EPTPedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
meltingmykohchoo
166 Posts
| ||
|
IAttackYou
United States330 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
I´d rather see twilight banned, atleast some people are buying that crap. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19395 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On November 11 2010 20:37 LunarC wrote: 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  The point is that nothing humane can be done to alter that preference. Some people are sexually attracted to women, others to men, yet others to both, yet others to old people, others to children, others to furniture. You can't do much about the sexual preference. You can only do something about the actions of these people. Personally, I'd prefer a world where there is no stigma on people based on their sexual preference so that nobody needs to hide it. This in turn would make it possible to guide the actions of these people and more importantly, greatly reduce sexual misconduct/rape/etc. I prefer visible threats to invisible threats, but maybe that's just me... | ||
|
bobhund
Sweden364 Posts
| ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
Fuck sakes! Why not just legalize child porn and rape? Maybe i should write a fucking book called 'how to track a paedophile and torture him to death without getting caught or feeling guilty' with my free speech! Think people! This book could be teaching some weirdo to fiddle with your daughter and scar her for life and you dont care because its free speech? How would you people feel to be ass raped just once? Now some of you dont care because its free speech? Now imagine your kid being raped over and over again by someone you trust and they are too shit scared to say anything? Stop being so fucking ignorant and be a man! | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
| ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:27 Ianuus wrote: 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. That is not true. In many circumstances there is a balance between selfish and cooperating members of the species, google hawk-dove scenario for more info. Basically in a society of cooperating trusting members selfish ones prosper, but once there are too many selfish ones, the cooperating groups will gain upper hand. And some form of equilibrium will be formed. It is ongoing fight between altruists that try to detect the social parasites, and the parasites trying to reap benefits by playing the trusting members of the society. Fortunately for human societies to function the altruists have to outnumber the parasites. Of course it is not a binary switch. Also you have to base your morals on biology, otherwise your system will be purely theoretical one and useless. But you do not (actually you cannot) use some parts of our biology to make moral system. Those parts from our biology that are selfish, aggressive, ... , if you used those your society would crumble. So the guy you were replying to is wrong, but cooperation, empathy, ... all those are evolutionary traits that allow us to be social species, we can build our moral system on those of the majority of altruists and ignore the parts that would not help society prosper. | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
Grow a spine. If its ok with you, you are no better than a paedophile. | ||
|
Elbee
United States224 Posts
| ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
On November 11 2010 21:58 Carefoot wrote: 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. It promotes lawfully punishable offense, its not acceptable to free speech. But yeah free speech isn't fully free, at least not when you are committing a crime in every country's constitution. Free speech is based on certain principles and ideas and can not and should not be abused and that's why each country constitution is more than one line of "free speech". | ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
On November 12 2010 00:29 eu.exodus wrote: lol! It was one poster. It was me. And it sickens you more that censorship damaged adults who are far better equipped to handle it but its okay that people be able to learn easily how to molest your kids and get away with it because it shouldnt be censored? Where is the logic? I dont get it? Grow a spine. If its ok with you, you are no better than a paedophile. I said the last two posters, not the last two posts. It sickens me because you are only looking at one side of the coin. This knowledge can be used for more than you have listed, as discussed earlier in this thread. Anyways, this has been discussed to death and the thread is dead because I don't expect anyone to read 34 pages; we'll only be repeating what has been already said at this point. | ||
|
Back
Canada505 Posts
On November 12 2010 00:35 thehitman wrote: It promotes lawfully punishable offense, its not acceptable to free speech. O_O would there be any movies/books/videogames left if this was really the basis of what is acceptable? | ||
|
Obsidian
United States350 Posts
That I'd kick the author in the nuts if I ever met him has nothing to due with the right to free speech. | ||
|
HawtNudie
Norway26 Posts
On November 12 2010 00:35 thehitman wrote: It promotes lawfully punishable offense, its not acceptable to free speech. But yeah free speech isn't fully free, at least not when you are committing a crime in every country's constitution. Free speech is based on certain principles and ideas and can not and should not be abused and that's why each country constitution is more than one line of "free speech". That's different in a lot of cases, though, as some only concern lies/falsifying information. If I say you stole my car and you didn't, I'm to be punished by paying whatever legal costs were tied to the case. If I slander you in any way that hurts your image and it's relevant to your income, I have to compensate you. I'm not being punished for using my right to free speech, but because I falsely accused you of something. Then you have hate speeches/slurs/etc., which are punishable in some countries, some not, and to be honest I have to side with the latter, as you can't punish someone for having an opinion of anything, no matter what it is or how morally wrong you find it. It's impossible for anyone to draw a proper line here and we can't be forced to love, or even accept, one another simply because we have to. And remember that you always have the right to ignore  (honestly I find it that this right is the most underused of all of 'em). If nobody's listening, then what are they but empty words against a brick wall? | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
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. This is a great post. Also, thanks for bringing up Lolita, what an incredibly relevant example I completely forgot about. Even though I've never read this book I can guarantee Lolita is much more well-written and sexually arousing than this book, clearly it should be banned as well. Nabokov, pfft, what a pervert he was. To think that some teachers actually make you read such a horrible tome! Also Carefoot good luck in GSL. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
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. Because people cencor one thing, it doesnt mean that next time they will go farther with the "supression" of the law. There is limmits to free speech. Even the book doesnt openly (or maybe it does) encourage pedophilia, but it's the same way that condom commercials encouraged people to have sex, free speech or not it WOULD make more pedophiles. In that case I couldnt care less if some people think their free speech is offended. Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood. Any sort of promoting, encouraging or even NOT contempting pedophiles has NOTHING to do with free speech, it's about human rights. And there is a HUGE difference between double standards by allowing books with murder and pedophilia involved - in these books the standpoint of the reader youre even disgusted by the offender or the offender is shown as a madman, who people develop contempt for throughout the book / film. If you want a good example of the logic youre using towards this book look at the Muhammed Drawing Crisis. | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:27 BisuDagger wrote: This is just rediculous. I wanna see the author of this book! Its a short interview in there. | ||
| ||
