|
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. 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. Show nested quote +On November 12 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.
I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater?
|
On November 12 2010 03:40 Xanbatou wrote:
Graphically depicting how to kill someone doesn't really mean anything. It's very easy to kill someone if you want to. If someone really wants to kill someone else, I'm pretty sure they could figure out how to get the job done even if they haven't played Manhunt.
...And? So what? So because you think murder is easier than child molestation it's okay to have murder guides but not child rape guides? What is your point here? Either they are logically the same or they are not, take your pick.
Yes, I know there are books for sale that promote other illegal activities, but that's what people are debating. I personally feel that writing books that outline how to commit crimes and get away with them puts you on the same level as an accessory to a crime. I'm not really sure how they are different.
How silly. To use my own examples here:
On November 12 2010 03:37 Krigwin wrote:
Okay. What if this book was instead a fictional story about a pedophile who then proceeds to personally explain all of the material in this book to an aspiring pedophile? Or how about if it's a fictional story about a police officer who catches a pedophile and then goes over how the pedophile avoided getting caught, outlining all of the material in this book? Or how about if it's an instruction manual on how to get caught, directly stating the opposite of everything in this book while heavily implying you should do what is outlined in this book?
Are you volunteering to be the first ever "Book Review Authority" member to decide exactly which authors should be charged with crimes and which shouldn't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors
There's your evidence. A man uses a guide about killing people to go and kill someone. You really shouldn't have needed this though. It seems pretty obvious from the arguments that I laid out that this would happen. Reasoning and logic can go a long way...
There's my evidence? My evidence of what? That a different book actually encouraged different people to commit different crimes? Well, I can see that book is no longer in distribution, so that hardly seems relevant. I was asking for evidence of this book encouraging people to commit the crimes outlined in this book. Do you have it or not? I'm sure I don't need to tell you evidence from other crimes cannot be used in this case.
Also, reasoning and logic certainly go a long way. Except your reasoning is not everyone's reasoning. My reasoning specifically disagrees with yours. There is absolutely no reason your reasoning should be more valid than mine unless you happen to be a federal judge.
|
there's a difference between books that argue for a point of view
(for example: nazism is correct because <blank>),
these books I think should fall under protection from freedom of speech
it's a completely different matter to write a book that explains in detail how you would most effectively optimize harmfull behaviour
(example: this is how you create a suicide bomb so that no matter what everyone in a 10yd radius will die horrible deaths)
I feel this book falls into this category and should not be allowed freely online...
unless of course this is a ploy by the government to pin point potential pedophiles and keep them under close, secret, surveilance after they place an order
|
Watch "expelled" ull be enlightened I was.
|
On November 12 2010 03:59 ichimarugin680 wrote:
Watch "expelled" ull be enlightened I was.
The documentary about intelligent design by Ben Stein?
You're kidding right?
|
And so begins the rot of western society
|
On November 12 2010 03:52 Competent wrote:
EDIT: @ The people comparing this to an uncontrollable disease such as downsyndrome. You are sick. Defending these people in such a way as if they can't control it, It MIGHT... be a brain disorder but not in such a way as downsyndrome,
That is an opinion, they both have drastic effects on you. As I said, if I had to choose between one, I'd choose having down syndrome than being a Pedophile every time. It is a personal opinion, and I see the two as one and the same.
edit:
If you can't accept that some people are just born with the wires in their head saying "I like children", then you are sick, yourself. There are much weirder things in this world than people who are attracted to children.
|
I heard on the news this morning that Amazon actually agreed to take the book down after they got alot of hate from the media and people using it.
|
On November 12 2010 03:56 Krigwin wrote:
Graphically depicting how to kill someone doesn't really mean anything. It's very easy to kill someone if you want to. If someone really wants to kill someone else, I'm pretty sure they could figure out how to get the job done even if they haven't played Manhunt.
...And? So what? So because you think murder is easier than child molestation it's okay to have murder guides but not child rape guides? What is your point here? Either they are logically the same or they are not, take your pick.[/QUOTE]
Wait, are you comparing this book with the game Manhunt? Because while I feel that game passes the limit and don't disagree with it being banned in many countries, where they differ is in that (a) Manhunt is not a manual (b) in this game you don't kill innocent people (afaik).
Basically, if you're equating murder and rape (of children none the less), then I don't know what say, as murder can be everything from evil to perfectly understandable (e.g. US government does it everyday). Rape is always an act of evil, comparable only to (other forms of) torture. And if you have any kinds of inclinations towards it you will be a threat towards others until you get yourself cured.
It's funny to see all these posts mentioning "freedom", but none mentioning the other side of the coin, "responsibility". Can't have one without showing an equal part of the other guys.
|
seems more like a gag gift gone serious. how would this even get published? i mean who will front the money for a sure failure like this.
|
...And? So what? So because you think murder is easier than child molestation it's okay to have murder guides but not child rape guides? What is your point here? Either they are logically the same or they are not, take your pick.
No, you missed my point. Just as nobody needs to play a video game about killing people to figure out how to kill people, nobody needs to read a book about molesting children to know how to molest children. However, a video game that realistically teaches the logistics about killing people, such as how to evade the cops by hiding your trail of evidence (and I'm not talking about spray-painting your car in GTA) is basically on the same level as this molestation book.
On November 12 2010 03:37 Krigwin wrote:
Okay. What if this book was instead a fictional story about a pedophile who then proceeds to personally explain all of the material in this book to an aspiring pedophile? Or how about if it's a fictional story about a police officer who catches a pedophile and then goes over how the pedophile avoided getting caught, outlining all of the material in this book? Or how about if it's an instruction manual on how to get caught, directly stating the opposite of everything in this book while heavily implying you should do what is outlined in this book?
No, this is all true and you have a point. That is precisely why people are debating this issue. If you censor it, you can cut down on crimes caused by it, but if you censor it, where do you stop? If you ban all books that present too much information on how to commit an illegal act, you are then opening the doors to many things.
There's my evidence? My evidence of what? That a different book actually encouraged different people to commit different crimes? Well, I can see that book is no longer in distribution, so that hardly seems relevant. I was asking for evidence of this book encouraging people to commit the crimes outlined in this book. Do you have it or not? I'm sure I don't need to tell you evidence from other crimes cannot be used in this case.
Also, reasoning and logic certainly go a long way. Except your reasoning is not everyone's reasoning. My reasoning specifically disagrees with yours. There is absolutely no reason your reasoning should be more valid than mine unless you happen to be a federal judge.
I thought you wanted general evidence of people committing a crime that was outline in a book they read. I was mistaken. However, I still feel that it should apply, so please tell me why you think it is that someone can commit a murder after reading a how-to-guide on the topic it but someone won't molest a child after reading a how-to-guide on the topic? What is the difference that requires more evidence?
And you misunderstood me. By logic and reasoning, I did not mean in the ultimate sense of whether or not this should be illegal. I simply meant in the sense of such a book inciting people to commit the crimes outline within.
|
Can't they just like remove it on grounds of promoting criminal acts or something?
For example, are you allowed to make a book saying "How to kill someone and not get caught?".
Regardless, this book is just sick.
On the plus side, at least we'll know who the pedophiles are!(aka those who buy the book n.n)
|
On November 12 2010 04:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:59 ichimarugin680 wrote:
Watch "expelled" ull be enlightened I was. The documentary about intelligent design by Ben Stein? You're kidding right?
Nope that very one
|
On November 12 2010 03:52 FabledIntegral wrote:
I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater?
I honestly do not understand how people cannot grasp this distinction and keep trotting out these tired old arguments. Let the dead horses rest, please, for the sake of equine life everywhere.
If you shout fire in a crowded theater, well first of all there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the theater is actually on fire. If it's not on fire, you're charged with inciting panic. The theater owner can bring charges against you for violating the unspoken code of conduct that you agreed upon upon entering his theater. This is not a "limit to free speech". It is a limit to committing crimes, inciting panic is a crime.
Likewise in the case of libel, you don't have a case for libel if what the person says is actually true. You have to prove the statement is not true, that it caused harm, and that the person who made it knew at the time it was not true. The crime here is the actual damage caused to the person's reputation, business, or emotional state, not the guy saying stuff.
Starting to get the point here? These are separate crimes. A person can say whatever they want and it's not illegal unless the act of saying it falls within other crimes, such as causing actual harm to someone. What crime has this person committed with the act of writing this book that would merit censorship?
|
On November 12 2010 03:52 Competent wrote:
The people comparing this to an uncontrollable disease such as downsyndrome. You are sick. Defending these people in such a way as if they can't control it, It MIGHT... be a brain disorder but not in such a way as downsyndrome,
Uhm... you do know that Pedophilia is not the act of raping children but the attraction toward children? How can a feeling or an attraction you have be with in your control? Of course they don't have any control over their feelings. What they do have control over is whether or not they act on those feelings. I believe you are the one who is sick if you judge people based on their feelings and no their actions.
|
On November 12 2010 04:10 ichimarugin680 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 12 2010 03:59 ichimarugin680 wrote:
Watch "expelled" ull be enlightened I was. The documentary about intelligent design by Ben Stein? You're kidding right? Nope that very one
It was an irrelevant documentary because intelligent design isn't science. I watched it for a hearty laugh though.
|
On November 12 2010 04:12 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:52 FabledIntegral wrote:
I don't understand, there are limits to free speech, but limiting it does not make it "not free." That notion is just preposterous to me. Isn't that the reason you can't slander? Libel isn't protected. Classic example that you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater? I honestly do not understand how people cannot grasp this distinction and keep trotting out these tired old arguments. Let the dead horses rest, please, for the sake of equine life everywhere. If you shout fire in a crowded theater, well first of all there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the theater is actually on fire. If it's not on fire, you're charged with inciting panic. The theater owner can bring charges against you for violating the unspoken code of conduct that you agreed upon upon entering his theater. This is not a "limit to free speech". It is a limit to committing crimes, inciting panic is a crime. Likewise in the case of libel, you don't have a case for libel if what the person says is actually true. You have to prove the statement is not true, that it caused harm, and that the person who made it knew at the time it was not true. The crime here is the actual damage caused to the person's reputation, business, or emotional state, not the guy saying stuff. Starting to get the point here? These are separate crimes. A person can say whatever they want and it's not illegal unless the act of saying it falls within other crimes, such as causing actual harm to someone. What crime has this person committed with the act of writing this book that would merit censorship?
Krigwin, I think he realizes that. I think his point (and everyone else's point when they bring up freedom of speech in relation to this) is that this SHOULD fall under the category of a crime. That's what the debate is, if I am understanding correctly. Should writing instructions for committing crimes be considered a crime? One can argue that it could be considered aiding and abetting and make the author an accessory.
However, then we run into the problems you pointed out, such as the ease of concealing those same instructions within a seemingly innocuous plot.
|
On November 12 2010 03:47 tbrown47 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:44 King K. Rool wrote:On November 12 2010 03:41 tbrown47 wrote:On November 12 2010 03:37 King K. Rool wrote:On November 12 2010 03:20 tbrown47 wrote:On November 12 2010 03:01 King K. Rool wrote:On November 12 2010 02:14 tbrown47 wrote:
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.
Why is it not fine? Some people can't help but be attracted to certain things. The fact that it's not a crime makes it "fine" by definition. As for your point, how does it even refute anything I said? Having a rape fetish is not a crime; both are feelings of attraction towards a specific sexual act anyways - the only difference is legality of the actual act, which is the entire point of what I said, that the crime should be hated, but the fetish, well that's just something people have. Just like how people get angry enough to think about killing people, they have enough control to not actually go kill someone. If you look down on someone for one feeling of attraction, but don't look down at someone else for another, to me that's nothing but bigotry. Is being born with a terrible disease "fine"? I wouldn't say it is fine at all. It is an unfortunate tragedy that people feel the way they do and suffer from pedophilia. But there is no justifying those feelings as okay. By what you say, then "being born with a terrible disease" is not okay. ??? You're also taking this analogy a bit far - they were born with it, it's unfortunate, but I wouldn't look down on them. "Fine" can't really be used here - if the pedophiles were going around sexing up every kid it wouldn't be fine, but they can control it, so it's fine. People with diseases can't control it, can't suddenly go "Oh well gosh darn it I think I'll stop having symptoms". Its like me justifying being born with down syndrome as being "fine". It isn't. It is a horrible sickness, and it can't be dealt with in the same way physical diseases can be, which makes it even more peculiar and odd. I sympathize with pedophiles who don't act on their urges, but you can't ignore the fact that their urges are completely immoral and wrong for logical reasons. Children aren't capable of making decisions that are important and can be life-changing, like sex. That is why a Gay/Gay relationship and an Adult/Child relationship are completely different. The day where a child (when I say child I mean under 10) can drive a car, vote in elections, sign contracts, drink, smoke, etc. Then Adult/Child relationships will be okay. Until then... sorry pedophiles.
edit: Meant to say completely "different" not "wrong", I have no issue with gay people. I think your analogy is wrong, like I said above. You can control the urge to go and indulge in acts of pedophelia, be they stalking, taking pictures, or actually having sex with them, but you can't really control the symptoms of downs syndrome. By your comparison you're basically saying you would look down on those born with diseases, which I don't think you actually mean. I'd rather have down syndrome than be a pedophile. And maybe "look down" isn't the right word. "Pity" would be a better one. Fixed a couple points in the previous post. If that's how you feel, then that's that I guess. Well, your argument is that you can control pedophilia, to a degree that may be true. But you will always have to decide between actually fulfilling your sexual urges or going to prison for a very long time (hopefully). Is that not a bigger burden than being mentally disabled? At least if you are mentally disabled you may never fully understand why you are the way you are. I hope people can understand my point of view though. I certainly understand theirs. I'm not arguing that people can or cannot control their urge. My argument, or stance, is that we shouldn't judge those who have urges (in this case, pedophilia), but we should judge the actual act of pedophilia (stuff like stalking, taking pictures, child pornography, etc), the actual act is what's wrong, not the urge. Hence, hate the crime, not the fetish.
Though I know people feel the way you do, I can't confess to understand your view point: those who have these urges but control them already know its wrong (by societal standards and viewpoints on morality), and so they keep it hidden. A lot of them likely feel like there's something wrong with themselves. Why should we accuse them and dehumanize them even further when we ourselves have base urges that we regulate normally? When they already feel bad about it themselves?
|
I don't see a problem, it's not like people in underground groups don't share information and unpublished books/writings already anyways.
|
On November 12 2010 04:14 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 ichimarugin680 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On November 12 2010 03:59 ichimarugin680 wrote:
Watch "expelled" ull be enlightened I was. The documentary about intelligent design by Ben Stein? You're kidding right? Nope that very one It was an irrelevant documentary because intelligent design isn't science. I watched it for a hearty laugh though.
The morality decline it implies is very disturbing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
