isaac

You will never be a man or non-binary Nor a puppy Stop appropriating our culture

About the Mimi Yanagi case in UK. Let me explain to everyone the fundamental here. There are two very clear alternatives. You either treat these two cartoons as real people - Then Woody is committing a crime You arent allowed to put rockets in peoples mouth and light them. Thus this is clearly grossly abusive act. Or you dont So is this picture horrible abuse? Did Woody (or the evil cartoonist) violate Donald Ducks rights by the non-existing Woody (who looks nothing like a real person) abusively lighting a rocket in the mouth of the equally non-existing Donald Duck (Who also looks nothing like a real person)? Becuase without first arguing that fictional depictions of non-lifelike cartoons are like people. Then its also not possible to argue they need protections against abuse So the content is abusive? But its either abusive aganst characters that are LIKE real people... Or the content is abusive towards non existing imaginary fantasy things - which is outright impossible becuase you cant be accused of a material act against a non-material thing. What do you think? Should Donald Ducks rights be treated as violated here? Because either cartoons can be abused - or they cant.