Talk:Cuties
The fourth video and links should be removed.
Raidarr undid my edits that removed the links and videos. I know for certain that the links are to websites that contain the trailer and possibly the controversial poster, but I was also worried that videos, which I haven't seen, might show not only said poster but also any sexualized footage from the film.
He confirmed that at least most of the videos are either censored or have nothing to censor, but he only said that the fourth video is news reporting, not saying on whether or not it shows the poster or footage. Also, the Rotten Tomatoes, iMDB and Metacritic links still link to webpages that I know for certain contain or show promo material such as the trailer and possibly the poster.
The reason they should be deleted forever is so that no one would ever see the fourth video and/or said links. If they see them, then it will lead to them doing things that will harm other kids (for example: watching/seeing/downloading/possessing/supporting/sharing/posting/producing/selling/watching child porn and/or other sexual/graphic things involving children, preying upon/grooming/sexually harassing/abusing/molesting/raping/having sex with anyone who is under the age of 18 [including and ESPECIALLY babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, etc.], encouraging/enabling/inciting/asking/requesting/wanting others to do said actions, etc.), which is a bad thing and needs to be prevented from ever happening at all.
FreezingTNT (talk) 15:40, January 26, 2024 (UTC)
- Your logic is somewhat flawed: catching a few glimpses of minors being mildly sexualized does not make someone a pedophile. Besides, the footage of the movie shown in the fourth video + the promotional material you mentioned isn't that provocative anyway; if it were, then it most likely wouldn't be on the surface web where anybody can access it. Tali64³ (talk) 01:51, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- It's not that it automatically turns someone who isn't a pedophile into a pedophile, it's that anyone who's already a pedophile will start to feel sexual feelings upon/after seeing it, leading to any and/or all of the bad things I've mentioned.
- Also, (assuming that the fourth video does show the sexualized footage), showing children in lewd clothing is provocative, and so is showing children doing inappropriate things/dances/movements on-screen, and the poster and footage are already on the surface web, so we should be trying to prevent and clean up/erase/undo any and all damage.
- FreezingTNT (talk) 02:13, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- My second point still stands: the material you object to is not that provocative in the first place; the bad things that you point out could happen are not dependent on a pedophile looking at one semi-harmless video on the Internet. Tali64³ (talk) 02:17, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with the notion that showing children in lewd clothing and/or doing inappropriate things/dances/movements on-screen isn't that provocative. They are all that provocative. And putting them into/distributing/giving anyone access to the video/web page/etc. still gives anyone and everyone who is a pedophile easier access to them.
- FreezingTNT (talk) 02:21, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- The only thing objectionable in the material is somewhat-revealing outfits (I can see your point about it being provocative there). That alone does not justify deleting content of value, though; we shouldn't delete content based on "what ifs" and faulty logic. However, I will support removing the news report on the grounds that it doesn't really further the page's motive or contribute anything unique, not because I think it's inappropriate (that's subjective anyway; everything is inappropriate in someone's eyes). Tali64³ (talk) 02:33, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- I still think that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that ever shows children in lewd/revealing clothing and/or doing sexually suggetive/explicit dances/movements/things/etc. and/or being depicted in a sexual/sexualized/objectified manner/context/situation/scenario/etc. should be deleted and erased from existence. Anything and everything that exists, has existed, will exist and will continue to exist should NEVER have, contain, show or include pedo bait and/or any related (for example: child porn, nude children, children in any sexual situations/contexts/manners/scenarios/etc., etc.) AT ALL!!!!!!!! And the things I said that will happen if we don't stop them from happening at all aren't "what ifs", we don't know what WILL happen, so we should be trying to stop any bad things from happening at all before it's too late. FreezingTNT (talk) 02:51, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- I said you were naive before but now you're reading like you're off the hinges. You may as well ignore that this page exists because continuing this fanaticism will go as well for you as it did for lion king the last time. --Raidarr (talk) 09:29, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Why ignore this page? Can you please, at the very least, agree that my points above this comment are correct so that NOTHING would EVER show anyone under the age of 18 in any sexual/sexually suggestive/explicit/graphic manner/context/situation/scenarios at all so that NO ONE under the age of 18 would EVER be hurt at all? FreezingTNT (talk) 12:06, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- You've described a what-if situation to a perfect T. I don't see a point in continuing this so I won't bog down in details but let me put it this way. In a very narrow sort of way I see where you're coming from. The fact it is so narrow and depends on a white-knight perspective that someone somewhere's sensibilities may be offended is why I dismiss it. By the way, bold-italics-caps-underline doesn't make you more convincing, it's rather immature. That's my last word on the matter, OA has given you a recourse since I doubt anyone else is remotely as fussed about this as you are but they're free to comment and I may humor them instead. --Raidarr (talk) 21:42, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I highlight those words like that is to emphasize how serious this is and to scare pedophiles and other creeps and bad people and motivate them to never do any of the bad things that are discussed in both this talk page and your user talk page. Also, how is this "narrow" or "dependent" on a "white-knight perspective" or anything? It is the fundamental responsibility of any and all human beings to stop any and all bad things from happening to anyone and everyone else whenever we can - if no one helps, then that is enabling pedophilia. FreezingTNT (talk) 21:51, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- You've described a what-if situation to a perfect T. I don't see a point in continuing this so I won't bog down in details but let me put it this way. In a very narrow sort of way I see where you're coming from. The fact it is so narrow and depends on a white-knight perspective that someone somewhere's sensibilities may be offended is why I dismiss it. By the way, bold-italics-caps-underline doesn't make you more convincing, it's rather immature. That's my last word on the matter, OA has given you a recourse since I doubt anyone else is remotely as fussed about this as you are but they're free to comment and I may humor them instead. --Raidarr (talk) 21:42, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Why ignore this page? Can you please, at the very least, agree that my points above this comment are correct so that NOTHING would EVER show anyone under the age of 18 in any sexual/sexually suggestive/explicit/graphic manner/context/situation/scenarios at all so that NO ONE under the age of 18 would EVER be hurt at all? FreezingTNT (talk) 12:06, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- I said you were naive before but now you're reading like you're off the hinges. You may as well ignore that this page exists because continuing this fanaticism will go as well for you as it did for lion king the last time. --Raidarr (talk) 09:29, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- I still think that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that ever shows children in lewd/revealing clothing and/or doing sexually suggetive/explicit dances/movements/things/etc. and/or being depicted in a sexual/sexualized/objectified manner/context/situation/scenario/etc. should be deleted and erased from existence. Anything and everything that exists, has existed, will exist and will continue to exist should NEVER have, contain, show or include pedo bait and/or any related (for example: child porn, nude children, children in any sexual situations/contexts/manners/scenarios/etc., etc.) AT ALL!!!!!!!! And the things I said that will happen if we don't stop them from happening at all aren't "what ifs", we don't know what WILL happen, so we should be trying to stop any bad things from happening at all before it's too late. FreezingTNT (talk) 02:51, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- The only thing objectionable in the material is somewhat-revealing outfits (I can see your point about it being provocative there). That alone does not justify deleting content of value, though; we shouldn't delete content based on "what ifs" and faulty logic. However, I will support removing the news report on the grounds that it doesn't really further the page's motive or contribute anything unique, not because I think it's inappropriate (that's subjective anyway; everything is inappropriate in someone's eyes). Tali64³ (talk) 02:33, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- My second point still stands: the material you object to is not that provocative in the first place; the bad things that you point out could happen are not dependent on a pedophile looking at one semi-harmless video on the Internet. Tali64³ (talk) 02:17, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
Overall, my point is that any pedophiles or other creeps who read, have decided to read or are reading any web pages that contain pedo bait/sexual/pornographic/sexualized material of anyone under the age of 18 (for example: the poster, any sexualized footage or screenshots of the film, child porn, etc.), whether or not for curiosity, will be sexually pleased upon seeing said things and then the consequences/results I've mentioned many times will happen. We should be making sure no one ever sees them. We should delete any images, videos, GIFs or other material/content/etc. that contain pedo bait/sexual/pornographic/sexualized material of anyone under the age of 18 from existence and make sure they're NEVER, EVER made so that NO ONE under the age of 18 will ever be harmed.
If we never stop any of the consequences I've mentioned many times here and in other discussions, then it enables pedophiles and other creeps to do these things. Inaction leads to consequences. It is everyone's responsibility to help anyone who is innocent whenever they can. FreezingTNT (talk) 15:20, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- If you are concerned about the contents of this wiki, I would encourage you to get into contact via community[at]telepedia[dot]net in future circumstances instead of repeatedly uttering the word "porn", "paedophilia" etc onto a public-facing forum where those that may see it may well be underage. Please think about what you yourself are posting onto things that could be seen by others. I am actually not sure how you haven't been caught out by the AbuseFilter, but please stop. There is a place for raising concerns like these and it is not in the public sphere. -- Original Authority (talk) 18:16, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, not saying those types/kinds of terms/words in a forum where kids might be present makes sense. But regardless, I still stand by everything else I've said on this talk page and on Raidarr's talk page. FreezingTNT (talk) 18:44, January 27, 2024 (UTC)
To those who have seen the videos after the eighth one: do they or do they not show anything that needs to be censored? Any and all videos that do show anything that isn't censored needs to be deleted. FreezingTNT (talk) 20:01, January 27, 2024 (UTC)