|
On November 13 2010 05:02 Myles wrote:To those who say books such as this should be banned, I sincerely ask for you to explain how you would do such a thing. I quoted a previous post that posed some of the problems with banning crime instruction manuals and would like to hear how you would deal with this. Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 23:10 Myles wrote: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. There are clearly two sides of that coin but you're acting as if only one exists. Of course it's impossible to remove the knowledge of that book from the face of the earth. Of course some people would still find it on torrents and underground shops. Of course some people would only buy it because it was banned in the first place, so it would even give it some popularity.
But you're ignoring the whole other side. Of course removing it from amazon reduces it's reach. Most people won't even bother looking too far from it. So the book harm will be reduced. And more importantly: if the author is properly punished for writing it. (In many countries inciting violence is explicitly a crime) Then he wouldn't repeat his offense, and other would be less likely to. Which is the whole point of laws and prison in the first place: to stop those who harm others from repeating the offense. So looking at the bigger picture. Less books inciting crimes would exist. Less harm done.
So you can't argue simply ignore one side and say it would be 100% useless to do anything about it.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 13 2010 05:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 05:02 Myles wrote:To those who say books such as this should be banned, I sincerely ask for you to explain how you would do such a thing. I quoted a previous post that posed some of the problems with banning crime instruction manuals and would like to hear how you would deal with this. On November 12 2010 23:10 Myles wrote: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. There are clearly two sides of that coin but you're acting as if only one exists. Of course it's impossible to remove the knowledge of that book from the face of the earth. Of course some people would still find it on torrents and underground shops. Of course some people would only buy it because it was banned in the first place, so it would even give it some popularity. But you're ignoring the whole other side. Of course removing it from amazon reduces it's reach. Most people won't even bother looking too far from it. So the book harm will be reduced. And more importantly: if the author is properly punished for writing it. (In many countries inciting violence is explicitly a crime) Then he wouldn't repeat his offense, and other would be less likely to. Which is the whole point of laws and prison in the first place: to stop those who harm others from repeating the offense. So looking at the bigger picture. Less books inciting crimes would exist. Less harm done. So you can't argue simply ignore one side and say it would be 100% useless to do anything about it.
I didn't say it would be completely useless, but I do feel that the harm done by setting this kind of precedent would be far, far worse then the befit that some pedophile would potentially stay less skilled at child molestation. I say this, because as you said, banning the book outright wouldn't stop it's circulation and it wouldn't remove even 1.0% of the vast information there is out there on pedophilia. People don't just haphazardly decide they want to read up on how to commit child molestation, so if they want to find that information they will, and it won't stop them from committing the crime.
Now, as far as I'm aware of there is never any statement in the book that directly incites the reader to commit child molestation. You can argue that clearly the book supports it, but there are many, many books out there that support criminal activity. I fear the day that we convict people of crimes for supporting an activity without actually finding them guilty of committing it.
|
I just want to want to know how this author is getting away with publishing the book. I mean.. How does he know all of these tips and tricks for pedophiles in the first place?
|
On November 13 2010 05:51 Virtue wrote:
I just want to want to know how this author is getting away with publishing the book. I mean.. How does he know all of these tips and tricks for pedophiles in the first place?
You're assuming he knows what he's talking about.
Even if he does, that doesn't necessarily mean he knows through direct experience.
There's still research, thought experimentation, etc.
|
On November 12 2010 23:05 MerciLess wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 22:37 mikado wrote:On November 12 2010 19:48 MerciLess wrote:On November 12 2010 17:09 mikado wrote:
It's simply fake and stupid libertarianism to allow the sale of a book instructing techniques of a most sinister crime so as to allow psychopaths to commit the crime and get away with it.
Freedom nuts need to get raped by someone who reads a book of this nature and the criminal needs to escape judgment. Then we'll ask for their opinion again. I somehow doubt it'll be 'this guy raped my son/daughter/sibling and got away because of a book like this but allow the sale of this book anyway'. 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. 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.
Your point, as I said before, is simplistic and blind. Nothing hard to understand. If you don't have a direct rebuttal, you should stop attacking my ideas so pointlessly.
You must be socially challenged if you think Harry Potter is equally dangerous as a book that instructs crime in real life and teaches the readers how to get away with it.
Freedom is limited. Look at your Supreme Court decision on freedom of speech rulings. There are imposed limits. Enough said I suppose.
|
On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one).
You don't understand how free speech and a free market economy work. The author wrote a book and published it on a privately owned marketplace. The protesters then used their free speech to protest it, and the company exercised their right to not do business with the author and remove the book. The person is not legally forbidden from publishing it, and it is well within his legal bounds to do so. Amazon, conversely, is not required to sell his book.
Your point, as I said before, is simplistic and blind. Nothing hard to understand. If you don't have a direct rebuttal, you should stop attacking my ideas so pointlessly.
You must be socially challenged if you think Harry Potter is equally dangerous as a book that instructs crime in real life and teaches the readers how to get away with it.
Freedom is limited. Look at your Supreme Court decision on freedom of speech rulings. There are imposed limits. Enough said I suppose.
The limits on freedom of speech in the United States are incredably narrow. I am not a lawyer but from what I have read on the issue this would not be covered by any relevant restrictions. The test for writing involving illegal action is called Imminent lawless action(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) and it must, to my understanding, advocate a specific act rather then an act at an indefinite time.
|
did anyone actually see what was in that book? i thought it might have been a book to help pedophiles live normally even though they have a problem
|
Here is a collection of aphorisms I love which are relevant to this thread:
"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
"Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions."
"Fear is the mother of morality."
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
"Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual."
|
On November 13 2010 07:34 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one). You don't understand how free speech and a free market economy work. The author wrote a book and published it on a privately owned marketplace. The protesters then used their free speech to protest it, and the company exercised their right to not do business with the author and remove the book. The person is not legally forbidden from publishing it, and it is well within his legal bounds to do so. Amazon, conversely, is not required to sell his book. Show nested quote +
Your point, as I said before, is simplistic and blind. Nothing hard to understand. If you don't have a direct rebuttal, you should stop attacking my ideas so pointlessly.
You must be socially challenged if you think Harry Potter is equally dangerous as a book that instructs crime in real life and teaches the readers how to get away with it.
Freedom is limited. Look at your Supreme Court decision on freedom of speech rulings. There are imposed limits. Enough said I suppose.
The limits on freedom of speech in the United States are incredably narrow. I am not a lawyer but from what I have read on the issue this would not be covered by any relevant restrictions. The test for writing involving illegal action is called Imminent lawless action(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) and it must, to my understanding, advocate a specific act rather then an act at an indefinite time.
The very fact that there are imposed limits on free speech means there can be more limits and who is to say we would be wrong to impose such limits? Laws are made by men. And you think some regulatory body wouldn't ban this book if it were brought to courts? And as long as the country is governed by democracy, why the ridiculously fearful attitude (if we ban this, what's next, i can't vote?)? We're not talking about banning all forms of free speech; if that was the case then you could show your libertarianism proudly, as would many of us who think this book should be banned.
I can't understand why anyone would defend the sale of a book instructing ways of raping young children.
Titles such as Child Rape for Dummies, 100 Things You Need to Know About High-Jacking Planes, Your Guide to Murder, Feed the Molester Within are just some that come to mind when you think about what extreme libertarians are willing to accept as worthy of freedom.
|
I'm not in favor of banning books, no matter their content.
With that said, however, there is no book ban taking place here. Amazon has no obligation to sell any item or eBook that it doesn't want to, and their decision, as a business, should ultimately be based on on what they feel will cause them the least grief in the long run. Pulling the book was probably the right thing to do.
Personally, I'm rather disappointed that they pulled it, but only because they went contrary to their own stated policy of not content-filtering their offerings. If you're going to take a stand on principle, at least have the backbone to enforce it.
As to a government banning, it won't happen. "Exceptions" to free speech are (thankfully) incredibly few, and book burning is not on the table (yet).
And as long as the country is governed by democracy, why the ridiculously fearful attitude
You answered your own question. I don't want the list of "approved" reading material to be determined by majority vote.
|
On November 13 2010 07:59 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 07:34 InvalidID wrote:On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one). You don't understand how free speech and a free market economy work. The author wrote a book and published it on a privately owned marketplace. The protesters then used their free speech to protest it, and the company exercised their right to not do business with the author and remove the book. The person is not legally forbidden from publishing it, and it is well within his legal bounds to do so. Amazon, conversely, is not required to sell his book.
Your point, as I said before, is simplistic and blind. Nothing hard to understand. If you don't have a direct rebuttal, you should stop attacking my ideas so pointlessly.
You must be socially challenged if you think Harry Potter is equally dangerous as a book that instructs crime in real life and teaches the readers how to get away with it.
Freedom is limited. Look at your Supreme Court decision on freedom of speech rulings. There are imposed limits. Enough said I suppose.
The limits on freedom of speech in the United States are incredably narrow. I am not a lawyer but from what I have read on the issue this would not be covered by any relevant restrictions. The test for writing involving illegal action is called Imminent lawless action(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) and it must, to my understanding, advocate a specific act rather then an act at an indefinite time. The very fact that there are imposed limits on free speech means there can be more limits and who is to say we would be wrong to impose such limits? Laws are made by men. And you think some regulatory body wouldn't ban this book if it were brought to courts? And as long as the country is governed by democracy, why the ridiculously fearful attitude (if we ban this, what's next, i can't vote?)? We're not talking about banning all forms of free speech; if that was the case then you could show your libertarianism proudly, as would many of us who think this book should be banned. I can't understand why anyone would defend the sale of a book instructing ways of raping young children. Titles such as Child Rape for Dummies, 100 Things You Need to Know About High-Jacking Planes, Your Guide to Murder, Feed the Molester Within are just some that come to mind when you think about what extreme libertarians are willing to accept as worthy of freedom.
Lock Picking
Making Explosives
Mein Kampf
Modern High-Security Lockpicking
Does this book really instruct pedophiles on the finer points of raping children? Because I haven't read the book, and I'm guessing you haven't either. So stop talking out your ass. And you somehow think that 'democracy' will save us from unreasonable banning? Like it saved gay marriage in Cali? Like it saved minarets in Switzerland?
|
On November 13 2010 07:59 mikado wrote:
I can't understand why anyone would defend the sale of a book instructing ways of raping young children.
political bickering aside, the existence of the knowledge itself poses no danger. You can't really control the dissemination of ideas like that completely either. So why not just let it be? The "bad information" witch hunt has been going on since the start of man and it's such a slippery slope with limited upside so I dunno banning stuff like that seems silly and a waste of time.
I'd also argue that it's probably counter-productive to ban information and expression like this if your objective is protecting children. but that's a whole nother can of worms.
|
On November 13 2010 09:16 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +And as long as the country is governed by democracy, why the ridiculously fearful attitude You answered your own question. I don't want the list of "approved" reading material to be determined by majority vote.
Why? The list of things you can do is determined by majority vote. Can't have sex in public places, can't smoke crack, can't kill and rape, can't burn down trade centers; and it could be 'can't publish a book that instructs how to commit a crime' just as easily.
Unless talking against your governmental system, human rights and other political and religious matters is a crime (in which case you have more serious problems than freedom of speech, I assure you), I don't see how a ban like this could move the society in a backward fashion; if anything, it'll be a positive move.
|
On November 13 2010 09:21 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 07:59 mikado wrote:On November 13 2010 07:34 InvalidID wrote:On November 13 2010 04:04 Archduke wrote:
It's very sad indeed that Amazon was bullied into removing this book from their site. This is a blow to free speech (albeit a small one). You don't understand how free speech and a free market economy work. The author wrote a book and published it on a privately owned marketplace. The protesters then used their free speech to protest it, and the company exercised their right to not do business with the author and remove the book. The person is not legally forbidden from publishing it, and it is well within his legal bounds to do so. Amazon, conversely, is not required to sell his book.
Your point, as I said before, is simplistic and blind. Nothing hard to understand. If you don't have a direct rebuttal, you should stop attacking my ideas so pointlessly.
You must be socially challenged if you think Harry Potter is equally dangerous as a book that instructs crime in real life and teaches the readers how to get away with it.
Freedom is limited. Look at your Supreme Court decision on freedom of speech rulings. There are imposed limits. Enough said I suppose.
The limits on freedom of speech in the United States are incredably narrow. I am not a lawyer but from what I have read on the issue this would not be covered by any relevant restrictions. The test for writing involving illegal action is called Imminent lawless action(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) and it must, to my understanding, advocate a specific act rather then an act at an indefinite time. The very fact that there are imposed limits on free speech means there can be more limits and who is to say we would be wrong to impose such limits? Laws are made by men. And you think some regulatory body wouldn't ban this book if it were brought to courts? And as long as the country is governed by democracy, why the ridiculously fearful attitude (if we ban this, what's next, i can't vote?)? We're not talking about banning all forms of free speech; if that was the case then you could show your libertarianism proudly, as would many of us who think this book should be banned. I can't understand why anyone would defend the sale of a book instructing ways of raping young children. Titles such as Child Rape for Dummies, 100 Things You Need to Know About High-Jacking Planes, Your Guide to Murder, Feed the Molester Within are just some that come to mind when you think about what extreme libertarians are willing to accept as worthy of freedom. Lock PickingMaking ExplosivesMein KampfModern High-Security LockpickingDoes this book really instruct pedophiles on the finer points of raping children? Because I haven't read the book, and I'm guessing you haven't either. So stop talking out your ass. snip snip bla bla
Yes it does. Do your research and then talk. Talk about talking out of your ass.
I somehow think murder and rape (that's what pedophiles who feed their insticts commit, the ones that seek treatment don't) is more dangerous than lock-picking and small time explosive tricks.
I'll say it again; why would a pedophile read this book if not to act on his/her instincts? It's there to teach pedophiles not how to control their urges but how to act on them and get away. Seriously, first read what the book is about.
|
On November 13 2010 09:54 mikado wrote:
Why? The list of things you can do is determined by majority vote.
Not true. Not everything is up for a vote.
Otherwise, you'd have religious nutjobs voting to ban any book that didn't proclaim Jesus as Lord and politicians voting to ban any book that criticized the government. I know you'd be okay with those scenarios (since you apparently believe that as long as people vote to do something, that's the right thing to do), but I wouldn't be.
|
United States24751 Posts
On November 13 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:
I somehow think murder and rape (that's what pedophiles who feed their insticts commit, the ones that seek treatment don't) is more dangerous than lock-picking and small time explosive tricks.
I'll say it again; why would a pedophile read this book if not to act on his/her instincts? It's there to teach pedophiles not how to control their urges but how to act on them and get away. Seriously, first read what the book is about.
Why do you polarize the issue with pedophiles of being those who commit rape/murder and those who seek treatment (what do you mean by treatment anyway)? I really don't see the issue this way but when you oversimplify it, it suddenly seems pretty obvious that the book is feeding your artificially inflated group of maniac pedophiles. When you oversimplify it to suit your purposes.
|
|
|
On November 13 2010 10:20 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 09:54 mikado wrote:
Why? The list of things you can do is determined by majority vote. Not true. Not everything is up for a vote. Otherwise, you'd have religious nutjobs voting to ban any book that didn't proclaim Jesus as Lord and politicians voting to ban any book that criticized the government. I know you'd be okay with those scenarios (since you apparently believe that as long as people vote to do something, that's the right thing to do), but I wouldn't be.
What's the definition of your version of democracy then?
Furthermore, this simply is what's being referred to as the 'harm principle' of freedom of speech limitations. Just do your reading, you'll understand that limitation of speech is needed in certain circumstances to maintain democratic values. And I propose that this is one such circumstance. And if this particular example were to brought up into courts, it'd certainly be banned.
Here's the internet's beloved source of information wiki's take on freedom of speech as it stands today and its limitations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
On November 13 2010 10:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:
I somehow think murder and rape (that's what pedophiles who feed their insticts commit, the ones that seek treatment don't) is more dangerous than lock-picking and small time explosive tricks.
I'll say it again; why would a pedophile read this book if not to act on his/her instincts? It's there to teach pedophiles not how to control their urges but how to act on them and get away. Seriously, first read what the book is about. Why do you polarize the issue with pedophiles of being those who commit rape/murder and those who seek treatment (what do you mean by treatment anyway)? I really don't see the issue this way but when you oversimplify it, it suddenly seems pretty obvious that the book is feeding your artificially inflated group of maniac pedophiles. When you oversimplify it to suit your purposes.
Pedophilia is a diagnosable medical sickness. Those who act on their urges rape and, in most cases, murder; you guessed it. Others are being treated medically to overcome such urges. This book doesn't do the latter but encourages the former.
I don't see how I'm simplifying it. Pedophiliac urges aren't normal, it's a medical disorder. This book isn't a self-help book to maintain and control these urges, how many times does one have to point this out in this thread?
|
On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote:
What's the definition of your version of democracy then?
Since you're in the mood for Wikipedia entries today, try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
Not everything is up for a vote.
And if this particular example were to brought up into courts, it'd certainly be banned.
Courts in what country? US, no. Australia, almost certainly.
|
United States24751 Posts
On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 10:29 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:
I somehow think murder and rape (that's what pedophiles who feed their insticts commit, the ones that seek treatment don't) is more dangerous than lock-picking and small time explosive tricks.
I'll say it again; why would a pedophile read this book if not to act on his/her instincts? It's there to teach pedophiles not how to control their urges but how to act on them and get away. Seriously, first read what the book is about. Why do you polarize the issue with pedophiles of being those who commit rape/murder and those who seek treatment (what do you mean by treatment anyway)? I really don't see the issue this way but when you oversimplify it, it suddenly seems pretty obvious that the book is feeding your artificially inflated group of maniac pedophiles. When you oversimplify it to suit your purposes. Pedophilia is a diagnosable medical sickness. Those who act on their urges rape and, in most cases, murder; you guessed it. Others are being treated medically to overcome such urges. This book doesn't do the latter but encourages the former. I don't see how I'm simplifying it. Pedophiliac urges aren't normal, it's a medical disorder. This book isn't a self-help book to maintain and control these urges, how many times does one have to point this out in this thread?
You are equating acting on pedo-urges with rape. Is acting on heterosexual urges automatically engaging in sex with people of the opposite gender? Do you consider watching porn 'acting' on hetero(or homo)sexual urges? What about fictional animated porn?
"in most cases, murder; you guessed it." Can you back up this statement?
I'm saying you are simplifying it because you are saying pedophiles come in two types: those who are evil and rape/(and usually murder) children, and those who are seeking help. I have no factual knowledge of this topic but that sounds preposterous. Also can you please clarify on how this 'treatment' you are proposing works. What is the analogous treatment for homosexuals etc? Obviously being a homosexual is much more culturally accepted, but the methods for 'curing' it should be the same essentially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
