EPTPedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DROPPINBOMBS
United States312 Posts
| ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:04 Ianuus wrote: 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. Sure you can. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Individual enhancement drives group selection and the moral choices that the society makes contribute to the outcome. DNA is not distinct from anything; as Dawkins puts it: you're (human, animal, society, etc) DNA's way of making more DNA. Evolutionary principles drive everything. | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:08 Cel.erity wrote: You could use that argument for ANY law. There's a blurred line between any definition of what's right or wrong. Our legislation system is imperfect, but it's the best we've got. Should we stop all laws and live in complete anarchy only because there's no exact scientific way to tell the right from the wrong? Or should we at least try to make some rules because that would probably be better than nothing?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. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
| ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
Seriously why are people ITT comparing underdeveloped children to teenagers? | ||
|
Ianuus
Australia349 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:15 mikado wrote: Sure you can. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Individual enhancement drives group selection and the moral choices that the society makes contribute to the outcome. DNA is not distinct from anything; as Dawkins puts it: you're (human, animal, society, etc) DNA's way of making more DNA. Evolution's principles drive everything. Hm. If you really knew the words of Dawkins, then you'd absolutely and utterly reject group selection as a concept which can be attributed to evolution. Here is why you cannot infer "for the good of the society" from the axioms of evolution. Say I'm in a society where people do follow your rules - they do things for the good of the society. Then any mutation from that gene which makes me selfish and do things which are good for me at the cost of the society will have an advantage, and reproduce more than others. Soon your gene pool is full of nothing except people who are selfish - those who do things "for the good of society" will have lower fitness and die out. In order to justify doing things "for the good of society", one must go beyond evolution - and into the realms of morality and ethics. Oh, and for your information, DNA is indeed distinct from several things - the brain is one of them. DNA's processes of adapting to changing enviroments through regulation of gene products is too slow, so the brain evolved, beyond the direct control of DNA, and although its primary directive is still to ensure the survival of its genes, conscious thought can rebel from this. | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:20 MerciLess wrote: While I consider pedophiles to be the lowest of the low, I don't see how my personal opinions on someone else's personal opinions should matter as it pertains to free speech. If free speech only extends to those ideas that are popular, or well received in general, we as a country do not have free speech. I'm perfectly okay with people discussing whatever they will, in whatever medium they wish, before I'm okay with censorship. As long as they're opinions and thoughts don't become actions, they have committed no crime in a free society. Until its scientifically proven that 9,13, whatever year old kids can make sound decisions on sexual stuff and are not susceptible to manipulation there is no way free speech applies to such themes as this book promotes. So essentially free speech is limited and has limits. Heck is we had full free speech, what would stop someone placing audio in the busiest street and talk about having sex with kids/killing people/raping woman/discriminating people due to color/morbidly cutting up people in half in public places, etc... Do you see where that leads? Anarchy, chaos, crazy. | ||
|
Carefoot
Canada410 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:15 thehitman wrote: oh wow, since sexual intercourse with a minor is lawfully forbidden, as well as morally and thematically wrong and this book openly promotes it, it is not acceptable to free speech and should be removed. Then free speach isn't free. Theocracy and hypocritical turns at immorality in a society that deams inviting lawyers into the bedroom prior to sex to be moral by any religious standpoint. This book isn't going to make pedophiles, its going to turn practising ones (or at least inform them of) - how to not have to kill the kid with a brick after there done for now on. Not all childlovers want to fuck your kid then kill them, but some do and will continue to do as getting caught is far worse then the guilt that has to come with disembowling a child then burying the remains or feeding them to pigs. If you repress this behavior, it is going to mutate and get violent. Blame yourself. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Theocracy and hypocritical turns at immorality in a society that deams inviting lawyers into the bedroom prior to sex to be moral by any religious standpoint. What? This book isn't going to make pedophiles, its going to turn practicing ones (or at least inform them of) - how to not have to kill the kid with a brick after there done for now on. No. You see, the ratio between lurking pedos and practicing pedos remains relatively small due to two factors. One is that they are mortified of getting caught which thankfully happens quite often. Another is that they are very much aware of the blazing hatred felt by decent society against their perversions which kinda makes them think about it twice. This book informs the lurking pedo how to successfully mask his activities so as to appear a decent human being. In turn, such knowledge makes him dramatically more confident and therefore prone to living out his perverted fantasies. Having didactic reading of this kind out on a site as established as amazon somehow gives legitimacy to even discussing the disgusting tendencies and views of pedos, which in turn helps them feel better about being trash. Both of the above can very much push a potential lurking pedo into going out and actually pedolising a kid. Are you able to understand that? Not all childlovers want to fuck your kid then kill them, but some do and will continue to do as getting caught is far worse then the guilt that has to come with disembowling a child then burying the remains or feeding them to pigs. Thank you mister childlover for merely sodomizing and mauling my 7-year old and not killing him outright. How very considerate. If you repress this behavior, it is going to mutate and get violent. Blame yourself. Pardon? Are you seriously trying to say violent pedophiles are the result of us bad judgmental people actually disliking the idea of grown men sodomizing prepubescent children? I guess we should stop repressing those poor rapists and gangbangers, too. It's making them totally miserable and angsty. I don't want to repress their behaviour. I want to castrate them. It's pretty hard to molest children when you have no balls. | ||
|
Navane
Netherlands2748 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon. There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia? Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
| ||
|
undyinglight
United States611 Posts
| ||
|
Caos2
United States1728 Posts
On November 11 2010 07:37 VIB wrote: Edit2: Amazon removed the book. It now gives you a 404 error. F****. EDIT: Maybe children are reading this, no explicit words then  | ||
|
DROPPINBOMBS
United States312 Posts
| ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Row over Amazon sales of paedophile advice guide The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct has now been removed from sale. But Amazon had defended the listing, saying it did not promote criminal acts but also avoided censorship. Amazon allows authors to submit their own books and shares revenue with them Before authors are able to sell a work on the site, they are asked to read a set of guidelines, which bans offensive materials. But Amazon does not specifically state on its website what material it deems offensive, instead saying "probably what you would expect". Boycott threat In recent hours the book listing appears to have been removed from the Amazon website. But there has been no response yet to BBC requests for a statement from the retailer. It had previously adopted a defiant posture, saying in a statement: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. "Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions." The author, listed as Philip R Greaves II, argues that paedophiles are misunderstood and purports to offer advice to help them abide by the law. Individuals on the micro-blogging website Twitter have asked Amazon to remove the book from its site, while some are threatening to boycott the retailer. One Amazon user posted a comment on the site, saying that "to see a book like this on Amazon's 'shelves', so to speak, is very troubling to me". The title is being sold for the Kindle electronic reader. | ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
On November 11 2010 22:39 Kickboxer wrote: Pardon? Are you seriously trying to say violent pedophiles are the result of us bad judgmental people actually disliking the idea of grown men sodomizing prepubescent children? I guess we should stop repressing those poor rapists and gangbangers, too. It's making them totally miserable and angsty. I don't want to repress their behaviour. I want to castrate them. It's pretty hard to molest children when you have no balls. I think what he (very clumsily) is getting at is that touching a child has been elevated as a crime beyond murder. Certainly this is true legally in some places where it carries a tougher sentence. When you have that kind of situation then there will no doubt be a fucked up individual or two who thinks "well if I'm caught I'm going away for a long time either way, if I hide the evidence I'm less likely to get caught". Also it's quite easy to molest children when you have no balls. What, you think that all molestation is penetrative sex? Even if your point is that it would remove the desire, that's untrue, chemical castration despite being sold as a silver bullet hasn't eliminated repeat offenders. It's not the testosterone alone that causes men to rape and molest, there's no such thing as a slave to hormones. | ||
|
Stuv
Netherlands942 Posts
Esp. give it to someone when his parents are there as well! | ||
|
Carefoot
Canada410 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:05 Shakes wrote: I think what he (very clumsily) is getting at is that touching a child has been elevated as a crime beyond murder. Certainly this is true legally in some places where it carries a tougher sentence. When you have that kind of situation then there will no doubt be a fucked up individual or two who thinks "well if I'm caught I'm going away for a long time either way, if I hide the evidence I'm less likely to get caught". Also it's quite easy to molest children when you have no balls. What, you think that all molestation is penetrative sex? Even if your point is that it would remove the desire, that's untrue, chemical castration despite being sold as a silver bullet hasn't eliminated repeat offenders. It's not the testosterone alone that causes men to rape and molest, there's no such thing as a slave to hormones. Exactly and thanks for the point on the castration myth. They use to chemically castrate gays in the 50's as well shit is WRONG. Also thank you for clarifying my point but it bares repeating, zero tolerance promotes a culture where missing children will become not only far more common but far worse then the outcome of coming out relatively unscathed from someone. Abduction is one thing but in a society where it is voluntary I think the ammount of harm done would plummet. You may disagree fine but you may also agree with drug prohibition & enforcing prostitution laws and to that good sir I bit you adieu. On November 11 2010 23:10 Stuv wrote: Sounds like a book which is going to be a fun gift to a friend or so. Esp. give it to someone when his parents are there as well! 5/5 along with writing on cheque stub memos “thanks for molesting my kids” On November 11 2010 22:46 Railxp wrote: free speech absolutely needs to be upheld. Allowing one scenario to compromise it completely demolishes the principle, and shows that you are not only inconsistent, but also irrational in your beliefs and morals. It also shows that you do not understand why people have fought and died for the right of free speech for all, and how it is vital ingredient for a free society. To those claiming the pedo book should be banned because it teaches you how to break the law, the Anarchist Cookbook is also available on amazon, and that book teaches you how to mix homemade explosives. Lolita is a classic amorous tale also involving pedophilia, also on amazon. There is PLENTY of crime fiction on murdering and getting away with it, all of which can be used as reference or research material for potential murderers. And yet nobody is getting up in arms about that. OJ Simpson's "If I did it" further grays the border of reality and fiction. And yet nobody is getting their panties in a bunch about cold blooded murder. and yet now you are angry about pedophilia? Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, if you decide to suppress it when you dont like what is being said, then you are no different than those who persecuted the intellectuals that you now name heroes of human history. Thank you for this post. My ego gets attached to trying to defend Pedophiles mainly because I feel in the future it won't be tolerated in reality but rather virtual reality where nobody gives a shit. So people from the future when you're looking to pick out people questioned the drooling mob of idiots who say burn the witch for being a witch, let Carefoot be the one who said "well they don't have to hate kid fucking just don't let them cut the kid fuckers dicks off or kill them" I am one who honestly thinks that the universe as cold as it may seem tends to unfold as it should. Does anyone here have any personal stories of how they were molested? I talk to comedians who have been and generally they think societys approach to it is wrong. Then again comedians aren't ever taken seriously so its sort of sad that the people who who would be best advocating or denouncing this are blown off as fringe. Speaking of blown off why didn't anyone respond to my post about fucking an 8 year old, that post was really really funny. Doug Stanhope would be upset it didn't get half the shit storm the rest of these idiots are making out with. | ||
| ||
