Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 40

On November 12 2010 05:19 stre1 wrote:


Of course, that's the problem, you can't. Which is why rapes will continue to occur. It seems some people here have no problem with that though, and don't feel like anything needs to be done about it.



At the very least, a certain number of people who feel a given "urge" will indeed carry it out. So how is it a good thing that people continue to feel such urges? If they feel like there are at all in the "risk zone", can it not be expected of them that they should seek help?

On November 12 2010 05:10 stre1 wrote:
I see. Well this game should not fall into the hands of someone with murderous intentions or urges then. Just like someone who becomes violent after drinking alcohol should abstain from drinking it. And just like how this book should not have been written, and should not be sold, because there is only (again, as far as i can see, since i haven't read it) one reason for wanting to read it; the wish to rape children. But some seem to think that a 100% freedom of speech/whatever is more important.

On November 12 2010 05:16 FabledIntegral wrote:
Ugh we're not debating anything to do with saying fire in an actual fire, so drop it. It's irrelevant. At the same time, the definition of libel itself is when you ARE slandering, not when you aren't. So you can't try to bring up the distinction of saying something which isn't libel when we are debating when things ARE libel.

Thus there is no distinction in what you're saying. Yes, you're charged with inciting panic. And what is the method you used to incite panic? Speech. Thus you are NOT allowed to employ certain type of speech in certain situations. It's that simple. So consequently you're arguments of cases that AREN'T LIBEL are useless. How is your illegal employment argument related to libel in ANY WAY if it's true?

Here's a different definition, if it's easier to see

"anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents." It's only libel if it misrepresents.

To your second point, if a book should be banned, it should be banned. There's no validity in the argument "well, it would encompass banning too many, so let's not do it until..." I just don't really see any logic in this argument either. Something is illegal or not depending on if some random decided to use it for a certain purpose? We must be on completely different spectrums.

On November 12 2010 05:19 stre1 wrote:


Of course, that's the problem, you can't. Which is why rapes will continue to occur. It seems some people here have no problem with that though, and don't feel like anything needs to be done about it.



At the very least, a certain number of people who feel a given "urge" will indeed carry it out. So how is it a good thing that people continue to feel such urges? If they feel like there are at all in the "risk zone", can it not be expected of them that they should seek help?

On November 12 2010 05:28 XeliN wrote:


Is this serious? you are advokating restricting human emotion, feelings and urges because some people who have them cause harm?

Well let's all restrict any sexual feelings in human beings as a whole, you know some people who have them rape others?

Not to mention anger, it leads some people to cause violence to others. How about indignation, pride, love, desire, sadness, happiness.

Oh Aldous what Brave New World is this....

On November 12 2010 05:27 Wohmfg wrote:


So what do we do about people who feel the urges to do anything detrimental to society?

And what is the risk zone? You can't define it because then you're prosecuting people based on their thoughts. If someone commits a crime then they should be punished for it. Urges are not crimes. Threatening to or acting on those negative urges are crimes though.

On November 12 2010 05:10 stre1 wrote:


That's good to know, I guess no more cases of child rape will occur now then since they are all locked up for good. The point I was trying to make is about the difficulty of stopping this particular crime before it happens. As apposed to a crazy person, a rapist doesn't necessarily stand out.

On November 12 2010 05:19 stre1 wrote:


Of course, that's the problem, you can't. Which is why rapes will continue to occur. It seems some people here have no problem with that though, and don't feel like anything needs to be done about it.

At the very least, a certain number of people who feel a given "urge" will indeed carry it out. So how is it a good thing that people continue to feel such urges? If they feel like there are at all in the "risk zone", can it not be expected of them that they should seek help?

On November 12 2010 05:32 stre1 wrote:


Did you read what I wrote? People who feel like they are in the risk zone. The risk zone, obviously, being when you can no longer be sure that you can control such urges.

I know, personal responsibility is really too much to ask for.

On November 12 2010 05:28 Krigwin wrote:

It appears you are capable of reading people's minds en masse over space-time since you apparently know exactly the author's intent as well as all of the readers' intents. With your amazing gifts, have you considered a career in counter-espionage or competitive chess-playing? Or better yet, how about this: we'll put you in charge of a new book review board where all books have to go past you before they're allowed to be sold, and you can thus read the future to see which books will cause crimes and which will not.


But that's just it exactly. If I shout "Fire" in a theater, that is not a crime. If I incite a panic in the theater by leading people to believe there is a fire when there is not, that is a crime. How can you not see these are two different things?

We turn speech into crimes when the act of speech commits a crime. What crime has this book committed by just existing?


We must be, because your logic is completely illogical.

There are no limits to free speech. If you draw a line anywhere, it is no longer free.

On November 12 2010 05:33 King K. Rool wrote:
Some people do get help, some don't, how is this relevant to judging someone who holds back his urges anyways?

On November 12 2010 05:36 FabledIntegral wrote:
Utterly baffling to me. Here let me give you a final argument, if you disagree with it, you can let me know, but I think we'll just let it rest at that.

The person I quoted stated


You are limited in your speech in the sense you are NOT allowed to use speech to incite panic. You are also not allowed to use speech in order to misrepresent or defame someone. If you use speech to incite panic, you are committing a crime. Thus, you cannot use speech to incite panic, and consequently, you are limited in how you can use your speech.

On November 12 2010 05:35 Wohmfg wrote:


Well that would be great if they sought help! But please address the other point of my post.

On November 12 2010 05:40 Krigwin wrote:

I understand that. The point I have been making all along is that in all of your examples the act of speech itself was committing another crime, ie inciting panic. That other crime is what you are charged with, not the act of speech. Thus, if anyone thinks this book should be censored, they must show what the real crime committed by the book merely existing is, because it has done nothing criminal yet.

On November 12 2010 05:44 stre1 wrote:


You mean "So what do we do about people who feel the urges to do anything detrimental to society?"?

Well, if I had a perfect answer to that which could work within the realm of democracy we would already be living in a society without such crimes The only thing I can think of it that people be responsible and police themselves. For example, a person who might become violent when drinking alcohol might tell himself, "ok, I have the right to drink alcohol, but I will abstain since there's a possibility that I'll cause trouble and hurt others.".

On November 12 2010 05:38 stre1 wrote:


I suppose it isn't, as long as such people can be sure that they can, without a doubt, control such urges. If they are not sure, it's their responsibility to make sure that it doesn't happen anyway, via medication or whatever.

On November 12 2010 05:40 XeliN wrote:
Ah I think i've unjustly commented on what you were saying, if your point was that people who feel the urges they have will lead them to committ illegal acts or acts that they would not be comfortable with, then sure I think them choosing to seek help to control or possibly diminish those urges is fine.

On November 12 2010 05:46 Wohmfg wrote:


So why did you even make the point which I quoted, where you equated paedophiles roaming the streets with giving a madman a gun?

On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.

When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.

Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.

Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.

And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.

For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?

To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?