|
On November 11 2010 07:41 kataa wrote:
In previous threads I've spent alot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned.
I second this. That is the reason why it should be banned.
|
What a lovely upstanding pedosexual gentleman.
|
On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There are no limits to free speech. If you draw a line anywhere, it is no longer free. Just like you think pedophilia should not be allowed to be "taught", there are people who think videogames featuring excessive violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames that feature violence should be banned. And then there are those that think that videogames should be banned, period. People don't think alike, what you call stupid someone else will call common sense.
You think this book should be banned because it could possibly spawn more pedos. That is a ridiculous statement. I think you should be banned, because you could possibly spawn children with values as ridiculous as yours. I also think the internet should be banned, because you know what, you can find anything on there. And among that vast vault of ANYTHING, you might find something that could potentially turn you into a pedophile. Ban the internet.
If you don't like it, don't read it. I won't.
But don't fucking tell me what I'm allowed to read.
On November 12 2010 01:20 fellcrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 07:41 kataa wrote:
In previous threads I've spent alot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned. I second this. That is the reason why it should be banned.
The idea that this book is offensive but Lolita is perfectly fine is an OPINION.
|
On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:
Know that pedophilia can demolish a childhood.
Wow, just the very concept of pedophilia itself can demolish a childhood? Like, if a child stands within close proximity of a pedophile, his/her childhood will just collapse within itself?
Dear lord, pedophiles have even more terrifying magical powers than I realized. All this time I have been underestimating the danger of these maleficent predators. Thank you for providing this wisdom, I'll get to alerting society of this clear and prevalent threat immediately.
|
On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote:
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.
What do you mean "these books". You think you can generalize every books that contain a murder? In some books the killer isn't portrayed as a madman; in some video games you are the one killing others; serial killer Dexter is the star of his own TV series... Do you recommend we start banning any work where the offender is not shown as a madman or is that OK too now?
Banning this book just because pedophilia personally offends you more than murder allows any form of potentially offensive (which includes pretty much anything ever created) to get banned.
|
On November 12 2010 00:50 HawtNudie wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Its entirely possible and its whats being done, mostly. Free speech is based on principles and ideas. Those principles and ideas are that one can talk about anything as long as its not causing damage to other persons, promoting pedophilia in any way or form is causing damages to young kids and that's why its not acceptable by free speech.
Not to mention that even if it falls under free speech, then the law making it illegal is illegal itself and should not exist.
Again, free speech is based on principles and ideas and as such not all forms of speech are free.
|
On November 12 2010 01:27 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 01:11 Iplaythings wrote: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. There are no limits to free speech. If you draw a line anywhere, it is no longer free. Show nested quote +On November 2 2010 01:20 fellcrow wrote:On November 11 2010 07:41 kataa wrote:
In previous threads I've spent alot of time defending free speech. However, in this case it's pretty inexcusable. Pedophilia is a crime in western society, and a book on how to execute it no more should be legal than a book on how to make a very nice nail bomb.
The book shouldn't be banned because of it's offensive content, Lolita is a perfectly fine novel. However, if the book does directly instruct people in how to commit a crime, then it should be banned. I second this. That is the reason why it should be banned. The idea that this book is offensive but Lolita is perfectly fine is an OPINION.
100 % free speech, defined as the right to say absolutely whatever you want to whoever you want, whenever you want doesn't exist anywhere. And indeed very few people define "free speech" that way.
So having established that there are indeed limits, even to "free speech" all that remains is to decide where to draw the lines. Different people have different oppions on this of course but to revert back to some imagined moral highground and cry "free speech is absolute!!! " doesn't really help the discussion.
|
You think this book should be banned because it could possibly spawn more pedos. That is a ridiculous statement.
It takes just a little bit of unbiased intellect and a short glance at the video interview with the author to realize you are dead wrong, sir.
Sure it might not spawn more pedos but it will definitely encourage countless closet pedos to act out, which then results in the rape of children might I remind you.
As this fine young pedosexual explains himself in the video, with much indignation, he is fighting to improve the public image of pedos so that they are not hated and treated as the rapists that they are, so that in turn it effectively becomes easier for them to be a practicing pedosmurf.
The book also contains much advice on how to be a stealthy and efficient pedophalus. If you think advising people how to secretly rape children while also raising the public tolerance of kiddie rape (which might actually take off on the flailing wings of rabid, lunatic libertarians) will not give potential pedomites out there that extra sliver of confidence needed to shift a lifetime of furtive masturbation into an actual act of child rape you are very much mistaken.
|
On November 12 2010 01:50 Kickboxer wrote:
As this fine young pedosexual explains himself in the video, with much indignation, he is fighting to improve the public image of pedos so that they are not hated and treated as the rapists that they are, so that in turn it effectively becomes easier for them to be a practicing pedosmurf.
I don't think you have to worry about pedophilia becoming legal, so what exactly do you think would change?
|
Free speech is good but this is retarded....how about writing a book on how to rape "properly" ? What have these people been smoking, the publisher that published this, the sicko that wrote this and those perverts who buy this to read.
|
this is like a speed trap, anyone who buys this will be forever tracked by the governements as listed pedo or sex offenders even if they have no prior issues with the law, its a PEDOTRAP, im for this book if thats what it really is, otherwise... WTF LOL
|
I think its entirely with in this man's rights to write the book, and no one should be able to stop him. If he can manage to find some one that agrees to publish it, no one should be able to stop the publisher. and if amazon wants to sell it, then no one should be able to stop them.
However every link in that chain is the choice of the writer, publisher, and seller. there is no obligation to that the publisher needs to publish it, or that anyone has to sell it. If Amazon is afraid of losing sales because people are pissed they sell a guide on how to be a pedophile, then they can pull the book and there should be no repercussions.
I also think the outrage over this book is somewhat entertaining, there are tons of books that teach you to murder, kill, and destroy and get away with it and no one complains, though they have less obvious titles.
|
On November 12 2010 01:50 Kickboxer wrote:
It takes just a little bit of unbiased intellect and a short glance at the video interview with the author to realize you are dead wrong, sir.
Sure it might not spawn more pedos but it will definitely encourage countless closet pedos to act out, which then results in the rape of children might I remind you.
As this fine young pedosexual explains himself in the video, with much indignation, he is fighting to improve the public image of pedos so that they are not hated and treated as the rapists that they are, so that in turn it effectively becomes easier for them to be a practicing pedosmurf.
The book also contains much advice on how to be a stealthy and efficient pedophalus. If you think advising people how to secretly rape children while also raising the public tolerance of kiddie rape (which might actually take off on the flailing wings of rabid, lunatic libertarians) will not give potential pedomites out there that extra sliver of confidence needed to shift a lifetime of furtive masturbation into an actual act of child rape you are very much mistaken.
Are you new to the internet by chance, good sir? I ask because this debate has been had so many times before I cannot honestly comprehend how anyone can bring up this same argument and expect to be taken seriously.
Encourage "countless closet pedos" to act? Conjecture.
Advising people how to "secretly rape children"? Supposition.
Raising public tolerance of kiddie rape? Astoundingly absurd, baseless supposition.
Turn furtive masturbators into actual child rapists? More conjecture.
All of these are unproven opinions. Not only is supposition and conjecture not valid enough reasons to actually lead to legal action, but I can take such logic and then use it against anything that I deem personally offensive.
There are countless video games where you are given a gun in a first-person perspective and then directed to shoot, maim, and kill countless people. The interactive nature of video games contributes to make such games much more psychologically affecting than some poorly-written book. I can say that these games convince "countless closet serial killers" to act by advising them in proper usage of firearms for maximum effect. Many of these games feature criminals as the protagonist, I can thus claim they raise public tolerance of criminals and murderers. Saint's Row 2 for instance is an outrageously unrealistic game involving the mindless killing of police officers, amongst others. Using your baseless logic, with a little bit of unbiased intellect, I can claim it encourages people to go out and kill police officers.
Your argument will never be valid nor any similar argument ever taken seriously, ever, until you can come up with definitive evidence that merely the act of reading this book directly causes every reader to become actual child molesters, and from no other cause. Otherwise your argument can be used against anything and freedom of speech ceases to exist, and without it, all of society.
|
On November 11 2010 19:36 KwarK 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. I entirely agree with this post. You cannot criminalise a sexual preference any more than you can criminalise a political opinion or a favourite colour, it is simply a thought. I very much doubt pedophiles wake up one morning and decide regular sex is boring so they're gonna be attracted to children instead. If a friend told me they were attracted to children I'd be like "wow, that sucks" but I wouldn't stop being friends with them because they've not done anything wrong. If they subsequently became a child molestor then of course I'd disown them and hope they went to jail but if a normal heterosexual friend raped an adult then I'd disown them too. Thoughts are not and should not be illegal. I think the massive social stigma and shit like jailing people for looking at underage hentai (if there can be such a thing) is part of the problem. If a pedophile can find a way to vent sexual frustrations without hurting any child then that is something we need more of, not less. As a hypothetical, if a friend confessed to you he had an occasional rape fantasy would you think any less of him? He's never raped anyone or done anything to make you think he would and he's a morally decent person who you've known for ages. Would you still let your girlfriend hang out with him? Now they confess pedophilia, same friend who you've still known forever and still know he'd never hurt a child. Would you let him babysit your kids? If you said yes to the first and no to the second please justify the response.
No, I wouldn't think less of my friend. I think a lot of people have fantasized about doing things they consider wrong (murdering someone who crossed them, stealing something, rape, whatever) and are not necessarily any more likely to do it.
Yes, I'd let a friend babysit if I knew and trusted him even if he was a pedophile rather than a stranger. Plenty of nannies/babysitters strike and hit children who misbehave, ignore or mistreat the child, or even worse. That's something a pedophile wouldn't do, much less a friend.
|
Pedophilia isn't the same thing as being a closet gay.
Just wanted to repost this since some people seem to be trying to equate the two.
edit:
On November 11 2010 19:36 KwarK wrote:
As a hypothetical, if a friend confessed to you he had an occasional rape fantasy would you think any less of him? He's never raped anyone or done anything to make you think he would and he's a morally decent person who you've known for ages. Would you still let your girlfriend hang out with him?
Now they confess pedophilia, same friend who you've still known forever and still know he'd never hurt a child. Would you let him babysit your kids?
If you said yes to the first and no to the second please justify the response.
Well, your question is a little biased (in my opinion). You say "oh the occasional rape fantasy" then you say pedophilia, which in my mind means that the person is only sexually attracted to children or is for the most part the only thing he is interested in.
The correct question would be:
Your friend says I am only attracted to sex by rape or force, or I am a pedophile.
Something along those lines.
Would I think less of him? Yeah.
edit #2: clarity
|
On November 12 2010 02:14 tbrown47 wrote:Pedophilia isn't the same thing as being a closet gay. Just wanted to repost this since some people seem to be trying to equate the two. edit: Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 19:36 KwarK wrote:
As a hypothetical, if a friend confessed to you he had an occasional rape fantasy would you think any less of him? He's never raped anyone or done anything to make you think he would and he's a morally decent person who you've known for ages. Would you still let your girlfriend hang out with him?
Now they confess pedophilia, same friend who you've still known forever and still know he'd never hurt a child. Would you let him babysit your kids?
If you said yes to the first and no to the second please justify the response. Well, your question is a little biased (in my opinion). You say "oh the occasional rape fantasy" then you say pedophilia, which in my mind means that the person is only sexually attracted to children or is for the most part the only thing he is interested in. The correct question would be: Your friend says I am only attracted to sex by rape or force, or I am a pedophile. Something along those lines. Would I think less of him? Yeah. edit #2: clarity
Having the fetish is fine.
Acting on it is a different story.
Hate the crime not the fetish.
|
I hope that rather than banning this book, they increase the penalty for pedophilia. Death, maybe? I think people privately should burn this book.
Pedophiles are a psychopathic fringe group and should die, like cannibals for instance, if you could imagine it.
Not surprising that you find out so many multi millionaires and political servants end up being pedophiles, they probably run the entire crime racket. Halliburton and the UN for example, running child sex rings are two pretty good examples.
Luckily most people can still recognize how psychopathically evil something like molesting children is, though they can't or dont want to notice the criminal racket running the world from the top.
|
On November 12 2010 02:32 King K. Rool wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 02:14 tbrown47 wrote:Pedophilia isn't the same thing as being a closet gay. Just wanted to repost this since some people seem to be trying to equate the two. edit: On November 11 2010 19:36 KwarK wrote:
As a hypothetical, if a friend confessed to you he had an occasional rape fantasy would you think any less of him? He's never raped anyone or done anything to make you think he would and he's a morally decent person who you've known for ages. Would you still let your girlfriend hang out with him?
Now they confess pedophilia, same friend who you've still known forever and still know he'd never hurt a child. Would you let him babysit your kids?
If you said yes to the first and no to the second please justify the response. Well, your question is a little biased (in my opinion). You say "oh the occasional rape fantasy" then you say pedophilia, which in my mind means that the person is only sexually attracted to children or is for the most part the only thing he is interested in. The correct question would be: Your friend says I am only attracted to sex by rape or force, or I am a pedophile. Something along those lines. Would I think less of him? Yeah. edit #2: clarity Having the fetish is fine.Acting on it is a different story. Hate the crime not the fetish.
Ummm, not really. Having the fetish isn't fine, in my opinion. In fact it isn't fine in the majority of people's opinions. I can hate the fact that that is your fetish all I want. Would I ever imprison anyone for having that fetish? No. Would I be wary/think less of them? Yeah, probably.
edit:
to make a point:
Having a fetish where I do girl hanging upside down from a rope is a lot different than having a rape fetish. A lot different.
|
On November 12 2010 02:35 pioneer8 wrote:
I hope that rather than banning this book, they increase the penalty for pedophilia. Death, maybe? I think people privately should burn this book.
Pedophiles are a psychopathic fringe group and should die, like cannibals for instance, if you could imagine it.
Not surprising that you find out so many multi millionaires and political servants end up being pedophiles, they probably run the entire crime racket. Halliburton and the UN for example, running child sex rings are two pretty good examples.
Luckily most people can still recognize how psychopathically evil something like molesting children is, though they can't or dont want to notice the criminal racket running the world from the top.
You do know pedophiles and child molesters are not synonymous terms right?
|
Why do some of you want to force a private company to sell certain books? Do you hate freedom?
Amazon does not belong to the state and as far as I know the author is not in jail and the book is not banned.
Be it neo nazis or a president's excuse to invade a country all use the word freedom for their agenda because it triggers a powerful emotion but you need to look closer. It's never that simple.
However it is good to see pedophiles out themselves like DoctorHelvetica or to see for whom pedophilia is just a fetish and the pedophile is actually the victim(!) (KwarK)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
