| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ichabod
United States1659 Posts
With the obsession in the USA on pedophilia, with the "Sex offender registry," I wonder if the gov't is keeping track of any of these sales; on a side note, why isn't there a "murderer registry" so that citizens can be aware of where former murders live, and avoid them, blatant hypocrisy and stupidity. Edit: Any and all complaints about this book's content should be directed at the book | ||
|
AbsentLover
Romania84 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:45 Firereaver wrote: I'm sure you used the generalization just for the force of your argument but please refrain henceforth from such wide-ranging statements especially when you are so far from the truth that I wonder if there is any point even replying to you. + Show Spoiler + You seem to be abnormal in your tastes! And extremely disgusting in your turn-ons imo. Duly noted. Now if you'll excuse me, i just got craving for some beef jerky. | ||
|
mowglie
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
On November 11 2010 07:48 Manifesto7 wrote: Since they already publish the names, photos, and addresses of convicted sex offenders, just extend that to publish the names and places of people who buy this book. Props. | ||
|
oo_xerox
United States852 Posts
On November 11 2010 07:48 Manifesto7 wrote: Since they already publish the names, photos, and addresses of convicted sex offenders, just extend that to publish the names and places of people who buy this book. wow hahaha | ||
|
CheezDip
126 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:37 Moonloop wrote: I believe there should be a limit to free speech, and in my opinion, this book overstepped that limit. You can disagree with me, maybe even, if you're skilled enough with words, convince me to change my mind, persuade me that there SHOULDN'T be a limit to free speech. But nothing will change the revulsion I feel when I think about this story. I perhaps am not skilled enough with words to make a convincing case; all I can say is this. For there to be said limits on free speech, there would have to be a person or persons whose job it is to decide those limits. That means there is another human being out there who gets to decide not just what you say, but what you are allowed to hear. Should anybody really have that kind of power? I believe in the right to be offended as much as the right to offend. I don't want anybody to tell me I'm not allowed to hear the other side of any subject or debate no matter how overwhelmingly offensive. | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
| ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
Seriously, until people got all "ZOMG Amazon is raping children" nobody would have even noticed. It's a crappy self published vanity work that would have been lucky to sell in triple figures. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
yoplate
United States332 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:36 AbsentLover wrote: Stop the hypocrisy! I'm sure each and every one of you has at least one pedo vid stashed in your hard drive. Mine is about a 13 year old innocently and playfully cuddling and kissing with his make pretend dads penis. It has a good script imo. Sure is Poe's Law in here, lol. I don't buy books from Amazon already, but now I certainly won't. It is their company's decision on whether or not to carry the book. I wholly disagree, but it is up to them. Lastly, lol @ people who try claiming pedophilia isn't a mental disorder. | ||
|
Firereaver
India1701 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:43 Krigwin wrote: Where did I state or otherwise imply that I am "fine" with such a book or any stated act in this thread? Let's not insult other posters' logic when you are incapable of even comprehending their posts. "Looks like how to avoid getting charged for having child pornography, not how to avoid getting caught for actually having intercourse with a child. " QFR. If you sir, know the meaning of what it is to imply something then you will realise that, in the light of the preceding thread to which you replied the above statement, I must insult your own ability to communicate clearly or the lack thereof, if you actually did not mean what I assumed you meant. Very easy to sound condescending but difficult to introspect and see whether the fault lies with you. | ||
|
No_Roo
United States905 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:17 Manifesto7 wrote: The problem with freedom of speech is that is is a shield for those who wish to deflect common sense. I think most of us that are defending it view this not so much as the problem of free speech, but the price for free speech. We make a subjective decision that we are willing to pay this price for the benefits we feel it brings. Since that is a subjective decision one can have valid arguments either in support or against freedom of speech. The only view point in this thread is completely invalid is some one who comes in here and says they believe in freedom of speech, but want the book censored anyway.  | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:57 Firereaver wrote: "Looks like how to avoid getting charged for having child pornography, not how to avoid getting caught for actually having intercourse with a child. " QFR. If you sir, know the meaning of what it is to imply something then you will realise that, in the light of the preceding thread to which you replied the above statement, I must insult your own ability to communicate clearly or the lack thereof, if you actually did not mean what I assumed you meant. Very easy to sound condescending but difficult to introspect and see whether the fault lies with you. ...What? The first part of that statement was what the quoted passages were basically saying, the second part was what the OP implied. I was pointing out that they're two different things. How on Earth did you somehow finagle that around to me implying I'm "fine" with either of them? It seems more like you can't read properly, not me not being able to communicate properly. And I was telling you not to make such harsh judgments when it seems you're not fully grasping what people are saying. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
People see the word "pedophile" and go apeshit without even considering what that could mean. They aren't all heartless monsters bent on ruining the lives of every child they see. Pedophiles have every right to express themselves and live openly in society. They should be able to live in society without fear of being harmed and hated but unfortunately that is not the case. They are probably the single most hated demographic, possibly more than Nazi's and racists. I find it sad. I don't condone child molestation, if this is a guide on how to exploit children and harm them then I say take it down. But I'm not making any assumptions here. I'll still buy from Amazon regularly. I'm not in the least bit offended. | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
On November 11 2010 09:53 Shiragaku wrote: Gah, this is not the first time we have seen something like this. Ever heard of 4chan? Anontalk? Only difference about those two is that they do not promote pedophilia in their title. (4chan is not 100% about pedophilia but people can find information on it very easily after staying there for 2 hours.) At least on 4chan, such topics are quickly deleted when found by moderators, who are actually extremely active (insert joke about lack of social activity here). No comment on the other OT: I don't see why the blame is on Amazon. Sure, it's providing an avenue of distribution, but wouldn't it be better to focus on the publisher, or the author himself, and then talk about this in terms of the limits of free speech? Amazon is not doing anything illegal here. Ethically, maybe it's not the best choice, but once you start going down that road.. who can say what's "best" or "ethical" anyway? | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On November 11 2010 07:37 VIB wrote: Amazon was already noticed and refuses to censor the book, and quotes free speech as it's official statement to defend it: Don't know if someone said this already, not going to read through the whole thread: I just want to point out that this quote doesn't point to freedom of speech in its defense. Amazon takes a stand contra censorship - that is different from using "free speech" as an argument. Personally, I can't make up my mind on this issue before I know more of it. Does it promote taking advantage of youth or does it "only" condone the mutual free-willing engagement in sex between two people of different age? Now I understand the (dire) potential problems of such asymmetric relationships, but there'll be a lot of gray areas. We have to remember a couple of things - our society draws a line between who is old enough to engage in sexual behavior and who isn't. It is not a natural law that a 14 yo can't enjoy/want sex with an adult, it is just that our society find it despicable. So do I, frankly, but we need to remember that the lines we draw are to a certain extend quite arbitrary - or at the very least, only a product of our society's design. I don't exactly like the idea of this book, but I can't say for certain I can oppose it either. Aside from our personal opinions on the subject there is the whole censorship contra non-censorship debate. I tend to think censorship does more wrong than good, so I lean towards being against a censorship of this book. After all - it is only sharing knowledge not actually committing crimes, like the knowledge of how to create a homemade bomb is legally shared some places. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 11 2010 10:07 hefty wrote: We have to remember a couple of things - our society draws a line between who is old enough to engage in sexual behavior and who isn't. It is not a natural law that a 14 yo can't enjoy/want sex with an adult Pedophilia is by definition primary\secondary attraction to prepubescent children. It is a natural law that even the children's bodies are not yet designed for sex, much less their mental state to understand consequences. Stop this pedophilia defense foolery. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 11 2010 10:10 Romantic wrote: Pedophilia is by definition primary\secondary attraction to prepubescent children. It is a natural law that even the children's bodies are not yet designed for sex, much less their mental state to understand consequences. Stop this pedophilia defense foolery. oh, you edited your post. so i'll be kind and requote you but also point out that you now have no point. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
