Changed line(s) 15 from:
I can already imagine a hater of [[http://www.illumatie.nl/bunbuns/animations.html those shorts]] saying the same thing about it to me. “It does try to do more than showing bunnies exploding, and it fails miserably.”
“Your defense boils down to \
I can already imagine a hater of [[http://www.illumatie.nl/bunbuns/animations.html those shorts]] saying the same thing about it to me: “It does try to do more than showing bunnies exploding, and it fails miserably.”
“Your defense boils down to \\\"it\\\'s not that offensive\\\" and \\\"a gallery on E-Hentai has a not-atrocious rating\\\" which honestly means very little.”
I have never said that it was not offensive, as it is (I recall my quotation: “To put it bluntly, US Angel Corps may be very depraved, but whether or not it is the most depraved webcomic ever is a very subjective matter.”). My defense was a) to counter the hyperbole that it was \\\"the most vile webcomic ever created\\\" b) to give an image of what kind of people guro fans are, as it is with them in mind that such an article should be written.
\\\"a gallery on E-Hentai has a not-atrocious rating\\\" means a lot as it means that it has a fanbase. I requote the front page:
Important Note: Merely being offensive in its subject matter is insufficient. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there is a market for all types of deviancy (no matter how small a niche it is). It has to fail to appeal even to that niche to qualify as this.
You have used a very lame AppealToRidicule that is very disrespectful to both me as well as the one that rewrote the entire wiki. I started having a consensus with the user that commented me after he rewrote the entire article and you basically told him that all the effort that went into his re-edit was futile. It also does not require a lot of research to see that I wrote a lot more arguments than only 2. I used analogies and comparisons that you apparently did not even bother to watch as you recalled only 2 of my arguments. The other guy that was talking to me at least had the guts to admit that he did not represent the awfulness of the comic all that well and rewrote the article so that it had a reason to be on the list. I am more inclined now to comment on him so that the article may keep existing (I am already thinking of a good substitute should I win the debate and succeed at removing the article, as the article is well-written, but still has one major issue that could be fixed by replacing the comic with another one.).