|
On November 11 2010 13:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:25 MiniRoman wrote: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.
You sound like an annoying pedophile to me. I don't consider any sexual act relating to children "innocent". They may not be rapists but that's not an act if innocence.
edit: so let me ask you, don't find anything sinister about the desires of pedophiles?
|
wow now i have seen it all.
a book to teach pedophiles. to be better pedophiles.
whats next.
"how to be a terrorist and not get caught for dummies"
|
On November 11 2010 14:00 MiniRoman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 11 2010 13:25 MiniRoman wrote: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. You sound like an annoying pedophile to me. I don't consider any sexual act relating to children "innocent". They may not be rapists but that's not an act if innocence. edit: so let me ask you, don't find anything sinister about the desires of pedophiles?
Not every pedophile is the same. I consider the desire and intent to molest a pre-pubescent child sinister and wrong. I do not consider it wrong to merely be attracted to children.
Thoughts and feelings don't harm children. Child molesters do.
Thoughts don't necessitate action. Go ahead and write me off as an annoying pedophile but at least understand something before you decide to hate it.
|
who's the author of this book? it's so sick!
or may be police/fbi did this just to catch pedophiles (e.g. keep track the buyers of the book) or may be i'm just watching too much tv.
but kidding aside, this is really bad. there should be limitation to freedom of speech. it's as if telling anyone and everyone to be pedophiles cause there's satisfaction to it and you won't get caught anyway.
|
On November 11 2010 14:05 SlayerS_BunkiE wrote:
who's the author of this book? it's so sick!
or may be police/fbi did this just to catch pedophiles (e.g. keep track the buyers of the book) or may be i'm just watching too much tv.
but kidding aside, this is really bad. there should be limitation to freedom of speech. it's as if telling anyone and everyone to be pedophiles cause there's satisfaction to it and you won't get caught anyway.
It isn't illegal to be a pedophile. One can not simply "become" a pedophile. This post reeks of serious serious ignorance.
|
On November 11 2010 13:58 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote: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.
Should books containing medical knowledge be banned as well?
How about books regarding martial arts?
You really don't have a basis for argument here.
|
I wanna have sex with a 17 year old chick who's about to turn 18 within a few weeks? am I a pedo?
|
On November 11 2010 14:13 Hanners wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:58 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote: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. Should books containing medical knowledge be banned as well? How about books regarding martial arts? You really don't have a basis for argument here.
I wouldn't say "banned", I'd say "moderated".
Out of everything, people should weigh the pros against the cons. Spreading medical knowledge? Lots of pros on this one, thus the little to no censorship. Martial arts? hmm, I'd say about equal. The book in question? I'd say no pros and it's cons are devastating for the community.
|
On November 11 2010 14:19 Licmyobelisk wrote:
I wanna have sex with a 17 year old chick who's about to turn 18 within a few weeks? am I a pedo?
Not quite the same thing as pedophilia, and it's completely normal to have such feelings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
|
On November 11 2010 13:58 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote: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.
Unless someone has used the advice yourself and can testify "yeah this book really helps me rape children, thank you random vanity press author guy!" I don't see how you can treat the book like it's some fountain of knowledge akin to nuclear weapons. It's just one guy and his crank ideas that are probably no more valid than what anyone else on here could dream up and pass off as real advice.
|
...I sense the life of this thread running short.
|
On November 11 2010 14:19 Licmyobelisk wrote:
I wanna have sex with a 17 year old chick who's about to turn 18 within a few weeks? am I a pedo?
Pedophilia is about prepubescent minors
|
On November 11 2010 14:22 Shakes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:58 Deyster wrote:On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote: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. Unless someone has used the advice yourself and can testify "yeah this book really helps me rape children, thank you random vanity press author guy!" I don't see how you can treat the book like it's some fountain of knowledge akin to nuclear weapons. It's just one guy and his crank ideas that are probably no more valid than what anyone else on here could dream up and pass off as real advice.
Well, like I said, I didn't read the book, I don't know what the actual content in it is exactly is. But if it is what people make it sound like (as in it helps child molesters), then it should be censored.
|
Does this apply to pedophilia as well?
|
On November 11 2010 13:58 Deyster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 13:53 Hanners wrote: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.
Actually Nuclear knowledge isnt the issue. Actually making the stuff (Uranium I suppose? using the things that spin to get the heavy isotopes) that is difficult
|
On November 11 2010 14:29 XeliN wrote:Does this apply to pedophilia as well?
Depends on the time period or the country. In medieval times it was common for royalty to have young play things. In ancient Greece it was a way favor was shown over a pupil. Don't quote me on it though, because it's getting late here and I'm going to go to bed instead of looking at sources. Honestly the answer to everything law related is: it depends.
|
weirdly enough I get 404d when I try to access the book on amazon. I guess they actually took it down.
|
On November 11 2010 14:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 14:00 MiniRoman wrote:On November 11 2010 13:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 11 2010 13:25 MiniRoman wrote: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. You sound like an annoying pedophile to me. I don't consider any sexual act relating to children "innocent". They may not be rapists but that's not an act if innocence. edit: so let me ask you, don't find anything sinister about the desires of pedophiles? Not every pedophile is the same. I consider the desire and intent to molest a pre-pubescent child sinister and wrong. I do not consider it wrong to merely be attracted to children. Thoughts and feelings don't harm children. Child molesters do. Thoughts don't necessitate action. Go ahead and write me off as an annoying pedophile but at least understand something before you decide to hate it.
Some opinions are best kept to yourself.
|
|
|
On November 11 2010 14:39 zingmars wrote:
weirdly enough I get 404d when I try to access the book on amazon. I guess they actually took it down.
I got 404d as well.
On November 11 2010 14:43 Whiladan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 14:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 11 2010 14:00 MiniRoman wrote:On November 11 2010 13:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 11 2010 13:25 MiniRoman wrote: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. You sound like an annoying pedophile to me. I don't consider any sexual act relating to children "innocent". They may not be rapists but that's not an act if innocence. edit: so let me ask you, don't find anything sinister about the desires of pedophiles? Not every pedophile is the same. I consider the desire and intent to molest a pre-pubescent child sinister and wrong. I do not consider it wrong to merely be attracted to children. Thoughts and feelings don't harm children. Child molesters do. Thoughts don't necessitate action. Go ahead and write me off as an annoying pedophile but at least understand something before you decide to hate it. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.
Why? I completely agree with DoctorHelvetica's. What is wrong with that post or DoctorHelvetica's opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
