because you're still wrong on every account no matter how many people are telling you.

The only thing that's been confirmed is you let Troid, a mod so stupid he got his identity found out while shitposting anonymously and abusing his mod powers, brain was you into thinking his agenda. Just because he deleted all the posts on /a/ and /u/ doesn't mean that all those posts were from one person. It just means that the pokemon fanfic writing loser couldn't deal with stances other than his own.

Base +3, soupiewg -5, Heno -9, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, SPitts +9

Now people on the Dynasty forums are talk about this. I feel to special.

But I can't help but laugh at all the idiots who say "lol mental issues ur wrong" like that actually proves something.
It truly is just the retards that think they can counter argumentative points points with personal insults.

Base +1, Heno -9, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

@-anon-

Even if we take you at face value that non-canon pairings "degrade" the characters involved, how does that cause any harm? They're fictional. I don't think most creators really care about non-canon pairings, as long as fans don't try to sell it or insist "it's totally canon, guys!" To them it's just the fans having fun with their work. In other circumstances, how could this character behave? How would the dynamics work between this character and this character? What are the motivational forces that drive characterization in one direction or the other? It's all writing exercises, albeit ones you say degrade the characters involved.

I'm sure metafiction authors actually love seeing non-canon, since their work is all about how characters and stories work.

Base +6, Red_Piotrus +50

@Egasd
Wow, a reply that isn't "lol autism, mental issues, u stupid xd."
I'd like to thank you for being rational in this wave of retardation that comes from other people.
Okay, here I go.
There does not have to be direct harm in order for it to be a bad thing. This is not even a new concept, similar examples are the burning of a nations flag. No direct harm is done to anyone person, but this action is illegal in most nations, and if often used in literature and other media represent the disrespect of a country. Other concepts such a blasphemy are based on the idea of insulting something that you can not do direct harm to. Oh course the characters are not god, but I assume you can see my point, and in either case no harm is done to anyone, but the action is still considered a negative one.

And creators of content are more of less forced to except whatever the fans do because they can not be controlled, and more often than not stopping them from making such content. A good example of this in Nindento. At one time they made a copy right that prevented the production of certain types of fanworks involving their characters. But the legal issues presented too much fall out.

In this case it's not that you're doing harm, but more expressing the quality of person you are. Would a high quality person go around constantly insulting the strong feelings the characters in the stories posses? Of course not. The actions are still negative even if they don't cause harm.

Base +1, Mkerd -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

@-anon-

In the case of blasphemy is causing hurt to the worshippers of a god and disrespect to a nation you're causing hurt to its citizens. Regardless, disrespect is not necessarily a negative action. I make jokes about the gods every day, and Jesus/Allah/Buddha help me if someone complains about something short of "[insert religion(s) here] is bad and wrong".

Regardless, I don't see how it speaks badly of me to ship, for fun, two characters while acknowledging that the canon relationship is the true one. I am not insulting the feelings of any character because they don't exist, and even if they were to, I am accepting that their strong feelings are canonical and that I'm just having fun. Just because dogs exist don't mean you can't write about a world without them. It doesn't insult the long, fruitful relationship between dogs and humanity to do so, nor the efforts of dog breeders from millennia till now to foster that relation.

Base +6, Red_Piotrus +50

@Egasd
That's the thing, you're not actually hurting them. There is nothing that says you must inherently take offence to these actions of blasphemy and disrespect. Burning a flag will not magically cut off someone's arm.
You are confusing "offence" and "insult". You must actively take offence to something, but an insult does not have to have a direct result. You can insult someone, and they can not care, but it doesn't mean your statement wasn't an insult. Which leads me to your next point.

Yes, disrespect is always an action with a negative value flow. You implied something of high value was actually low. No matter how serious you were about the comment the implication still took place. Just because you think/say "I'm not doing something negative" doesn't mean you actually aren't. Implications happen regardless of intent. Have you never heard the phrase "to accidentally insult someone"? Same thing, only you never learn what you're doing, so you keep insulting them and don't stop. Also note the idiom "to insult someone behind their back." This means to insult someone without their knowledge, which is exactly what happens in the case. An insult without an effect.

>for fun
Haha, that's so funny, you were only kidding about my feelings being weak, cheap, and disposable?! Haha, that's great!

See how dumb that sounds? You're having "fun" insulting them. Just because you have fun doing something doesn't mean it's no longer an insult. Think of the school bully, he had fun insulting people, did that make it okay?
And like I said in the credits page, to ship multiple pairs is to treat them like interchangeable parts, meaning their feelings are so meaningless they could lose them all with no consequence.
You can't just shelve their feelings and say "okay, I'll use them again later, but I don't care about them right now." The act of you "shelving" then implies they're worthless in the setting you're excluding them. Because the only way to substantiate value is by adding them to the setting. (WAIT, I know you're thinking. But just hold onto it for a second.) You don't give the feelings value just by admitting you think they're strong, because again, words and thoughts alone are not proof of validity. And this leads to the point where I told you to wait.

You were thinking "No way, you don't have to add something to a story in order to imply it has value. That would mean everything not in the story in the story is worthless!"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why your dog example is flawed. By taking dogs out of the setting you are taking out a whole concept, but in the case of the characters you only taking out their feelings and leaving their "base", so to speak. This is why there's not absence of evidence, the character's still there. However the dog example does lack evidence as there are no dogs whatsoever thus no implication is being made about them either way.

Base +1, Mkerd -6, Kukri -6, shanyc -4, Waki_Miko -5, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

@-anon-

At what point am I insulting someone? They are characters, little ideas on a screen and page meant to elicit emotions. They are not real, and have no actual feelings. It is disturbing how you cling so hard to the idea that we must be insulting fictional beings somehow. All human fiction is by its nature worthless, only imbued with worth from the viewers' and creators' interpretation of them. The circumstances and process of imbuing meaning is the entire point of literary and other creative theories, and there is no guarantee that the creators' intent is the final say. Communists and capitalists both read "The Communist Manifesto", but the latter searches outside of the meaning Marx intended for the work. There's an entire literary idea called "death of the author", where they are discarded, and as many other ideas between total death and total adherence to the author's intent as there are people.

If you cannot accept that we can disregard the creator's intent, then we must necessarily view all fiction exactly as intended. This is toxic to critical thought and dissent, and many creators even encourage people to challenge their intent or leave things ambiguous to allow the reader to make their own choices. That doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the creator's intent and canonicity, but that people have their own views on it and will discuss it.

If you insist that non-canon pairings are an abomination, then you are also insisting that we must read all the horrible fictions of the world exactly as how the creators intended. Are you really okay letting Twilight exist without any critique?

Base +6, Red_Piotrus +50, poopyface +6

@Egasd
I have to asked, did you actually read anything I've written so far, or in the credits page?

I even explicitly said it, twice no less. You insult is not dependent on the target of said insult having feelings, or even being able to acknowledge it. Thus why brought up the idiom "to insult someone behind their back." An insult is both verb and noun, and what are confusing it with is "offence." Which is exclusively a noun, meaning someone must always posses it. An insult is nothing more than making a negative statement about a subject. That's all the qualifiers it has. An insult does not need to have a direct result, it just needs to be an action taken. Because again, you can insult someone, and they can not care. The insult had no effect, but it's still an insult.

You also seems to be confused about what Death of the Author is. For one, DotA is just a concept that claim the author's personal bias has no role in the story itself after said story has been told. For example, something like this: A story is written, and then over twitter the author says "X character now has blue hair." Obviously the characters hair color did not magically change. DotA is all about how a story exists in its own right, and is supported by the facts of the series itself, rather than what the author says from external sources.
You are also confusing authorial intent, with story narrative. The question of character development is built by the story narrative, not the author's intent. I also covered more parts of this in the credits page. See the part that's about "stories being set in stone.

And lastly, as I also already stated. Not all deviations from canon are negative statements, as not all of them make negative implications about the characters. Duh.

Base +1, Red_Piotrus +50, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

So much energy and fire for a harmless non-h parody, when straight porn is swarmed with ooc garbage often catering to people not even fans of the source material.

Base +4

Maybe people would be more sympathetic if this person wasn't crazy and didn't stalk people who disagree with them on IRCs.

Base +6, soupiewg +5, SPitts -9

@intervigilium
That's sort of the point. That the alternate pairings are no better than the straight porn with gang rape or whatever in essence treat the characters in the same way. Ignoring everything meaningful about them in order to cater to a cheap whim.

Base +1, SPitts +9

Hey, noisekeeper60. Try reading this.
https://viid.me/9MeB3

Base +3, SPitts +9

@Egasd
/img/e-hentai/gGD9i/554f94a479.png

Indeed you are wrong again.
Mainly because you, like so many other people, don't understand the difference between deduction and interpretation.
A faultily interpretation is not a deduction, and a faultily interpretation is more or less the same as "accidentally insulting someone."
Interpretation can be non factual, while deduction is based on laws or principles. You can have multiple interpretations, but only one deduction.

It would be so much easier to discuss with people if I didn't have to explain terminology as I go along.

Base +1, tueddel -8, SPitts +9

Holy shit you idiots don't RESPOND to him. This guy is so obviously a crazy troll starved for attention that he belongs in an internet textbook. Post your witty one-liners about how crazy and pathetic he is, then ignore him. DO NOT ENGAGE. You're only feeding him if you do.

Base +6, soupiewg +5, SPitts -9

@-anon-

My post on /u/ was stupid, looking back; I had slept very little.

Regardless, you are a strange man with strange ideas that make no sense. I'll continue shipping non-canon, because there is nothing morally wrong with it.

Lastly,

>An insult is both verb and noun, and what are confusing it with is "offence." Which is exclusively a noun, meaning someone must always posses it.

You have no idea what a noun actually IS, do you? A noun is simply a unit of speech that can occur as the subject of a clause (or object of verb/preposition). That's it. No one needs to own a noun. If you have a problem with that definition, then take it up with the linguists.

Base +6, SPitts -9

@Exhausted
You don't know what a troll is, please google the term. It does not mean "saying things I don't like."
And it's funny, because your "one liners" actually prove you're pathetic. Because it shows the only thing you're smart enough to do is insult people. You can't make a coherent argument about any subject.
Maybe if you weren't so deluded into thinking everything is a troll you'd be able to think more rationally. A troll must have two things, the information is inherently false, and meant to be inflammatory. Please earn this basic things.

You're not even reading anything, you're just calling it wrong because you don't like a few key words.

@Egasd
>there is nothing morally wrong with it.
Morals are subjective, so I will not argue about them. But if your moral included the notion that insulting people is wrong, your statement is false.

You also skipped over a vast majority of my last posts. Mainly things like your dog example (whole concept vs partial concept.) and how you were wrong about what Death of the Author is.

And my definition of deduction is not weird, it's the definition of the word. A conclusion based on a law or fact through observation.

Also, you seemed to wholly miss the point about offence. Nouns, at the most basic level, are the object of a sentence. Offence "possessed" by no one is just nothing, because offence is something you feel. While on the other side an insult is an action. And not all actions have to have their intended result.

Base +1, tueddel -8, SPitts +9