|
Oh little book how innocently you weave, trickling out your gilded vemon, and in freedoms name you plead.
Not sure why I wrote that, it's not relevant but
"real crime committed by the book merely existing is, because it has done nothing criminal yet." kinda inspired me 
Anyway, Xanbatou, how do you class instruction. Is a book giving detailed information about how crime is committed and achieved to be banned? Now in this hypothetical the book doesn't bluntly say "DO IT" but the information on how to is there. Or is something only banworthy when the book actually says DO THIS, or what if it is merely implied?
|
On November 12 2010 05:51 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:46 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:35 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 05:32 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:27 Wohmfg wrote:On November 12 2010 05:19 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:52 Myles wrote:On November 12 2010 04:49 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 04:42 Wohmfg wrote:
[quote]
People suppress urges all the time because they know their actions will harm others. Not all paedophiles are immoral freaks who will always act on their urges. If you want to prove me otherwise go ahead. Even if that is so, the same could be said about the mad guy with the gun. Want to have anything to do with this person? Want him to roam the streets? It's not rocket science, as long as you have such urges you will be constantly be a potential threat to others. And how exactly do you plan on prosecuting your thoughtcrime? 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. On November 12 2010 04:53 Wohmfg wrote:
What do you mean by "mad" or "crazy"? I sometimes have urges to beat people to death when I'm particularly angry, but I am not a threat to society. Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? How are the 2 scenarios different?
Can you see that they're not different and that in neither case am I mad or crazy or fucked up or immoral? 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? 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. 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. Well that would be great if they sought help! But please address the other point of my post. 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.". So why did you even make the point which I quoted, where you equated paedophiles roaming the streets with giving a madman a gun? Because you would want to be around neither (under the "better safe than sorry" principle). Both constitute, at the very least, a potential threat.
Wowwww, here we go again.
I sometimes have urges to beat people to death when I'm particularly angry, but I am not a threat to society. Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? How are the 2 scenarios different?
Can you see that they're not different and that in neither case am I mad or crazy or fucked up or immoral?
|
On November 12 2010 05:52 XeliN wrote:Oh little book how innocently you weave, trickling out your gilded vemon, and in freedoms name you plead. Not sure why I wrote that, it's not relevant but "real crime committed by the book merely existing is, because it has done nothing criminal yet." kinda inspired me Anyway, Xanbatou, how do you class instruction. Is a book giving detailed information about how crime is committed and achieved to be banned? Now in this hypothetical the book doesn't bluntly say "DO IT" but the information on how to is there. Or is something only banworthy when the book actually says DO THIS, or what if it is merely implied?
A "DO THIS" book can currently be banned. Even America restricts speech that specifically incites the listener to commit crimes.
|
On November 12 2010 05:54 Wohmfg wrote:
Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up?
I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with you, and I believe you should never be alone with a child, yes. And I would hope that such a thought would make you feel disgusted with yourself.
|
On November 12 2010 05:58 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:54 Wohmfg wrote:
Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with you, and I believe you should never be alone with a child, yes.
So, do you think that someone should go on the sex offender registry for pedophilic thoughtcrime?
What if I told you I had rape fantasy thoughtcrimes?
Should I go on the sex offender registry as well?
What about murder thoughtcrimes?
|
Certainly, but in the example in this thread, although I haven't read it (yet :O) from what I have gathered this book doesn't so bluntly say "DO THIS" or at least the most you could say is that it is implied, or encouraged. And when you start to extend your criteria for restriction slowly freedoms can be plucked from you and in such a way that makes you applaud.
|
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts.
Would you also never want to be alone with someone who has contemplated murder in their own mind and think that such a person should never be around others?
You would struggle to socialise if you did....
|
On November 12 2010 01:38 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 00:50 HawtNudie wrote: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. A bit on the vague side if you ask me, as all laws are based on ideas and ideals/morals.
And promoting pedophilia doesn't hurt children directly, all of the above examples are examples where I would directly smear your reputation, it's between individuals. I'm accusing you of an act you did not commit, I'm not talking about hypothetical. Again, presenting an idea or a hypothetical event is one thing, accusing someone of an act they did not commit is a whooooooole 'nother story, especially when it comes to legal procedures (as it should).
To give a more valid example (and an attempt to distance myself from the legality-debate): I present a book to a publisher about Holocaust, where I debate that Holocaust never happened. A publisher would most likely refuse to publish the book, as my sources and cited facts would most likely be full of BS. Is that censorship? Well, no.
Meanwhile someone might get a book published about how some of the horrid experiments committed by the Nazies helped mankind, even debate that such experiments might be done in the future, which might contain enough trusted source material to be considered acceptable to be published.
|
On November 12 2010 05:58 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:58 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:54 Wohmfg wrote:
Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with you, and I believe you should never be alone with a child, yes. So, do you think that someone should go on the sex offender registry for pedophilic thoughtcrime?
I doubt anyone would volunteer for such a thing, but if it can help parents to protect their kids then I see no problem with it as such. The problem would be the public hatred which would be aimed at the people in the registry.
As I said before, can't be sure that you can handle alcohol? Don't drink it. Can't handle being around kids without raping them? Don't be around them.
|
On November 12 2010 05:58 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:54 Wohmfg wrote:
Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with you, and I believe you should never be alone with a child, yes. And I would hope that such a thought would make you feel disgusted with yourself.
So I'm being punished for a thought I have. I could still go through the rest of my life without actually touching a child.
Following this logic, IF the police/state/whatever could read minds, what thoughts should they punish people for?
Urge to litter?
Urge to break the speed limit?
Urge to rape?
Urge to murder?
If you don't see a problem with any of this then our discussion is over.
|
I'm not particularly fond of the sale of this book.
That being said, if i ever have kids, i would absolutely want a copy.
I forget the exact statistics, but it's like 1 in 10 children get molested. Reading a copy of this book will help me protect my children far more than other people reading this book would endanger them.
I know absolutely nothing about pedophilia or subtle molestation. Considering that active pedophiles know more about it than i do, any tool available would innately benefit me more than them.
|
Personally... I think we should attach a GPS to the author.
Disgusting.
I don't think a slipperly slope arguement applies to something like this. Our culture and our society has determined that pederasty or even simple molestation is morally abhorrent. This book actively supports rapists.
You can't imprison people for thought crimes. That is scary and that leads down a dark path. You can though limit things which pose a threat to the common good. There's a reason why we don't see bomb how to guides in your local Barnes and Nobles.
This is far more insidious. At least anarchists and libertarians can write some fiction about needing to be ready to oppose a tyrannical government.
|
On November 12 2010 06:05 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:58 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:58 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:54 Wohmfg wrote:
Now if I told you I had urges to fuck 7 year old boys when I'm particularly horny, would you want to lock me up? I certainly wouldn't want to have anything to do with you, and I believe you should never be alone with a child, yes. So, do you think that someone should go on the sex offender registry for pedophilic thoughtcrime? I doubt anyone would volunteer for such a thing, but if it can help parents to protect their kids then I see no problem with it as such. The problem would be the public hatred which would be aimed at the people in the registry. As I said before, can't be sure that you can handle alcohol? Don't drink it. Can't handle being around kids without raping them? Don't be around them.
So, you have no problem with punishing people for thoughtcrime?
I'm going to draw on the power of a half-dozen diviners, sacrifice a virgin goat, and deduce some facts about you.
At some point in time, you've considered stealing.
At some point in time, you've thought about killing another person.
Given the above, you should report to the nearest correctional facility, and do your part in protecting society from thieves and murderers.
There's a reason why we don't see bomb how to guides in your local Barnes and Nobles.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is not a banned publication, so no, there is no particular precedent for restricting speech on the basis of someone potentially using the information in it to cause harm.
|
On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts.
They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought.
Would you also never want to be alone with someone who has contemplated murder in their own mind and think that such a person should never be around others?
Someone who contemplated to murder me? No, of course i wouldn't want to be around such a person. Someone who contemplated to murder another specific person, for specific reasons? That would depend on the reasons and such. Of course this would all apply only if I knew about the persons thoughts, I hope that was obvious enough.
|
On November 12 2010 06:11 Nightfall.589 wrote:
So, do you think that someone should go on the sex offender registry for pedophilic thoughtcrime?
Sigh, it's not about thoughtcrime, it's about giving parents a more educated choice as to whom should be around their children.
Example, a parent wants to send his kid to a daynursery. Example (a) has a pedophile working there, example (b) does not. Which does the parent choose? Would you blame the parent for preferring choice "a"?
edit: ok, not convicted. doesn't matter though, person still constitutes a potential threat.
|
On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought.
"But, officer, she was asking for it. I couldn't help it."
There you go. A personal, "understandable" reason.
Someone who contemplated to murder me? No, of course i wouldn't want to be around such a person. Someone who contemplated to murder another specific person, for specific reasons? That would depend on the reasons and such. Of course this would all apply only if I knew about the persons thoughts, I hope that was obvious enough.
You're stretching credibility, here. A murderer is just as much a murderer, regardless of his motivations. (Yet you are unwilling to apply the same benefit of the doubt that you are willing to extend to a thoughtkiller that you do to a thoughtpedophile.)
Example, a parent wants to send his kid to a daynursery. Example (a) has a convicted pedophile working there, example (b) does not. Which does the parent choose? Would you blame the parent for preferring choice "a"?
You're doing bait-and-switch. We aren't talking about convicted sex offenders. We are talking about thoughtcrime - which is what having pedophilic thoughts, or reading this book is.
|
On November 12 2010 06:10 Sabu113 wrote:
Personally... I think we should attach a GPS to the author.
Disgusting.
I don't think a slipperly slope arguement applies to something like this. Our culture and our society has determined that pederasty or even simple molestation is morally abhorrent. This book actively supports rapists.
You can't imprison people for thought crimes. That is scary and that leads down a dark path. You can though limit things which pose a threat to the common good. There's a reason why we don't see bomb how to guides in your local Barnes and Nobles.
This is far more insidious. At least anarchists and libertarians can write some fiction about needing to be ready to oppose a tyrannical government.
Amazon.com and the Anarchist's Cookbook would like to disagree with you...
http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289510194&sr=8-1
|
On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought.
"Goddamn that guy just cut me off, I'm going to murder him"
"Goddamn that bitch is hot wearing that short skirt, I'm going to rape her"
|
On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre?
None of those are instructon manuals.
Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say.
|
On November 12 2010 06:17 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought. "But, officer, she was asking for it. I couldn't help it." There you go. A personal, "understandable" reason.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you think that is understandable... but I was more thinking of:
a: randomly killing a person on the street
b: killing someone who killed your whole family
One of the two makes you a threat to others, while the other doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
