|
On November 11 2010 13:12 Deyster wrote:
People describing censorship as if it's that monster that eats through their freedom need to look at things from a different angle.
I'm pretty sure every single one of us at least practiced censorship themselves. Be it hiding their porn from their younger brothers, hiding their school marks from their parents, talking to friends/family members with a language only they understand while others don't or even hiding your "shame" when somebody catches you naked. All of those are acts of censorship on some level.
There is a greater benefit from censorship if used fairly and wisely. Kids are most of the time not ready for certain things or do not fully understand the consequences of certain actions. Censorship gives them time to be prepared.
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid.
|
No one seems to think the author of the book is trolling us?
|
On November 11 2010 13:08 Falling wrote:
I'm not even sure that Franklin quote is a relevant response. Essentially Mellotron was arguing that voluntarily being less selfish or self-indulgent for the greater good, could be beneficial. Not that he would be giving up institutionalized liberty.
Institutionalized liberty allows people to have choice, but not all choices are equal. With that liberty in place, people seem to revel in the really poor choices because 'it's their freedom.' Yes it is, but it doesn't necessarily build a more positive society. The only good thing is we haven't created a restrictive society whereby one cannot even choose to do what is right (government is terrible at defining what is good and what is not). However, the ones that revel in the excesses of self-indulgence, I think, abuse their freedom and do not contribute.
Thus voluntarily giving up on those excesses has little in common with Franklin's concern.
No, his post was basically that he, personally, individually, would be fine with a certain degree of authoritarianism and the loss of a few of his civil liberties in exchange for some tangible benefit; this is both ideologically against the principles of the United States and a practically impossible and thus argumentatively worthless scenario. Rather than take the time to thoroughly explain why such a system of beliefs would be ideologically illogical, unsustainable in reality, and flawed in even just the context of this current debate, I thought it would save everyone a bit of time if I rather just posted a highly relevant quote to hopefully illustrate that better men have critically thought over such an ideal and disagreed with it.
|
On November 11 2010 13:16 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:10 MiniRoman wrote:
And that offers any sort of redemption in what way? The book offers guidance on how to avoid being caught while carrying on sexual interactions with children. You seriously gonna get into potential justifications for why the sexual assault occurs?
If you want to feel powerful over a child, offer them an icecream and hold it above your head. Wow you're so powerful. feel better? No? Might as well rape them, then I'll feel in control!
Clearly rape isn't sexual. I'm not talking about the book. I'm just saying it's ignorant to assume all pedophiles are child molesters who want to hurt children. When did I condone raping children?
Well you chose to ignore the reality of whats being discussed to argue about words. Any sort of sexual release from viewing children is just wrong. If a pedophile gets off to anything child-pornographic related then it reinforces a system in which I'm sure somewhere a kid was hurt for that end. Is that really something acceptable? Goes against my human nature. I'll accept ignorance and hold a prejudice against pedophiles, doesn't bother me so much.
Thanks for making that distinction between child molester and pedophile though, what a big deal it was.
|
The book is still there on the link if you log out of your amazon account, it's being blocked if you log in for some reason. Hmm and now I log back in and I can see it again. Very strange.
|
On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid.
What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children?
Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers.
And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively?
|
On November 11 2010 13:16 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 12:58 XeliN wrote:On November 11 2010 12:55 So no fek wrote:
Looks like the removed it; link in the OP brings up an error page. Sad, people may risk their safety in the name of an ideal, but a company will never risk their profits to do so... What's the ideal here? Amazon is a business. They can sell whatever they want. They deemed it not in their company's long term interests to sell a book that many found objectionable. The author can still write books, and can sell them independently, or through someone else if he can find a difference business willing to sell his book. I'm so confused about where this freedom of speech argument comes in. Who's freedom of speech is being restricted?
They orignally defended their selling of the book on grounds of freedom of speech, then, presumably due to pressure and considerations of damage it might do to the company they chose to remove it.
This is what I meant by sad.
|
On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:
What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children?
Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers.
And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively?
Your emotionally charged rhetoric isn't convincing anyone, this is a book written for pedophiles (and apparently poorly written), not some kind of magic artifact that turns anyone within close proximity into a child molester. No matter how much you try to paint a picture of actual and imminent danger your argument will never be valid until you can somehow prove this book is inciting or directly causing harm.
|
On November 11 2010 13:25 MiniRoman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:16 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 11 2010 13:10 MiniRoman wrote:
And that offers any sort of redemption in what way? The book offers guidance on how to avoid being caught while carrying on sexual interactions with children. You seriously gonna get into potential justifications for why the sexual assault occurs?
If you want to feel powerful over a child, offer them an icecream and hold it above your head. Wow you're so powerful. feel better? No? Might as well rape them, then I'll feel in control!
Clearly rape isn't sexual. I'm not talking about the book. I'm just saying it's ignorant to assume all pedophiles are child molesters who want to hurt children. When did I condone raping children? Well you chose to ignore the reality of whats being discussed to argue about words. Any sort of sexual release from viewing children is just wrong. If a pedophile gets off to anything child-pornographic related then it reinforces a system in which I'm sure somewhere a kid was hurt for that end. Is that really something acceptable? Goes against my human nature. I'll accept ignorance and hold a prejudice against pedophiles, doesn't bother me so much. Thanks for making that distinction between child molester and pedophile though, what a big deal it was.
Sorry, it's annoying when people try to brand the innocent as rapists.
It's doubly annoying when people accept willful ignorance to hate something they don't understand. Don't imply for a second you know how all pedophiles think or act.
|
On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid. What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children? Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers. And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively?
There's a reason the term "big brother" was coined in the US and why it's negative.
If I was a parent, of course I would want to protect my children to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not going to allow the government (or whatever society) to act as *my* parent.
In short: You don't get to tell me how I can live my life. If I get orgasms looking at people's feet, you have no right to tell me I can't look at feet. If I chose to hang a consenting partner from the ceiling, smear shit on them, cut them, and "force" them to give me oral pleasure, you have no right to say that I can't do that. They don't effect you or anyone else.
The moment that consent is not given or harm is done, then you can judge me. You don't have the right to not be offended.
Until then, kindly stop trying to keep me from living my life the way I see fit.
|
On November 11 2010 13:32 Krigwin wrote:
Your emotionally charged rhetoric isn't convincing anyone, this is a book written for pedophiles (and apparently poorly written), not some kind of magic artifact that turns anyone within close proximity into a child molester. No matter how much you try to paint a picture of actual and imminent danger your argument will never be valid until you can somehow prove this book is inciting or directly causing harm.
Probably my lack of knowledge of the book's actual content won't allow me to provide some actual evidence that this book is dangerous or not. But how-to/tips for avoiding getting caught or how to seduce children are considered dangerous cause of their affect on others.
For example, why wouldn't the US (and it's allies) want other countries to have nuclear knowledge? It's because with that knowledge they can make weapons and ultimately harm others.
Again, I don't know the actual content of the book, but if it will eventually lead to harming of others, I'm all in for censoring it.
|
This is a book that instructs a way to rape children without getting caught, which is 100% unquestionably ILLEGAL and a punishable offense. This book is the same as a book on how to commit a murder or make a mail bomb. I am personally not going to buy anything off of Amazon or a Kindle or support anyone they sponsor until this horse shit is removed.
|
I think you'll find George Orwell was English, not American.
|
On November 11 2010 13:38 Hanners wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid. What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children? Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers. And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively? There's a reason the term "big brother" was coined in the US and why it's negative.If I was a parent, of course I would want to protect my children to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not going to allow the government (or whatever society) to act as *my* parent. In short: You don't get to tell me how I can live my life. If I get orgasms looking at people's feet, you have no right to tell me I can't look at feet. If I chose to hang a consenting partner from the ceiling, smear shit on them, cut them, and "force" them to give me oral pleasure, you have no right to say that I can't do that. They don't effect you or anyone else. The moment that consent is not given or harm is done, then you can judge me. You don't have the right to not be offended. Until then, kindly stop trying to keep me from living my life the way I see fit.
Something I learnt from elementary school was: "Your freedom ends where others' freedoms start". As in, you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it's not invading others' freedom.
I really wouldn't give a damn if someone gets off on tentacle hentai, or 2girls1cup or whatever fucked up shit I don't know about yet. It's THEIR fantasies, their mentality and their fucked up shit. As long as it's not affecting my own freedom and my own rights, I don't see the harm.
But once one starts invading my (or others) freedom and rights, he/she should be stopped immediately and also punished.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 11 2010 13:31 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:16 tree.hugger wrote:On November 11 2010 12:58 XeliN wrote:On November 11 2010 12:55 So no fek wrote:
Looks like the removed it; link in the OP brings up an error page. Sad, people may risk their safety in the name of an ideal, but a company will never risk their profits to do so... What's the ideal here? Amazon is a business. They can sell whatever they want. They deemed it not in their company's long term interests to sell a book that many found objectionable. The author can still write books, and can sell them independently, or through someone else if he can find a difference business willing to sell his book. I'm so confused about where this freedom of speech argument comes in. Who's freedom of speech is being restricted? They orignally defended their selling of the book on grounds of freedom of speech, then, presumably due to pressure and considerations of damage it might do to the company they chose to remove it. This is what I meant by sad.
Their original defense made no sense, precisely because they weren't defending the author's freedom of speech, they were simply defending their decision to sell it.
I'm really having a hard time figuring out what people are finding objectionable about the decision to pull the book.
|
I find nothing objectionable about it beyond that they originally argued in favour of being able to do so.
What I find most objectionable is people suggesting they ought not be allowed the descision to sell the book in the first place.
|
On November 11 2010 13:48 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:38 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid. What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children? Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers. And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively? There's a reason the term "big brother" was coined in the US and why it's negative.If I was a parent, of course I would want to protect my children to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not going to allow the government (or whatever society) to act as *my* parent. In short: You don't get to tell me how I can live my life. If I get orgasms looking at people's feet, you have no right to tell me I can't look at feet. If I chose to hang a consenting partner from the ceiling, smear shit on them, cut them, and "force" them to give me oral pleasure, you have no right to say that I can't do that. They don't effect you or anyone else. The moment that consent is not given or harm is done, then you can judge me. You don't have the right to not be offended. Until then, kindly stop trying to keep me from living my life the way I see fit. Something I learnt from elementary school was: "Your freedom ends where others' freedoms start". As in, you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it's not invading others' freedom. I really wouldn't give a damn if someone gets off on tentacle hentai, or 2girls1cup or whatever fucked up shit I don't know about yet. It's THEIR fantasies, their mentality and their fucked up shit. As long as it's not affecting my own freedom and my own rights, I don't see the harm. But once one starts invading my (or others) freedom and rights, he/she should be stopped immediately and also punished.
I agree. So how does reading a book invade a person's freedom or rights again?
|
|
|
On November 11 2010 13:48 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:38 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid. What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children? Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers. And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively? There's a reason the term "big brother" was coined in the US and why it's negative.If I was a parent, of course I would want to protect my children to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not going to allow the government (or whatever society) to act as *my* parent. In short: You don't get to tell me how I can live my life. If I get orgasms looking at people's feet, you have no right to tell me I can't look at feet. If I chose to hang a consenting partner from the ceiling, smear shit on them, cut them, and "force" them to give me oral pleasure, you have no right to say that I can't do that. They don't effect you or anyone else. The moment that consent is not given or harm is done, then you can judge me. You don't have the right to not be offended. Until then, kindly stop trying to keep me from living my life the way I see fit. Something I learnt from elementary school was: "Your freedom ends where others' freedoms start". As in, you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it's not invading others' freedom. I really wouldn't give a damn if someone gets off on tentacle hentai, or 2girls1cup or whatever fucked up shit I don't know about yet. It's THEIR fantasies, their mentality and their fucked up shit. As long as it's not affecting my own freedom and my own rights, I don't see the harm. But once one starts invading my (or others) freedom and rights, he/she should be stopped immediately and also punished.
A book is not invading your privacy.
|
On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:48 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:38 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 13:28 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:19 Hanners wrote:
All of your examples are examples of self-censorship, not someone else (or society as a whole) censoring you.
Your argument is invalid. What about a parent preventing explicit material from being viewed by their children? Or a parent prohibiting foul language in front of children? Think of the community as a one big family and the authorities are the parents of this one big family. Think of those who are calling for censorship as the big brother who understands the dangers and alerts the parents to the impending dangers. And I think everyone (Regardless if you agree with censorship or not) should ask themselves: If you were a parent, would you want to protect your children from things that could potentially ruin their life or affect it negatively? There's a reason the term "big brother" was coined in the US and why it's negative.If I was a parent, of course I would want to protect my children to the best of my abilities. However, I'm not going to allow the government (or whatever society) to act as *my* parent. In short: You don't get to tell me how I can live my life. If I get orgasms looking at people's feet, you have no right to tell me I can't look at feet. If I chose to hang a consenting partner from the ceiling, smear shit on them, cut them, and "force" them to give me oral pleasure, you have no right to say that I can't do that. They don't effect you or anyone else. The moment that consent is not given or harm is done, then you can judge me. You don't have the right to not be offended. Until then, kindly stop trying to keep me from living my life the way I see fit. Something I learnt from elementary school was: "Your freedom ends where others' freedoms start". As in, you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it's not invading others' freedom. I really wouldn't give a damn if someone gets off on tentacle hentai, or 2girls1cup or whatever fucked up shit I don't know about yet. It's THEIR fantasies, their mentality and their fucked up shit. As long as it's not affecting my own freedom and my own rights, I don't see the harm. But once one starts invading my (or others) freedom and rights, he/she should be stopped immediately and also punished. I agree. So how does reading a book invade a person's freedom or rights again?
The knowledge within the book and what you can do with it is what's the problem.
Like I said, nuclear knowledge. With it you can produce nuclear weapons and harm others. While the knowledge itself is not harmful, but what you can do with it is, thus the nuclear knowledge is heavily censored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
