|
On November 11 2010 12:13 Scroobius wrote:Show nested quote +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. Agreed.These people are dangerous. At the very least Interpol should keep a record and watch them closley
And if I were to buy a copy of this book, and distribute it to you? Do you think Interpol would believe you if you said you never bought it, and I told them you asked me to buy it for you?
Would you like having interpol watching you even though you had no part in it? I mean, you're innocent, right? It's not like people would find out about it, your name would go on a list, and you would be judged in the court of public opinion for me simply giving you a copy of this book and claiming you wanted it?
|
On November 11 2010 12:09 Mellotron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 11:59 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 11 2010 11:57 Mellotron wrote:
You know, it wouldnt hurt my neighbor at all if i took a shit on my lawn every day right in front of him. Its disgusting. But, all id have to do is say hey, its my yard, its natural, and you dont have to watch. I could probably even say its my "right" and its my "freedom of speech". But i dont do it. Why? Because even if it felt GREAT to me to shit on my lawn i know it bothers him. I know what it feels like to be disgusted, even though i (in this fantasy scenario as the lawn shitter himself) am not disgusted by it. I take it upon myself to hide the pieces of myself that upset others. I do this to ensure peace in a world constantly split and constantly inconsistent.
I dont shit on my lawn in front of you. I spare you that even though its my "freedom" and there "is no such thing as right and wrong". So keep your child rape books off my Amazon.
That's called indecent exposure, and it is a crime. This example is pretty entertaining if not retarded. Man I really thought i had a thread ending post there. I really thought i had something that would kill this sucker once and for all. I had humor, i had truth, i insulted and praised both sides of the argument, i had swearing (but not too much), and so much more. I put a lot of heart and soul into that thread breaker. And you killed it. But you forgot that in the eyes of the freedom of speech/there is no such thing as wrong mindset, indecent exposure shouldnt be illegal because according to them there is no thing that can be done that is wrong or can be judged. So now i have to go ahead and make this post to diffuse your shoddy diffusion of my post that i gave a piece of my very own soul to compose. Next time jsut think for a little bit about what i write so that i dont have to explain what should be obvious and steal the thunder out from under my threadbreaker attempt posts. Please i beg ya.
How on earth does a freedom of speech standpoint state that an action can't be illegal?
|
I'm all for free speech for every other filthy or sleazy act mankind can conceive, but pedophilia is where I, and many people draw the line. Children are the only pure things in this filthy world, and it is our obligation to protect them in any way we can, as they are also the most defenseless. If I have to choose between free speech or protecting children from sexual abuse, then that is an easy choice for me, as I have two children of my own. Ideals need to be reconsidered at some point, as too much of anything can be bad, even freedom, as freedom for one person can result in the sexual slavery of another.
|
Everyone here assumes the subject is child rape when its just statutory rape. Other-wise known as fake-rape. Other-wise known no big deal.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
What if some author wrote a fictional roman about a pedophile who uses the all tips in the book? Would you moralists think that should be banned to and want the feds to track people who buy that fictional book?
Maybe the tv series dexter should be banned too because being a serial killer is kind of immoral too and only disgusting serial killer wants to watch a show about serial killings right? Maybe counter-strike should be banned to cause of the washington sniper, columbine high etc. Its not good with violent video games that are psychologically rewarding people to shoot other people in the head.
My opinion is that this book should not be banned. Freedom of of communication is extremely important and is very different from criminality in reality.
|
On November 11 2010 12:11 Kurt_Russell wrote:
I saw this thread and quickly searched it's entirety for the word "troll", and only one person came to the obvious assessment that the author is most likely a troll, someone satirizing the thoughts of a pedophile.
Edit:
Oh, and it would seem that "The anarchists cookbook" does not contain actual IED (and such) recipes, that those written in the book give faulty and dangerous instructions and was possibly even written by the government to mislead individuals (possibly even to death because of unsafe IED creation procedures) who would be interested in reading and using the content of this literature.
I pointed out Poe's Law (You can't tell crazy from satire\trolling because both are so similar).
Do I get a cookie? I would be surprised if this guy was legit.
|
Could we get a name change for this thread? Right now the top of my browser reads: "Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 18"
To a passing observer, it seems like not only am I reading the Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure but i'm 18 pages deep in it.
|
On November 11 2010 12:20 moolkey wrote:
Everyone here assumes the subject is child rape when its just statutory rape. Other-wise known as fake-rape. Other-wise known no big deal.
No. The subject is with regard to prepubescent children. It is not statutory rape; it's pedophiles having sex with children.
|
On November 11 2010 12:17 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
I'm all for free speech for every other filthy or sleazy act mankind can conceive, but pedophilia is where I, and many people draw the line. Children are the only pure things in this filthy world, and it is our obligation to protect them in any way we can, as they are also the most defenseless. If I have to choose between free speech or protecting children from sexual abuse, then that is an easy choice for me, as I have two children of my own. Ideals need to be reconsidered at some point, as too much of anything can be bad, even freedom, as freedom for one person can result in the sexual slavery of another.
It is reactions like these that make it so easy for governments to slowly and subtley scratch away your rights in the name of protection.
Manifesto's suggestion, and the insinuation of so many posters in this thread seems to rest on the idea that the act of buying a book is tantamount to physically abusing a child.
It wouldn't even matter if the book was simply a 500 page essay on the joys of raping children, the act of reading it, buying it, or even writing it are not in any way comparable to physical abuse of children, nor is the assumption that in doing so they are going to abuse children.
Do you assume that people who read the communist manifesto becoming communists and go out promoting the cause? or that people who read mein kamph start to embrace hitlers ideology and act on it?
There is so much ignorance in this thread, that I'm almost starting to warm to the idea that freedom of speech should not always apply..
|
On November 11 2010 12:17 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
I'm all for free speech for every other filthy or sleazy act mankind can conceive, but pedophilia is where I, and many people draw the line. Children are the only pure things in this filthy world, and it is our obligation to protect them in any way we can. If I have to choose between free speech or protecting children from sexual abuse, that is an easy choice for me, as I have two children of my own.
What would you think, if you would lock way/get rid of every pedophile, by how many % would the child molestation rate go down?
|
On November 11 2010 12:21 etch wrote:
Could we get a name change for this thread? Right now the top of my browser reads: "Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 18"
To a passing observer, it seems like not only am I reading the Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure but i'm 18 pages deep in it.
This post is hilarious to me for some reason, probably because of the book name, 18, and "deep in it" in one sentence.
|
Oh damn, I had only skimmed with the find option, I in fact did not know about "Poe's Law", thanks for informing me of its existence =D
You even mentioned it before BlackHumor made any mention of it.
Here is your cookie:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7GF2kkMcTKc/SJm6De6a-pI/AAAAAAAAOmc/ctDkaHabUgo/s400/Cookie-monster.jpg) PSYCHE!!!
|
On November 11 2010 12:23 XeliN wrote:
Do you assume that people who read the communist manifesto becoming communists and go out promoting the cause? or that people who read mein kamph start to embrace hitlers ideology and act on it?
Clearly man, haven't you been reading this thread? Buying books is a crime, consumers are criminals, Borders should be raided by US Marshals.
By the way, the whole "criminal registry" idea is pretty dangerous. I'm not going to get into the morality of destroying people's privacy for no substantial gain (unless someone can bring up a case where a sex offender was prevented from sexually assaulting someone because someone had read that this person was a sex offender online), it just seems like a very bad idea overall, inciting panic and mob mentality and whatnot. If you have a serious problem with dangerous people getting released back into society, legal reform seems like a better idea than some kind of list open to the public of people to hate.
|
It seems many of you purport to support free speech when in actuality you don't.
The essence of free speech is that there is no limit. Limits are always arbitrary. Arbitrary limits will always discriminate. Yes, moral values are arbitrary.
If you think this book should be banned because it's grossly offensive, why shouldn't atheistic be banned because they grossly offend some Christians?
What standard are you applying? Do you believe that if an absolute majority of a community wants to ban something, it should be banned? Two thirds majority? 90%? 99%? Remember that the banning of anything at all is at the detriment of some members of the community.
The lines of the law are always drawn at where it causes harm to others. And being offended cannot be considered a harm. The book offends you? Don't read it. It offends you that other people are able to read it? I don't see why you should be entitled to deprive someone else's freedoms based on your own moral judgement. It's the same line of reasoning used by those in support of banning gay marriage, or even gay public affection.
From what I see of this book, it sickens me to the core. But I would not like to see free speech violated.
Evelyn Hall said of Voltaire's principles: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
On November 11 2010 12:30 raviy wrote:
Evelyn Hall said of Voltaire's principles: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
And this is why I hate people. Because books like this shouldn't be banned.
I guess I'm just lucky that my sexuality doesn't skate a line so close to something so despicable.
I feel so sorry for pedophiles. I guess I feel more sorry for them than hate them.
|
Everyone seems so upset about losing their freedoms. Theres even a guy a few posts above me saying its "his choice" if he wants to rape a kid. What about the kids choice? People who talk like that sound an awful lot like they just never have known what its like to have something to lose.
People are so rabid to defend their freedoms. Ill donate a few of mine gladly to clean up this world. Does it seem to anyone else that there is a new religion these days? A new dogma? Ive wondered if its the entertainment industry. Look how upset people get if you threaten to take away gore or sex from their tv shows or games. They get rabid man. They come out swinging. They bring the big guns too like freedom of speech, and my personal favorite excuse to do whatever you want without consequence, by calling it "art". I dont personally know if a violent or overly sexual society comes from one whos media glorifies sex and violence, but i would be willing to take a massive hit to my porn collection if it meant a few hundred more chicks a year didnt get raped or didnt have to look in the mirror and hate themselves because of how unlike porn stars they look. Id be willing to give that up for the greater good. But we all know thats not how it works so its ridiculous to even think it. But the point is, wow, look how mad people get when you threaten their entertainment sources... WOW. No different than when you say there is no God to a Christian, or when you say there is a Christian God to an Athiest. Or take a bottle from a baby.
Im willing to take a hit to my freedom of speech to keep how to guides about raping kids off mainstream websites. Its a sacrifice i dont mind making.
|
"and my personal favorite excuse to do whatever you want without consequence"
This is exactly the jump of logic that I tried to highlight and hopefully establish as ignorant in my previous post.
Freedom of Speech is not the right to DO whatever you want.
|
Canada11418 Posts
I would flip the slippery slope argument on it's head. That is freedom of speech does not divorce an author of responsibility of their work. This particular author is abusing the freedom of speech and pushing our society one step closer to censorship. I hate censorship, but if you won't clean the nest, sometimes others will do it for you.
Orson Scott Card was interviewed about censorship and I agree with a lot of what he said
But unfortunately, most of these arts are practiced by people who have not grown out of the adolescent stage of wanting to shock people in order to seem cool -- even though, like adolescents, they can't think of a single new way to shock anybody, so nobody is actually shocked at all, they're just embarrassed or bored ... or, if they're marginal personalities, excited in a sick way.
(Maybe I hold a rather dim view of humanity, but I'm not surprised someone would write this book.)
When the balance tips, it will tip hard and far, and I personally resent the all-or-nothing crew who, by adamantly rejecting all self-restraint and celebrating the most vile stuff as "edgy" and admirable, will someday provoke the puritan backlash that will clean my slate along with theirs. They'll whine about the censors, but I'll know that it was their own excesses that led society to prefer the censors to them. The only consolation is that the public can only stand censorship for a little while. Within a generation, the theaters reopened in England; the people of Iran are already wishing for more freedom. But wouldn't it be better to use good taste and a sense of decency and public responsibility to keep the censorship from ever seeming necessary?
So I don't think it's a matter of Amazon needing to censor this book. However, I do think the author ought to have exercised self-restraint and viewed freedom of speech as a responsibility and not license to write vile garbage.
Freedom of speech is such a powerful thing that can be used to spread enlightened, but dangerous ideas (dangerous to the current status quo.) However, it seems that this freedom is squandered by the most vilest of humans.
|
On November 11 2010 12:37 Mellotron wrote:
People are so rabid to defend their freedoms. Ill donate a few of mine gladly to clean up this world.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
You can stop posting now.
|
On November 11 2010 12:37 Mellotron wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Everyone seems so upset about losing their freedoms. Theres even a guy a few posts above me saying its "his choice" if he wants to rape a kid. What about the kids choice? People who talk like that sound an awful lot like they just never have known what its like to have something to lose.
People are so rabid to defend their freedoms. Ill donate a few of mine gladly to clean up this world. Does it seem to anyone else that there is a new religion these days? A new dogma? Ive wondered if its the entertainment industry. Look how upset people get if you threaten to take away gore or sex from their tv shows or games. They get rabid man. They come out swinging. They bring the big guns too like freedom of speech, and my personal favorite excuse to do whatever you want without consequence, by calling it "art". I dont personally know if a violent or overly sexual society comes from one whos media glorifies sex and violence, but i would be willing to take a massive hit to my porn collection if it meant a few hundred more chicks a year didnt get raped or didnt have to look in the mirror and hate themselves because of how unlike porn stars they look. Id be willing to give that up for the greater good. But we all know thats not how it works so its ridiculous to even think it. But the point is, wow, look how mad people get when you threaten their entertainment sources... WOW. No different than when you say there is no God to a Christian, or when you say there is a Christian God to an Athiest. Or take a bottle from a baby.
Im willing to take a hit to my freedom of speech to keep how to guides about raping kids off mainstream websites. Its a sacrifice i dont mind making.
I'm glad that you feel that you have the bestest most infallible moral compass and that everyone should conform to your values. Go! Preach to us all how censorship leads to a more fulfilling life and a better society! Teach us the error of wanting to not be ignorant!
What is thy name, oh prophet of the one true way so that all may know who to pray to for the sin of curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
