Wow... this guy makes the woman who married that dolphin in the UK look sane...

Wow... this guy makes the woman who married that dolphin in the UK look sane...

There was a woman in India who married a snake. Love knows no boundaries.

So...Chun-Li and I could finally have our long awaited time together?!!

*dies*

So...Chun-Li and I could finally have our long awaited time together?!!

*dies*

NO! Chun-Li is MINE!!! ALL MINE!!!

XD does this span out into video game characters, too?

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

XD does this span out into video game characters, too?

Why the hell not? Sure it would, babe.

CNN: and now this story from japan...

CNN: fictional character Inu Yasha was married today to over fifty thousand young japanese women, some of whom may still be only girls...

*there is rioting in the streets of america*

*of fangirls*

Am I the only one who never has any clue what Rishi is saying? Not even Babel Fish can chew on that. Anyway...

Japan has a very low birth rate last I checked, encouraging deviant behaviour probably isn't going to be looked upon favourably by the government. These guys probably still live at home with their parents. I'd say the parents should do something and kick them out, but I think japanese parents would sooner commit harakiri than try and get their kids some help.

I read about that a week ago...

I suppose the next proposal is finding a way to spawn with those characters

I read about that a week ago...

I suppose the next proposal is finding a way to spawn with those characters

I wanna spawn with your character.

I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry.

Rishi, you just demonstrated exactly why this man's proposal is so disturbing. Congratulations.

Mmmm.... Kasumi.... *assasinated by Wesu*

Mmmm.... Kasumi.... *assasinated by Wesu*

Dude, the Dead Or Alive franchise has some SWEET chicks. I wouldn't mind marrying Kasumi, she's a top chick.

I think that marriage to fictional characters would break copyright laws.

Also, your example using pencils is flawed; even if you can't physically see the pencils behind the other pencil with your eyes, you can feel it with your fingers (which is a requirement of holding the pencil into place). There is no magic or transcending of dimensional barriers in not being able to see something that you put behind something else.

Since we are on the topic and Japanese and crazy, I don't what is worse... that or this:

http://www.timesonline.co...cience/article5058011.ece

For most universities around the world illegal meteor-mining, politically explosive space colonies and wars waged between teenagers in robot battle suits are treated as the stuff of pure fantasy.

For Japan, they are the stuff of high academia.

In an attempt to inject "the most inventive possible thinking" into Japan, representatives of many of its most august universities are to become a "virtual faculty" of the Gundam Academy - the first academic institution based on a cartoon.

Next year dozens of engineers, astrophysicists, doctors, anthropologists, linguists - even town planners - will begin discussing how to convert the science-fiction series Gundam, created by Yoshiyuki Tomino, 66, into reality.

The agenda will be broad: the Gundam comic series has been running since the late 1970s and its storylines have constructed one of the most complete and complex future-scapes in science fiction.

Central to Gundam are the huge, occasionally dysfunctional, battle suits used by the characters to settle squabbles that arise as humanity fights over resources and power. The robotic engineering, the low-gravity control mechanisms and the life-support systems will all be subjects at the Gundam Academy.

One aeronautics expert involved in the project said that, as a serious scientist, he can see clearly which parts of Gundam are technically feasible and which are not.

Nuclear-powered thermal rockets and spherical helper robots should be pursued, he said.

At a recent symposium held by the founders of the academy and academics, there were lively discussions about emulating the protective coating which prevents the fictional battle suits burning-up on atmospheric re-entry, and the airbags that protect the pilot from the violent lurches of battle.

The underlying storyline in the Gundam series is one of political strife, endless war and the challenges that arise when mankind begins to move away from Earth.

Shinya Hashizume, a professor of urban planning and architecture at Osaka Prefectural University, said: "Gundam presents the reader with many challenges that we will encounter. It is vital to begin conducting research into these. Scientific research in Japan desperately needs a flow of new ideas."

If they are successful, the founders of the project told The Times, institutions and companies across Japan could embark on new fields of research: everything from the perfection of a universal translation device to moon settlements and the construction of a mega-particle cannon.

Shinichi Nakasuka, a professor of astronautics at the University of Tokyo and one of the founders of the academy, said: "Studying fiction is an excellent way to get ideas about the future. Scientists often restrict their way of thinking to what they factually know. The comic shows how ordinary people without much deep scientific knowledge can come up with very good ideas."

-------

At least that is relatively sane, if not really feasible at all.

I think that marriage to fictional characters would break copyright laws.

Then daaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyum dude, I'd break them copyright laws right there!

See, now that idea isn't so crazy. Sure, it seems unrealistic, but at least they're trying to do something with potential practical applications there. This cartoon marriage thing is just silly and insubstantial with nothing to come out of it except, perhaps, the realization of some man's private fantasy.

I was speaking of the idea Trans posted about, to be clear. Rishi, you can have your fantasies, but try to tone down sharing them - there's a reason they're called private fantasies, after all.

Way to cheapen the bond that the majority of your parents shared in order to lead to your creation, Japan.

Though, funny sidenote. I picture an artist falling for a toon, and then drawing them in wedding dress, drawing other things and eventually drawing them with newly born daughter.

There's a manga idea in there, somewhere.

Using fiction to strive for real inventions? Awesome. Lotta inventions have come from "fantasy". After all, if God had intended man to fly, he'd have been born with wings, right? Right?

On the OP... Didn't Star Trek already tackle falling in love with holograms?

And Futurama? Murderous horde of Lucy Liu-bots? DO NOT WANT.

~Tobe

But Futurama also explained that all of civilization was a ploy to pick up chicks. Every single achievement we have made as a species was merely an effort to impress girls, and if we could love holograms, robots and drawings and be loved in return, we would want for nothing and civilization would go down the drain, forever.

After all, if God had intended man to fly, he'd have been born with wings, right? Right?

Nah, he could just use laghima siddhi - the yogic ability to levitate.

I... musta missed that one. o.O

~Tobe

....Rishi, No offence, but I don't think many people here are really able to follow the stuff you put up.
All of those threads are just....well, unlikely to garner much support - but I can certainly see that you went more for the discussion side of things instead.
However - you DO tend to copy/paste Inpenetrable Walls of text...and Too much of that = TL:DR's, and people will just remain entirely confused.
Ever think about trying to simplify for the masses, instead? 😛

So...Chun-Li and I could finally have our long awaited time together?!!

*dies*

NO! Chun-Li is MINE!!! ALL MINE!!!

Hmm...ok, i'll talk Crimson Viper then. Oh yes...*licks lips*

I read about that a week ago...

I suppose the next proposal is finding a way to spawn with those characters

I wanna spawn with your character.

I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry.

LOL my character is married XD

Speaking of freaky Japanese stuff, and still on the subject of having relationships with characters, it appears the perverts' fantasies will finally come true once this is out on the market....

Dennou AR Figures

"A Japanese man has enlisted hundreds of people in a campaign to allow marriages between humans and cartoon characters, saying he feels more at ease in the "two-dimensional world".

Comic books are immensely popular in Japan, with some fictional characters becoming celebrities or even sex symbols.

Marriage is meanwhile on the decline as many young Japanese find it difficult to find life partners.

Taichi Takashita launched an online petition aiming for one million signatures to present to the government to establish a law on marriages with cartoon characters.

Within a week he has gathered more than 1000 signatures through.

"I am no longer interested in three dimensions. I would even like to become a resident of the two-dimensional world," he wrote.

"However, that seems impossible with present-day technology. Therefore, at the very least, would it be possible to legally authorise marriage with a two-dimensional character?"

Befitting his desire to be two-dimensional, he listed no contact details, making it impossible to reach him for comment to explain if his campaign is serious or tongue-in-cheek.

But some people signing the petition are true believers.

"For a long time I have only been able to fall in love with two-dimensional people and currently I have someone I really love," one person wrote.

"Even if she is fictional, it is still loving someone. I would like to have legal approval for this system at any cost," the person wrote.

Japan only permits marriage between human men and women and gives no legal recognition to same-sex relationships.

Japan's fans of comic books, or "manga," sometimes go to extremes.

Earlier this month, a woman addicted to manga put out an online message seeking to kill her parents for asking her to throw away comic books that filled up three rooms."

Source

http://www.news.com.au/te...,24576437-5014239,00.html

I will assist you in your righteous quest, Taichi Takashita. I have no doubt that the 2-Dimensional level of existence can somehow be accessed. Life in other dimensions would certainly be very different to life in our own dimension due to various reasons.
A one-dimensional being could only exist upon a line. Draw the thinnest line that you possibly can on a piece of paper and imagine that one particle of graphite from your pencil is a hypothetical being living on that one-dimensional world and then remember that that piece of graphite is our being. Our being, then, lives on that line, and that line is the whole universe to that being. If you make one end of the line A and the other end B, you will see that the being can progress from A, which is birth, to B, which is death. The being will be able to move forwards only, they cannot move backwards because that would involve moving into the past.
Supposing that you could place a point, on that thin line, then the being in that one-dimensional world would see phenomena in its sky. It would see only that part of your finger actually in contact with the line and it would be impossible to visualise what you looked like, in much the same way as it is impossible for most people in this three-dimensional world of ours to visualise what is behind the so-called 'flying saucer'.
If we travel to a two-dimensional world, what would we have? It would be a plane surface and the inhabitants would have to be flat figures. Now supposing you draw a line around one of these figures, it would prove to be a barrier to it because the line will have thickness and to be a completely flat being height would be beyond its understanding. If it tried to climb up that pencil line -which to it, of course, would be a considerable height- it would be equivalent to going out into space.
Our flat being wouldn't be able to look down on the line and see that it was comparatively flat. Thus a line or an angle would be an astounding phenomenon to a flat being.
By the way, just try this if you doubt what I'm saying: Hold a pencil at a level with your eyes so that the pencil is length-wise to you. Then behind it, hold another pencil end on. You won't be able to see that pencil because it will be hidden by the line of the first pencil. Thus you will be in the position of our flat being and before you can see the second pencil you will have to enter another dimension, that is, you will have to descend below the level of the pencils or rise above it, so that you can look up or down and see by perspective.
Mr Takashita's quest is righteous and his determination in executing it is admirable!

Wait... what? What do you mean when you say to "access" the "two-dimensional world"? How could we experience it if our consciousness comes from the interaction of neurons in the brain, which evolved to experience 3 dimensions? And how does the inability to see one pencil behind the other have anything to do with it? One pencil simply blocks the path of photons from the other to our eyes, unless a mirror behind them re-reflects them...

As for the idea of marrying fictional characters, I kinda wonder why they'd want to... I guess you could say why not, (since it wouldn't seem to be harming anyone) but as Terg pointed out it might create copyright problems. People seem to forget that a fictional character is what the person whose idea the character was says they are; it's like when people were all like "OMG Dumbledore can't be gay, Mrs. Rowling made that up" despite that the whole Harry Potter story was made up to begin with. But really, if they couldn't meet them in person (let alone have any kind of physical contact even so much as holding hands) it could only be symbolic, and even then you can't be sure what it's symbolic of; wanting to express their obsession with that character, or wanting to express their desire to escape from reality, or something else? Granted it's probably none of my business but I'm just saying I wonder why...

And when it comes to the comparison to the dolphin-marrying thing, I suddenly feel like mentioning that I while I did think it was a bad idea I slightly distorted my own views on that; after people thought I was against online relationships when I wasn't I tried to make it look like I was more against marrying dolphins than I really was to make sure it'd be clear that I didn't think near as little of online relationships as I did of human-dolphin relationships... it should've been obvious to me that there was no need of that. It reminds me of the Simpsons scene where Dr. Hibbert can't reattach Homer's thumb and offers to cut off the other for a sense of symmetry. And I'm actually more open to the idea that I myself might've given the impression I was against online relationships than I used to be, though I still have to wonder what would make people think that...

Wow, this is... just wow. Human oddities know no bounds.

I mean, I can understand it to a point, you like the character etc, but there's no way the character could ever react to you or recognize you or anything, so what's the point, really?

On a sideish note: All the stuff concerning people falling in love with holograms and such is a completely different story. The Holograms had AI and thus were, essentially, a regular person. I don't see what the problem would be with that.

People seem to forget that a fictional character is what the person whose idea the character was says they are; it's like when people were all like "OMG Dumbledore can't be gay, Mrs. Rowling made that up" despite that the whole Harry Potter story was made up to begin with.

I'm always loath to drag a thread like this off-topic, but I feel the need to comment on that. That's a rather pedestrian view of literary theory. If Rowling wanted to write Dumbledore as gay then she should have done so. What's described in the book is a close friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. For Rowling to take a character that had no established sexual or romantic behavior in the entire series, and say that he was gay... the fact that she wrote the books doesn't mean that her comments external to the books have any bearing on the books themselves or the characters in them.

Moreover (and I can't believe how few people have pointed this out), I find Rowling's comments about Dumbledore's sexuality to be offensive. The gay community seemed to celebrate Dumbledore's "outing" and praise J. K. Rowling for including a gay prominently. They even called Dumbledore a role model for homosexuals. This always astounded me. Did they not read the books? Did they not listen to Rowling's comments? Rowling says of Dumbledore, "he lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and a bookish life." If we accept Rowling's reading of her own book, then it would seem to me that Dumbledore seems to embody, in a positive way, the position of the religious right: that homosexuality leads to moral decadence, and so those with homosexual urges would be better off suppressing them and living lives of repentant celibacy. If J. K. Rowling had any respect for homosexuality, she would embraced Lupin's status as a gay icon for Potterfans, rather than marry him off to a Tonks and kill both of them off page. Instead, she takes a great yet flawed character and then says that his flaws are a result of his homosexuality. Thanks, Rowling, but no thanks. I think I'll decide for myself what to think about Dumbledore, Lupin, and all the rest of your characters, based on the books and not on your desperate attempts to hold onto the public's waning attention.

Yeah, I know, I'm drawing this off on a tangent. But there's not much I can say about the main topic that hasn't already been said, because it's just patently absurd on a lot of different levels.

As a fan of games, comics/manga, and cartoons/anime, as well as a wannabe artist myself, I can understand why there's an attraction to fictional, inked or polygonal, characters, and the want to be in these worlds and interact with said characters. Despite this I find the want to marry a cartoon character extremely bizarre. The reason why these characters are desirable is purely because they're designed to be so. Trying to make it legal for a person to marry an inked character who is not alive is disturbing and I would advise the individual to seek therapy as his perception of reality could or has become greatly distorted, something that could lead to very dangerous behavior.

People seem to forget that a fictional character is what the person whose idea the character was says they are; it's like when people were all like "OMG Dumbledore can't be gay, Mrs. Rowling made that up" despite that the whole Harry Potter story was made up to begin with.

I'm always loath to drag a thread like this off-topic, but I feel the need to comment on that. That's a rather pedestrian view of literary theory. If Rowling wanted to write Dumbledore as gay then she should have done so. What's described in the book is a close friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. For Rowling to take a character that had no established sexual or romantic behavior in the entire series, and say that he was gay... the fact that she wrote the books doesn't mean that her comments external to the books have any bearing on the books themselves or the characters in them.

Moreover (and I can't believe how few people have pointed this out), I find Rowling's comments about Dumbledore's sexuality to be offensive. The gay community seemed to celebrate Dumbledore's "outing" and praise J. K. Rowling for including a gay prominently. They even called Dumbledore a role model for homosexuals. This always astounded me. Did they not read the books? Did they not listen to Rowling's comments? Rowling says of Dumbledore, "he lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and a bookish life." If we accept Rowling's reading of her own book, then it would seem to me that Dumbledore seems to embody, in a positive way, the position of the religious right: that homosexuality leads to moral decadence, and so those with homosexual urges would be better off suppressing them and living lives of repentant celibacy. If J. K. Rowling had any respect for homosexuality, she would embraced Lupin's status as a gay icon for Potterfans, rather than marry him off to a Tonks and kill both of them off page. Instead, she takes a great yet flawed character and then says that his flaws are a result of his homosexuality. Thanks, Rowling, but no thanks. I think I'll decide for myself what to think about Dumbledore, Lupin, and all the rest of your characters, based on the books and not on your desperate attempts to hold onto the public's waning attention.

Yeah, I know, I'm drawing this off on a tangent. But there's not much I can say about the main topic that hasn't already been said, because it's just patently absurd on a lot of different levels.

Meh, I have no problem admitting that I'm the one who brought up the tangent. Anyway, I don't know much about the details of the Harry Potter story (I think I've only watched the first and second movies... at least so far) but as much of a paradox as a "gay character who's straight" might be, we're talking about fiction here... people don't seem to have a problem with stories contradicting physics, yet when they contradict philosophy it's all "that can't be"; if they get to claim that magic wands can move objects from a distance based on whether or not certain words are said, why don't they get to say that certain opposites are the same?

EDIT: Anyway, I like the way Robobotnik put it. Even if you could understand the attraction, something seems wrong when they go this far with it...

...

...

. . .

. . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Why the @#$! is there even any thought in this thread. This is stupid, and I hate the internet to allow stupid crap like this get around.

I have a right mind to just close this thread... because... it's all just... so... stupid. Fanaticism to the dumbest of levels.

You probably should - this is going nowhere at a snails pace...if said snail was on Crack and licking toads at the same time.

This...idea...I hesitate to call it that...begs the question.

Would someone have to gain permission from the creator of the character in question in order to marry them?

Jin, does that mean I can close Ultra's Marble Garden topic? I mean, I find it pointless.

~Tobe

Way to cheapen the bond that the majority of your parents shared in order to lead to your creation, Japan.

Though, funny sidenote. I picture an artist falling for a toon, and then drawing them in wedding dress, drawing other things and eventually drawing them with newly born daughter.

There's a manga idea in there, somewhere.

For it's beginning or ending, take your pic. I'm sure there's one out there with your name on it.

Btw, Cammy's off limits to everyone. She's mine.

Jin, does that mean I can close Ultra's Marble Garden topic? I mean, I find it pointless.

~Tobe

I honestly was very tempted since it seemed to have been nothing but hateful, I think, regardless of your position.

@ Toby : ... why

It felt oddly appropriate to the situation.

o.o Toby, why focus on how the guy requesting this happens to be Japanese? The person who initially defended him in this topic happened to be Australian...

...

...

. . .

. . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Why the @#$! is there even any thought in this thread. This is stupid, and I hate the internet to allow stupid crap like this get around.

I have a right mind to just close this thread... because... it's all just... so... stupid. Fanaticism to the dumbest of levels.

Are you kidding? Dirk's post was AWESOME. Don't you remember how Troophead and I debated the troll Huggies Boy? 😛

On the subject of authors and claims about their stories, idiotic as the interpretation of the writing may be, I think that ultimately the creator's version is what it is. If it sounds like a retcon, then you can say that's not what they wrote, but unless it's proven to be a retcon, what's the difference between claiming that the author is wrong, and some fanfic writer claiming that their version is the real version because it's better?

...

...

. . .

. . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Why the @#$! is there even any thought in this thread. This is stupid, and I hate the internet to allow stupid crap like this get around.

I have a right mind to just close this thread... because... it's all just... so... stupid. Fanaticism to the dumbest of levels.

Are you kidding? Dirk's post was AWESOME. Don't you remember how Troophead and I debated the troll Huggies Boy? 😛

o.o Now I'm curious, what went on in the debate you're comparing Dirk's post to?

Way to cheapen the bond that the majority of your parents shared in order to lead to your creation, Japan.

Though, funny sidenote. I picture an artist falling for a toon, and then drawing them in wedding dress, drawing other things and eventually drawing them with newly born daughter.

There's a manga idea in there, somewhere.

For it's beginning or ending, take your pic. I'm sure there's one out there with your name on it.

Btw, Cammy's off limits to everyone. She's mine.

Nah man, Cammy's gonna have MY child. But you're welcome to have a clone of Cammy made by M. Bison if you want!

Way to cheapen the bond that the majority of your parents shared in order to lead to your creation, Japan.

Though, funny sidenote. I picture an artist falling for a toon, and then drawing them in wedding dress, drawing other things and eventually drawing them with newly born daughter.

There's a manga idea in there, somewhere.

For it's beginning or ending, take your pic. I'm sure there's one out there with your name on it.

Btw, Cammy's off limits to everyone. She's mine.

Nah man, Cammy's gonna have MY child. But you're welcome to have a clone of Cammy made by M. Bison if you want!

You're both wrong...Robobotnik is already married to her and once he sees ya'lls wild claims...there will be blood.

Way to cheapen the bond that the majority of your parents shared in order to lead to your creation, Japan.

Though, funny sidenote. I picture an artist falling for a toon, and then drawing them in wedding dress, drawing other things and eventually drawing them with newly born daughter.

There's a manga idea in there, somewhere.

For it's beginning or ending, take your pic. I'm sure there's one out there with your name on it.

Btw, Cammy's off limits to everyone. She's mine.

Nah man, Cammy's gonna have MY child. But you're welcome to have a clone of Cammy made by M. Bison if you want!

You're both wrong...Robobotnik is already married to her and once he sees ya'lls wild claims...there will be blood.

LOLWUT?

Off-topic: Matt, please stop quoting other peoples' entire posts when replying to them, especially when your reply is shorter than the quoted text.

On-topic: Yeeeeah, if this law was passed, it will incite massive fangirl/fanboy riots. No good can come of it. Except for maybe the awesome brawls that would result :3

o.o Didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that @ Silvershadow; anyway, what would rather, that I quote statments one by one or not do quote-and-rebutall and instead state what I'm responding to in the response?

Either of those would work fine - after all, both will make it quite clear what you're responding to, instead of having to wade through a huge paragraph and figure out exactly which part of it you were responding to. Saves thread space and makes your posts more readable after all.

Matt, please stop quoting other peoples' entire posts when replying to them, especially when your reply is shorter than the quoted text.

I love how you skip right past anyone else doing the exact same thing and go straight to Matt

@Kio: Matt's the ony one doing it for pretty much all his posts in the thread, plus he's doing it elsewhere too, so I figured I'd nip it in the bud. But hey, if you're wanting me to tell you not to as well, I can! =3