EPTOn November 12 2010 11:15 jinorazi wrote:
part of me thinks this book is ok.
part of me thinks this book is ok.
Please inform me exactly which part of such a book do you find acceptable in any standards apart from a paedophile.
Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Avaloch
241 Posts
Please inform me exactly which part of such a book do you find acceptable in any standards apart from a paedophile. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:04 Avaloch wrote: Please inform me exactly which part of such a book do you find acceptable in any standards apart from a paedophile. People are missing the point entirely, free speech does need to be upheld and 99.9% of books that are released regardless of how abhorrent the content should be allowed. Books on pedophilia on the other hand are the firm exception to the rule, and whomever cannot figure out why this is true on their own must have the most horridly degraded moral values I could imagine. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:04 Avaloch wrote: Please inform me exactly which part of such a book do you find acceptable in any standards apart from a paedophile. Freedom of speech. I thought this is what we are all talking about here. Emotion says no, logic says yes. Same for mein komf, how to be a hitmaon, bible, etc. And if youre going to quote, quote the whole thing not a small part that can portray me as something i am not. I say this assuming you probably did that on purpose and if you did, well, you're a douche. | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:14 jinorazi wrote: Freedom of speech. I thought this is what we are all talking about here. Emotion says no, logic says yes. Same for mein komf, how to be a hitman, bible, etc. Actually logic says that a book instructing grown adults how to sexual assault children should banned and burned in a giant fire. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
Would a book that taught people exactly how to hack the pentagon, or how to choose effective terrorism targets be tolerated for the sake of free speech? Keep in mind I have nothing against people reading this book, however, you can not claim that this book does not encourage pedophiles to improve their craft, and everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but when children start getting exploited because of it then your beliefs and freedom of speech should not be valued over the potential danger to innocent children. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:13 SichuanPanda wrote: People are missing the point entirely, free speech does need to be upheld and 99.9% of books that are released regardless of how abhorrent the content should be allowed. Books on pedophilia on the other hand are the firm exception to the rule, and whomever cannot figure out why this is true on their own must have the most horridly degraded moral values I could imagine. If you draw a line on free speech based on your personal opinion of it, then you've pretty much opened it up to banning anything people have a problem with, which of course everyone has a problem with something. It's more or less an all or nothing kind of deal. Either have free speech and accept that some things will offend some people, or have censorship. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:23 SichuanPanda wrote: Actually logic says that a book instructing grown adults how to sexual assault children should banned and burned in a giant fire. and so should many other books, which i think is the point of this thread. since we can't pick and choose which book and ok and whats bad, i'm willing to take the good with the bad and be an adult about it. instead of banning the book, a better solution will be to have death penalties for violent child molesters. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:40 MerciLess wrote: If you draw a line on free speech based on your personal opinion of it, then you've pretty much opened it up to banning anything people have a problem with, which of course everyone has a problem with something. It's more or less an all or nothing kind of deal. Either have free speech and accept that some things will offend some people, or have censorship. You can't have both, they are mutually exclusive. Yep but you can have censorship that is only applied for very severe subjects. Which may leave some freedom of speech fanatics upset, but it will save a lot of little kids from getting exploited. In america we are free to buy and drink alcohol after a certain age. It is a freedom yet it is tempered by rules. Every freedom we have can be abused, because many humans do not possess a great amount of self-control. And speech is no exception to that, you can abuse free speech to the point where it is detrimental to the progression of society. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
Yep but you can have censorship that is only applied for very severe subjects. Which may leave some freedom of speech fanatics upset, but it will save a lot of little kids from getting exploited.[/QUOTE] My point is that you can't just have censorship for "severe subjects". I mean, who decides what a severe subject is? Once you allow certain things to be censored, it isn't so far for religious groups and political groups, and anyone else with an agenda or an ideology to start censoring things they disagree with. I'd rather have books on pedophilia available than Baptists taking Harry Potter out of libraries. I don't want someone else deciding what I can and cannot view, talk about, or think about. Can most people agree pedophilia is wrong, and will most people avoid the book? Yes, of course. But I'm against telling anyone what to think, regardless of my own personal opinion. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:48 MerciLess wrote: My point is that you can't just have censorship for "severe subjects". I mean, who decides what a severe subject is? Once you allow certain things to be censored, it isn't so far for religious groups and political groups, and anyone else with an agenda or an ideology to start censoring things they disagree with. I'd rather have books on pedophilia available than Baptists taking Harry Potter out of libraries. I don't want someone else deciding what I can and cannot view, talk about, or think about. Can most people agree pedophilia is wrong, and will most people avoid the book? Yes, of course. But I'm against telling anyone what to think, regardless of my own personal opinion. Why can't you objectively analyze what subject is so severe that it is worth censoring? It would simply be on a case by case basis, is it more important to protect children from pedophiles, or is it more important to allow people their right to free speech in a way that puts children at risk? | ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:43 robertdinh wrote: Yep but you can have censorship that is only applied for very severe subjects. Which may leave some freedom of speech fanatics upset, but it will save a lot of little kids from getting exploited. In america we are free to buy and drink alcohol after a certain age. It is a freedom yet it is tempered by rules. Every freedom we have can be abused, because many humans do not possess a great amount of self-control. And speech is no exception to that, you can abuse free speech to the point where it is detrimental to the progression of society. The point of freedom of speech isn't because "yay freedom good, we should get more of that shit no matter what", it's because other freedoms depend on freedom of speech. If you don't have freedom of speech you don't have freedom to speak out against any unjust infringements of your other freedoms. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:50 robertdinh wrote: Why can't you objectively analyze what subject is so severe that it is worth censoring? Because, censoring intellectual material is necessarily something that is subjective. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:51 Shakes wrote: The point of freedom of speech isn't because "yay freedom good, we should get more of that shit no matter what", it's because other freedoms depend on freedom of speech. If you don't have freedom of speech you don't have freedom to speak out against any unjust infringements of your other freedoms. This may be true from an analytical standpoint but as I said every freedom can be abused to a point where it is detrimental. And also on the majority, it is because people think freedom is automatically better than censorship. They don't actually think about the reasons why, they've just been brought up to believe anything opposing any sort of freedom must automatically be bad. On November 12 2010 12:52 MerciLess wrote: Because, censoring intellectual material is necessarily something that is subjective. Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. This is just a case of vanity at work.... People want to say "MY freedom is PRICELESS" but it isn't priceless when it is at the expense and risk of others. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:54 robertdinh wrote: This may be true from an analytical standpoint but as I said every freedom can be abused to a point where it is detrimental. And also on the majority, it is because people think freedom is automatically better than censorship. They don't actually think about the reasons why, they've just been brought up to believe anything opposing any sort of freedom must automatically be bad. Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. censorship isn't bad, it works. look at china and north korea, people are happy, they love their government. but americans have been so accustomed to it its hard to change. allow pot and guns in korea? shit will go haywire. ban guns in america? riots will start i assume. (i'm pro guns for america, no guns everywhere else(that already has no guns)). i would assume same for freedom of speech. in the end, all this book hating is caused by emotion, negative outlook on pedophiles and child molesters which is natural and should be seen negatively(at least for child molesters). however if we were to ban this book based on this emotion, same could be applied to many other things to a point that censorship would just take over and i'd rather not have that, i think we humans are getting smarter everyday to actually be responsible with the knowledge that we're given. | ||
|
javy_
United States1677 Posts
This entire thread has devolved into a completely meaningless argument. If Amazon feels that the book violated one of its rules, which it did, then they have every right to take the book down--simple as that. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 12 2010 13:01 jinorazi wrote: censorship isn't bad, it works. look at china and north korea, people are happy, they love their government. but americans have been so accustomed to it its hard to change. allow pot and guns in korea? shit will go haywire. ban guns in america? riots will start i assume. (i'm pro guns for america, no guns everywhere else(that already has no guns)). i would assume same for freedom of speech. in the end, all this book hating is caused by emotion, negative outlook on pedophiles and child molesters which is natural and should be seen negatively. however if we were to ban this book based on this emotion, same could be applied to many other things to a point that censorship would just take over and i'd rather not have that, i think we humans are getting smarter everyday to actually be responsible with the knowledge that we're given. I'm not in favor of removing the book because of any sort of angry emotion at the thought of pedophiles. It doesn't cause that reaction for someone like me. I am in favor of removing it because I understand as a human being that it is my responsibility to temper my freedoms if they are detrimental to others. I do not value the concept of freedom of speech over the safety of the children that may be put at risk because of this book. | ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:54 robertdinh wrote: Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. The problem is you're looking at the issue on a work by work basis. I think most people who are taking the pro-free speech stance would agree that there are some works the world would be better off without. The problem is you need someone to make the decision on what those works are, and by investing that authority in them you give them power to do greater harm than any book being published. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:54 robertdinh wrote: This may be true from an analytical standpoint but as I said every freedom can be abused to a point where it is detrimental. And also on the majority, it is because people think freedom is automatically better than censorship. They don't actually think about the reasons why, they've just been brought up to believe anything opposing any sort of freedom must automatically be bad. Ok and you can deliberate about the value of such material released into society, vs the value of not teaching pedophiles how to improve their methods. This is just a case of vanity at work.... People want to say "MY freedom is PRICELESS" but it isn't priceless when it is at the expense and risk of others. . My point is the value of the material is irrelevant. What people say doesn't matter as much as their freedom to say it. You'll never have a free society without some risk involved in it. You must weight those risks against the rewards I suppose. If I am free to own a gun, I can shoot someone with it. If I am free to learn karate, I can injure someone with what I know. Yet we accept these risks as the very cheap price for a very expensive concept. A free society. It is not up to amazon, or the government, or me to protect your children. It's up to you. If you're so willing to give up your freedoms for safety, perhaps North Korea or Russia would be a better fit for you, politically. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 12 2010 13:03 Shakes wrote: The problem is you're looking at the issue on a work by work basis. I think most people who are taking the pro-free speech stance would agree that there are some works the world would be better off without. The problem is you need someone to make the decision on what those works are, and by investing that authority in them you give them power to do greater harm than any book being published. Well first off it should be on a work by work basis, some rules just aren't efficient all of the time. Second off, can you really say it would do greater harm than any book being published, you assume so because freedom is a sacred concept, but in reality how do you measure freedom and censorship vs children being put at risk. It's simply a matter of people valuing their own beliefs more than the safety of the children. On November 12 2010 13:05 MerciLess wrote: . My point is the value of the material is irrelevant. What people say doesn't matter as much as their freedom to say it. You'll never have a free society without some risk involved in it. You must weight those risks against the rewards I suppose. If I am free to own a gun, I can shoot someone with it. If I am free to learn karate, I can injure someone with what I know. Yet we accept these risks as the very cheap price for a very expensive concept. A free society. It is not up to amazon, or the government, or me to protect your children. It's up to you. If you're so willing to give up your freedoms for safety, perhaps North Korea or Russia would be a better fit for you, politically. Freedoms are all well and good but this book will directly teach pedophiles how to improve their methods... it's a little more obvious than someone some other types of freedom transitioning into criminal behavior. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On November 12 2010 13:03 robertdinh wrote: I'm not in favor of removing the book because of any sort of angry emotion at the thought of pedophiles. It doesn't cause that reaction for someone like me. I am in favor of removing it because I understand as a human being that it is my responsibility to temper my freedoms if they are detrimental to others. I do not value the concept of freedom of speech over the safety of the children that may be put at risk because of this book. i understand, however i'd rather look at an alternative solution to protect children like death sentence for raping a child instead of banning this book. | ||
| ||
