EPTPedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 49
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
| ||
|
Rawenkeke
Norway350 Posts
| ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
On November 12 2010 19:48 MerciLess wrote: You're using a logical fallacy in your incredibly stupid argument. Your logical fallacy is that this book is a magic totem that will guarantee that anyone reading it doesn't get in trouble for the crimes it(supposedly as I've doubt you've read it) instructs on. The book is not a get out of jail free card, or a magical magnet for children. It's paper, paper on which is written ideas. Wanting freedom as specified in the constitution, and bill of rights, does not make me a freedom nut. Being okay with banning books and "raping" people who don't agree with you, does however, make you a fascist. I assume you haven't read the book either (unless you're a pedophile); but I've listened to author's comments about the book. It's even in the introduction and the sample provided by Amazon. It's to help pedophiles successfully fulfill their desires while avoiding prosecution and capture. Learn what the book is really about. Your bill of rights doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not an American. I don't know if you're aware but democracy is not an American value or way of life; there're a lot of places in the world which, indeed, practice it better than USA. Australia is an example. Put it this way; should its sale be allowed if a guy (preferrably a terrorist) published a book in which he explains a myriad of ways of making bombs, booby traps, high-jacking planes, kidnapping american citizens; explaining the strategic places to set bombs and avoiding capture. Anyone can read it and no one will act on it, so it should be allowed: freedom of speech. What you're wrong about is you don't nurture an instinct (and a sick one at that, pedophilia a diagnosable medical disorder) unless you want to act on it. Why would a pedophile possibly read this book if not to act on his desires and try to avoid capture? Stupid and blind libertarianism is stupid and blind. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
| ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 12 2010 22:37 mikado wrote: I assume you haven't read the book either (unless you're a pedophile); but I've listened to author's comments about the book. It's even in the introduction and the sample provided by Amazon. It's to help pedophiles successfully fulfill their desires while avoiding prosecution and capture. Learn what the book is really about. Your bill of rights doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not an American. I don't know if you're aware but democracy is not an American value or way of life; there're a lot of places in the world which, indeed, practice it better than USA. Australia is an example. Put it this way; should its sale be allowed if a guy (preferrably a terrorist) published a book in which he explains a myriad of ways of making bombs, booby traps, high-jacking planes, kidnapping american citizens; explaining the strategic places to set bombs and avoiding capture. Anyone can read it and no one will act on it, so it should be allowed: freedom of speech. What you're wrong about is you don't nurture an instinct (and a sick one at that, pedophilia a diagnosable medical disorder) unless you want to act on it. Why would a pedophile possibly read this book if not to act on his desires and try to avoid capture? Stupid and blind libertarianism is stupid and blind. Still you miss my point in it's entirety. I'm beginning to doubt you're capable of understanding my basic premise, which is that if you allow any censorship, the way is paved for all censorship, and I would rather have potentially harmful media than censor anything at all. Books on how to make bombs and carry out terrorist acts should not be legislated against or banned by the government, because to many people, and not necessarily a minority, Harry Potter, Chuck Pahlaniuk, and many other books are equally as dangerous, and would be as subject to censorship as the one's you assume to be genuinely harmful. I'll risk getting blown up to maintain my freedom. You're assuming, of course, that your opinions are correct. Maybe they are, maybe I even agree with them. But everyone has an opinion, and to allow some books to be banned would make it much easier for any book to be banned, and the next book on the list may not be so repugnant to you. | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
On November 12 2010 17:09 mikado wrote: Your bill of rights doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not an American. I don't know if you're aware but democracy is not an American value or way of life; there're a lot of places in the world which, indeed, practice it better than USA. Australia is an example. in australia, female ejaculation in porn is forbidden, nice democracy (and i'm not even trolling) | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On November 12 2010 22:45 Zoler wrote: I wouldn't approve of a book that gives tips on murder or robbery either. Anything that helps someone committing crimes should be banned. Yes, because a book clearly must be written as an instruction manual for people to take any knowledge away from it. /sarcasm Seriously, unless you're going to ban any book that gives any factual information about committing crime it's senseless and hypocritical to ban a book such as this. Does a fiction story that tells of how a person got away with child molestation in very specific detail deserve to be banned? How about a non-fiction autobiography of a child molester? Should we never publicly discuss the process of child molestation because it may give some creep ideas? That's only the tip of the iceberg of the Pandora's box of issues banning a objectionable book creates. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On November 12 2010 23:10 Myles wrote: Yes, because a book clearly must be written as an instruction manual for people to take any knowledge away from it. /sarcasm Seriously, unless you're going to ban any book that gives any factual information about committing crime it's senseless and hypocritical to ban a book such as this. Does a fiction story that tells of how a person got away with child molestation in very specific detail deserve to be banned? How about a non-fiction autobiography of a child molester? Should we never publicly discuss the process of child molestation because it may give some creep ideas? That's only the tip of the iceberg of the Pandora's box of issues banning a objectionable book creates. Yeah, it shouldn't be banned outright by the government or anything but at the same time companies that doesn't wanna sell it shouldn't be judged. | ||
|
So no fek
United States3001 Posts
On November 12 2010 23:29 Zoler wrote: Yeah, it shouldn't be banned outright by the government or anything but at the same time companies that doesn't wanna sell it shouldn't be judged. I really don't understand why this thread is still going on; the book was removed, and that should have been the end of story. Granted I haven't read every page since the book has been removed (I kept up with the thread until about page 36, and then stopped by a couple times after that), but the people going with the free speech side were saying that they supported Amazon's decision to keep the book for sale. Mainly because people were boycotting Amazon and the like (which is their right), and those who supported it thought it was an admirable decision to support the unpopular choice. When the book was removed, the worst I saw was some disappointment among people who supported them when they decided to keep the book, but I didn't see anyone attacking Amazon like the other side did when they decided to keep the book. Boycotting Amazon for selling the book is an okay choice, but some of the other attacks that came from it were a little much; just as it's your right not to shop there, it's their right to sell what they want. Personally, I think that everyone in this thread should read the book; there's a lot of assumptions on both sides. And while "consensual" relations (yes, I understand they can't give consent) with a child is disgusting, kidnapping and forcibly raping is a whole lot worse, which a lot of people are assuming this book teaches you to do; similarly the other side is assuming it's not nearly as graphic or quite as heinous (though once again, still absolutely disgusting.) | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On November 12 2010 23:05 MerciLess wrote:which is that if you allow any censorship, the way is paved for all censorship, and I would rather have potentially harmful media than censor anything at all. That's equivalent of saying "any law paves the way to make everything illegal, so I'd rather live in total anarchy".Regulating what you can speak isn't any different from regulating anything else. Laws will always be imperfect. You could always agree that we have too many or too little of them. But it's still the best we've got. In an ideal world where everyone was reasonable, altruist and with an IQ above 200. We would likely need much less laws than we need today. But unfortunately in the real world we have real problems to deal with and regulation is often times a practical proven working solution for our real problems. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 12 2010 23:59 VIB wrote: That's equivalent of saying "any law paves the way to make everything illegal, so I'd rather live in total anarchy". Regulating what you can speak isn't any different from regulating anything else. Laws will always be imperfect. You could always agree that we have too many or too little of them. But it's still the best we've got. In an ideal world where everyone was reasonable, altruist and with an IQ above 200. We would likely need much less laws than we need today. But unfortunately in the real world we have real problems to deal with and regulation is often times a practical proven working solution for our real problems. It's actually not the equivalent at all. You do realize that you can't just say stuff and have it be true. Words have real meaning, and your opinions do not dictate reality. When I say any censorship can lead to more censorship, and I'm therefore opposed to it in any form, I'm not saying I'm opposed to all laws because laws lead to more laws. Those are two completely different ideas. | ||
|
Beaudereck
Canada140 Posts
Go buy now if you already hadn't. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
On November 12 2010 22:37 mikado wrote: I assume you haven't read the book either (unless you're a pedophile); but I've listened to author's comments about the book. It's even in the introduction and the sample provided by Amazon. It's to help pedophiles successfully fulfill their desires while avoiding prosecution and capture. Learn what the book is really about. Your bill of rights doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not an American. I don't know if you're aware but democracy is not an American value or way of life; there're a lot of places in the world which, indeed, practice it better than USA. Australia is an example. Put it this way; should its sale be allowed if a guy (preferrably a terrorist) published a book in which he explains a myriad of ways of making bombs, booby traps, high-jacking planes, kidnapping american citizens; explaining the strategic places to set bombs and avoiding capture. Anyone can read it and no one will act on it, so it should be allowed: freedom of speech. What you're wrong about is you don't nurture an instinct (and a sick one at that, pedophilia a diagnosable medical disorder) unless you want to act on it. Why would a pedophile possibly read this book if not to act on his desires and try to avoid capture? Stupid and blind libertarianism is stupid and blind. Stupid and blind, an apt description for the opinion that people cannot harbour thoughts or feelings without acting on them. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On November 12 2010 22:37 mikado wrote: I assume you haven't read the book either (unless you're a pedophile); but I've listened to author's comments about the book. It's even in the introduction and the sample provided by Amazon. It's to help pedophiles successfully fulfill their desires while avoiding prosecution and capture. Learn what the book is really about. Your bill of rights doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not an American. I don't know if you're aware but democracy is not an American value or way of life; there're a lot of places in the world which, indeed, practice it better than USA. Australia is an example. Put it this way; should its sale be allowed if a guy (preferrably a terrorist) published a book in which he explains a myriad of ways of making bombs, booby traps, high-jacking planes, kidnapping american citizens; explaining the strategic places to set bombs and avoiding capture. Anyone can read it and no one will act on it, so it should be allowed: freedom of speech. What you're wrong about is you don't nurture an instinct (and a sick one at that, pedophilia a diagnosable medical disorder) unless you want to act on it. Why would a pedophile possibly read this book if not to act on his desires and try to avoid capture? Stupid and blind libertarianism is stupid and blind. You still have to prove that the libertarianism being espoused here is stupid and blind. The last sentence of your post is not really even related to the discussion. Stupid and blind [insert ideology here] is always stupid and blind, because you defined it that way. You did not; however, link stupidity or blindness to what people are saying here, except perhaps in your own mind. To take your own view as correct without thought for what other people say might be called the definition of stupidity and blindness. Also, if a book on how to commit crimes is out there, why don't the police read it and come up with new ways to stop what they are doing. I mean, isn't criminals making their secrets public good for law enforcement? Criminals are easier to catch if you know what they are doing. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On November 13 2010 00:47 LaughingTulkas wrote: Also, if a book on how to commit crimes is out there, why don't the police read it and come up with new ways to stop what they are doing. I mean, isn't criminals making their secrets public good for law enforcement? Criminals are easier to catch if you know what they are doing. that only proves his point.  . if its usefull to you, read it!analogy: -some random emo-self-help kind of book. only ppl who want to help themselfs read it. -pedophile's guide to love and pleasure. only ppl who want to 'learn' something from it will read it. (be it cop or pedo wannabee) (the curious monkeys skimming through both books are negligible) | ||
|
Legat0
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
If the world was completely free it would be in chaos. All freedoms have their time and places, and some need to be tempered for the greater good. I'm glad for you that you served in IRAQ, that doesn't mean you would exhibit your free speech in a location in america where it would put you in imminent danger. Which means you are selective in when you choose to fight for the concept of free speech. Which is no different than what amazon has done. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:53 robertdinh wrote: It all boils down to this merciless. If the world was completely free it would be in chaos. All freedoms have their time and places, and some need to be tempered for the greater good. I'm glad for you that you served in IRAQ, that doesn't mean you would exhibit your free speech in a location in america where it would put you in imminent danger. Which means you are selective in when you choose to fight for the concept of free speech. Which is no different than what amazon has done. I have no issue with Amazon pulling the book. It's a company, and as such can do as it likes. It's not the responsibility of corporations to uphold free speech. Being free to say what you want and being free to do what you want are two different things...I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I believe in minimal government involvement in every facet of our lives, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in laws and punishment for breaking those laws. I'm selective in when I choose to use my free speech, however I'm not selective in choosing when to uphold the right of any American to have free speech. I'll do it anytime, anywhere. If a majority of Americans truly believe the government has the right to dictate to the American people what they read, I am appalled and saddened for this country and what it was, and what it has become. | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-desktop-image-makes-joke-of-cavity-searching-children/ | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On November 13 2010 02:58 MerciLess wrote: I have no issue with Amazon pulling the book. It's a company, and as such can do as it likes. It's not the responsibility of corporations to uphold free speech. Being free to say what you want and being free to do what you want are two different things...I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I believe in minimal government involvement in every facet of our lives, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in laws and punishment for breaking those laws. I'm selective in when I choose to use my free speech, however I'm not selective in choosing when to uphold the right of any American to have free speech. I'll do it anytime, anywhere. If a majority of Americans truly believe the government has the right to dictate to the American people what they read, I am appalled and saddened for this country and what it was, and what it has become. Well only you know the truth to who you are, but I highly doubt you would try to advocate free speech in certain areas where you would be in danger for doing so. Would you advocate it to someone that was holding hostages and argued that free speech shouldn't exist? No, not if you felt it would put those hostages in danger, most people wouldn't. And that's the point, we all temper our beliefs at times, in this case it would be good to temper the concept of free speech to protect the children. The government may or may not have the right to dictate anything, but they do. From who can realistically get medical treatment, to what kids learn in school, to how we perceive the world around us. They have influence in all of those things and some are influenced more than others. | ||
| ||
