|
On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action 
when thoughts become crimes the human being ceases to exist.
|
On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech.
Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest.
That being said, do you think anyone would stand for the sale of a rape simulator? A GTA style game where you have to hunt down little kids and have them to have sex with you? No. There're things that are just wrong. Wrong and harmful to the core of the society at large, and pedophilia is one of them.
Trying to normalize a medically abnormal behaviour isn't libertarianism; it's stupidity. The world around us have it such that fighting is necessary and even encouraged, it's not a sickness; merely a tool for competition for resources. No such motive is present behind pedophiles, it's a sickness.
|
On November 11 2010 20:36 Hanners wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Clearly, you're an expert.
On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action
Clearly, you're not experts. Why is it a point against me that I have background knowledge about this? Great way to end the discussion without contributing anything. Even your beloved source of information wiki would agree with me, if you don't believe in the scientific method and university teaching methods. Here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
|
On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest.
Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values.
|
On November 11 2010 20:40 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action when thoughts become crimes the human being ceases to exist.
Okay, let's refute all of what should be obvious with a single clever quote.
The human being is a system of impulses, let's say. Then what is the difference between a human being and a beast?
Humans should be able to extend themselves beyond their immediate existence and take on the culture of their time and of their past, because everything that lasts is built on what existed before it. Also, take note of the context of each culture and its effects of the development of human thought.
To put it simply, thoughts should never legally be crimes. That does not mean I cannot condemn a person for pushing an idea that fundamentally, and in theory, should never result in harm, but in practice does.
|
On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values.
Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways.
|
On November 11 2010 20:45 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:36 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Clearly, you're an expert. Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action Clearly, you're not experts. Why is it a point against me that I have background knowledge about this? Great way to end the discussion without contributing anything. Even your beloved source of information wiki would agree with me, if you don't believe in the scientific method and university teaching methods. Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
It's a point against you because you're citing one course.
It's another point against you for thinking that you have more knowledge and education in psychology than others in this thread with you're vague claim of "a degree" that I suspect has nothing to do with the psychology of human sexuality or sexual development lest you no doubt would have proudly waved your banner of credentials.
|
On November 11 2010 20:47 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:40 Lachrymose wrote:On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action when thoughts become crimes the human being ceases to exist. Okay, let's refute all of what should be obvious with a single clever quote. The human being is a system of impulses, let's say. Then what is the difference between a human being and a beast? Humans should be able to extend themselves beyond their immediate existence and take on the culture of their time and of their past, because everything that lasts is built on what existed before it. Also, take note of the context of each culture and its effects of the development of human thought. To put it simply, thoughts should never legally be crimes. That does not mean I cannot condemn a person for pushing an idea that fundamentally, and in theory, should never result in harm, but in practice does.
What can possibly be the reason behind nurturing an impulse (ie publishing this book) if the reader isn't going to act on it?
|
On November 11 2010 20:47 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values. Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways.
Because morality =/= survival. A moral action isn't always one which would increase your fitness, whereas a darwinian action is. These two are very separate concepts, and should be kept as such. Even Dawkins, probably the most ardent supporter of Darwinism, says so.
|
On November 11 2010 20:50 Hanners wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:45 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:36 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Clearly, you're an expert. On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action Clearly, you're not experts. Why is it a point against me that I have background knowledge about this? Great way to end the discussion without contributing anything. Even your beloved source of information wiki would agree with me, if you don't believe in the scientific method and university teaching methods. Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia It's a point against you because you're citing one course. It's another point against you for thinking that you have more knowledge and education in psychology than others in this thread with you're vague claim of "a degree" that I suspect has nothing to do with the psychology of human sexuality or sexual development lest you no doubt would have proudly waved your banner of credentials.
While you share no thoughts or points to extend the discussion by way of contribution, you directly attack me. If you're at all knowledgeable about this topic, talk about your point, don't try and discredit my line of thought by the generic 'lol know-it-all guy here' statement that is the last resort of people who have nothing to say.
Also, internet discussions really matter.
|
On November 11 2010 20:51 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:47 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values. Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways. Because morality =/= survival. A moral action isn't always one which would increase your fitness, whereas a darwinian action is. The two are very separate concepts, and should be kept as such. Even Dawkins, probably the most ardent supporter of Darwinism, says so.
What the hell is Darwinism. There is only the theory of evolution, which is more or less proven.
Also, the question is whether thinking pedophilic thoughts is wrong or not.
I think it is wrong.
I also think that acknowledging and justifying said thoughts is indicative of something bad.
|
On November 11 2010 20:40 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action when thoughts become crimes the human being ceases to exist.
It depends on the thought as well as the nature of that thought.
|
On November 11 2010 20:54 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:51 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:47 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values. Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways. Because morality =/= survival. A moral action isn't always one which would increase your fitness, whereas a darwinian action is. The two are very separate concepts, and should be kept as such. Even Dawkins, probably the most ardent supporter of Darwinism, says so. What the hell is Darwinism. There is only the theory of evolution, which is more or less proven. Also, the question is whether thinking pedophilic thoughts is wrong or not. I think it is wrong.
Darwinism is basically evolution, and the philosophy which goes with it. What is meant by "using darwinism as a system of morality" is to base morality on survival of the gene - what is "good" would be defined as what would ensure the survival of the genes in your body.
|
On November 11 2010 20:51 Ianuus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:47 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values. Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways. Because morality =/= survival. A moral action isn't always one which would increase your fitness, whereas a darwinian action is. The two are very separate concepts, and should be kept as such. Even Dawkins, probably the most ardent supporter of Darwinism, says so.
I was referring to social morals rather and individual but it still partially stands. Morality = advancement of human species (and consequently survival thereof). Think about the protection that the laws promote, the promise of order and individual rights, efficient resource allocation, etc.
Or simply put, conscience choices generally follow a pattern to garner advantage for said society/person in the race to perpetuate their line.
Dawkins refers to religion there, not social choices people make to sustain civilizations.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
I believe that a book like this should be forbidden in every country of the earth.
And it was a good choice by Amazon to remove it quickly (but still too late, they shouldnt have sold it to begin with).Their whole company might have died in the shitstorm that media all over the world would have put on them had they let it for sale a few days more.
|
On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech.
Watch out that you don't trip, cause the slope you are climbing is sure slippery. Instructing, motivating and/or assisting in a crime can constitute a crime in itself - and rightfully so. It is therefore not covered by freedom of speech. Child abuse constitutes a crime in most countries afaik, so if he is instructing, motivating and/or assisting people to commit such acts then this book should be "censored" and this guy should be arrested. This would require reading the book first, however, to see what exactly he writes.
|
On November 11 2010 20:59 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:51 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:47 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:45 Ianuus wrote:On November 11 2010 20:41 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:
There is no reason to censor this book. Everyone, including pedophiles are responsible for their own actions.
Since "But this book told me to molest children" won't hold up in any court of law (Much like "Doom 2 made me shoot up my school"), this book isn't guilty of inciting a crime.
Everyone calling for it's ban should also be advocating banning violent first person shooters (Murder simulators, as some call them.)
Will this book probably cause more harm then good? Sure, probably. Fortunately, that is not the criteria we use to limit speech. Bad analogy. War is something written in our DNA, if you will. Humans have killed millions of their own kind for all kinds of motivations but at the most basic level, it's evolution at work, survival of the fittest. Darwinism and genetics are no basis for moral values. Why not? Cognition is an extension of biological processes. There are lots of examples where the neurological processes that follow darwinian based logic pathways. Because morality =/= survival. A moral action isn't always one which would increase your fitness, whereas a darwinian action is. The two are very separate concepts, and should be kept as such. Even Dawkins, probably the most ardent supporter of Darwinism, says so. I was referring to social morals rather and individual but it still partially stands. Morality = advancement of human species (and consequently survival thereof). Think about the protection that the laws promote, the promise of order and individual rights, efficient resource allocation, etc. Or simply put, conscience choices generally follow pattern to garner advantage for said society/person in the race to perpetuate their line. Darwin refers to religion there, not social choices people make to sustain civilizations.
If you refer to the standards and the advancement of a society rather than individuals, then you cannot use DNA and evolution as an argument. Evolution only applies to the gene, the smallest unit of inheritance; what you're talking about, group selection, has been thoroughly critiqued by evolutionists for ages now.
|
On November 11 2010 20:53 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 20:50 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 20:45 mikado wrote:On November 11 2010 20:36 Hanners wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Clearly, you're an expert. On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote:On November 11 2010 20:29 mikado wrote:
If the wrongness of the impulse (either from a sociological or a scientific point of view) is not in dispute, the assumptions I made stand. Having studied developmental and cognitive psychology as part of my degree, that simply is the scientific consensus ; it's a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. I'm the Queen of England. I have studied knighting and hand waving as a part of my degree. Also, the wrongness of the impulse IS in dispute. Many people in this thread seem to think that the idea of lusting after children is okay as long as no action results from the thought. And we all know how thoughts have nothing to do with action Clearly, you're not experts. Why is it a point against me that I have background knowledge about this? Great way to end the discussion without contributing anything. Even your beloved source of information wiki would agree with me, if you don't believe in the scientific method and university teaching methods. Here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia It's a point against you because you're citing one course. It's another point against you for thinking that you have more knowledge and education in psychology than others in this thread with you're vague claim of "a degree" that I suspect has nothing to do with the psychology of human sexuality or sexual development lest you no doubt would have proudly waved your banner of credentials. While you share no thoughts or points to extend the discussion by way of contribution, you directly attack me. If you're at all knowledgeable about this topic, talk about your point, don't try and discredit my line of thought by the generic 'lol know-it-all guy here' statement that is the last resort of people who have nothing to say. Also, internet discussions really matter.
And yet you're still here discussing things on the internet, citing your "credentials?"
Dude, whatever. You're here stating your opinions, but trying to declare them to be more pertinent because of your "education."
Yet clearly you don't know what you're really talking about other than the baseless, inexperienced judgments you've decided upon.
I've been sharing thoughts and contributing for the past 8 hours. You just haven't looked back at the previous pages.
|
For all those who are arguing about minors being incapable of critical decision-making, I ask you where you draw the line? Frankly, most 18-year old girls that I've met are nowhere near the point where they can make intelligent decisions about their life. Even at 28, most girls I know continue to make the same mistakes and get manipulated by the same types of people. What exactly possesses you to state that a 16 or 17-year old girl is somehow lacking in cognitive development compared to an adult?
If a 22-year old guy uses and lies to a 22-year old girl, he's a jerk and she should have known better. If the same guy uses and lies to a 16-year old girl, he's a pedophile and she's a victim. What?
The fact is, what constitutes adulthood in our society today is based on our shitty educational system, and it does not resemble anything close to ethical or biological definitions of adulthood. Anytime after puberty, the lines become quite blurred.
|
Boycott amazon from now on and let them know why. If more than 100 people write an complain about the subject their intern report system will pass the subject to someone in charge. The quality management chain will not allow to loose people to a crappy selling book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
