|
On November 13 2010 11:10 SaroDarksbane wrote:Show nested quote +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/RightsNot everything is up for a vote. Show nested quote +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.
Rights are limited and up for a vote as well, with the exception of fundamental human rights. Everything else is fair game depending on what country you live in, some or all of which might have a democratic system. (Americans have a right to shoot someone who steps foot in their property, you'd get a life-sentence for that in Australia. Abortion is not a right for American citizens, it is for Australians, etc.).
I'll only refer you to the definition of democracy (majority rules) and current imposed limitations on freedom of speech (harm principle).
On November 13 2010 11:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote: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.
You think, given the choice, would a heterosexual individual rather watch porn or engage in sex? And to top that, there's nothing wrong with heterosexual/homosexual sex, there's everything wrong with underage-adult sex. Everything in your biology is there to support you to have sex, it's the reason you're alive; to perpetuate your line.
Acting on pedo-urges leads you then, by your argument, to:
1- Underage porn: serious offense in many countries
2- Rape: even 'consentual' sex with minors is considered rape since they're assumed not to have the capacity to make such a decision with full comprehension of circumstances or without being easily manipulated.
3- Murder: If not in most of the circumstances (won't chase after stats on internet, to accommodate you we'll use some), in some circumstances rape leads to murder. Not to mention the postramatic stress disorders and the suicidal tendencies of the victims; which can be considered indirect murder. This is common sense, you don't need evidence for this I suppose.
4-Seek treatment or try to control your urges
And the other stratum of pedophiliacs would see that lusting after children is not normal, talk to their psychiatrists/psychologists and seek treatment. I'm shocked that you ask such questions like 'is this like homosexuality cures'; there's credible science behind this as it's a recognized medical disorder.
If you were in the middle, you wouldn't need to read such a book to take advice on how to stalk kids and get them to have sex with you, what sort of condoms you should use and how you would avoid the law.
|
mikado, you are missing his point and I'm sure he will explain it better.
"Lusting after children is not normal" - but technically lusting after the same gender is not "normal" either. Do you have a reliable statistic to establish what's more common - lusting after children (very broad, we are talking 15 and below?) or same gender?
|
I don't see how the occurrence rate of the said disorder has anything to do with this discussion. Would it matter if it was 2% or 5%?. If one was more common than the other? They still exist.
It's true, from a purely biological stand-point, lusting after same sex individuals is wrong as well (and pointless in evolutionary terms). But same sex relationships tend to exist between individuals that are legally capable of making their own decision with their lives (religion, sexual orientation, etc) and they don't harm anyone; they're not minors. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexuality leads to rape/murder.
However the mere existence of pedophilia is a threat to minors' well-being, wouldn't you agree? Existence of any sexual/behavioural disorder would be a threat to the society at large if it promoted illegal activities (rape, in this circumstance). Unless you think underage-adult relationships are merely a subject of social taboo (as is the case with homosexuality), you can't possibly disagree with it.
|
United States24768 Posts
On November 13 2010 11:25 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 11:11 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote: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. You think, given the choice, would a homosexual individual rather watch porn or engage in sex?
You said acting on urges is having sex... I am just saying you are misrepresenting your case. Obviously taking the urges to the 'next level' past fictional stimulation would include things like statutory rape.
And to top that, there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex, there's everything wrong with underage-adult sex.
True from a legal/ethical standpoint. However from a biological standpoint homosexual sex is no 'better' than sex with children or animals or trees or anything else. Any sex that isn't allowing for procreation is just silliness to mother nature (still being investigated I suppose).
Everything in your biology is there to support you to have sex, it's the reason you're alive; to perpetuate your line.
Acting on pedo-urges leads you then, by your argument, to:
1- Underage porn: serious offense in many countries
Agreed. Major ethical issues with illegal porn like this.
2- Rape: even 'consentual' sex with minors is considered rape since they're assumed not to have the capacity to make such a decision with full comprehension of circumstances or without being easily manipulated. Agreed.
3- Murder: If not in most of the circumstances (won't chase after stats on internet, to accommodate you we'll use some), in some circumstances rape leads to murder. Not to mention the postramatic stress disorders and the suicidal tendencies of the victims; which can be considered indirect murder. This is common sense, you don't need evidence for this I suppose.
4-Seek treatment or try to control your urges
I still think you should leave off the whole 'murder' argument since the only reason why it's likely to lead to murder is because of how illegal and socially unacceptable it is (of course you mentioned risk of suicide or long term damage to children which is valid). That's not inherent to the issue that needs to be controlled.
And the other stratum of pedophiliacs would see that lusting after children is not normal What is normal? Lusting after children is just as 'normal' as lusting after animals, same-sex, trees, etc. It's just much less ethical.
, talk to their psychiatrists/psychologists and seek treatment. I'm shocked that you ask such questions like 'is this like homosexuality cures'; there's credible science behind this as it's a recognized medical disorder.
From the googling I've just done there has been some effort into 'treating' people for 'this' and not many cases of 'success.' The same way it's not easy to 'treat' someone for being a homosexual. People's brains are hard-wired sexually like you implied, and you can't undo that.
My issue is probably the fact that you are assuming sexual deviants can just 'go get treatment.' If treatment was readily available and at least fairly effective then I'd say any uncomfortableness or dilemma regarding seeking out treatment would be outweighed by the potential risk to children if the person assessed them-self to be at risk of actually committing related crimes. But this is not the case. Treatment is lackluster and probably very difficult for many people to seek out. From the little bit I do know, many pedophiles also are attracted to some other group such as men or women (I remember reading about cases of men with wives and families being caught for inappropriate activities with children decades after leading a 'normal' life). Not all of these people are going to need treatment though.
As with most things like this, I'd bet the percentage of people who qualify as pedophiles is larger than what is normally reported, and that many cases go unreported simply because the person doesn't engage in related behaviors and doesn't seek out treatment (forcing experimental treatments for people who actually go over the line and do something to children definitely makes sense to me though... a bit of a tricky issue I guess).
If you were in the middle, you wouldn't need to read such a book to take advice on how to stalk kids and get them to have sex with you, what sort of condoms you should use and how you would avoid the law.
Agreed. I also haven't read the book so I can't defend it one way or the other.
|
On November 13 2010 11:25 mikado wrote:
Rights are limited and up for a vote as well
Privileges are limited and up for a vote. Rights, not so much.
with the exception of fundamental human rights.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, in my opinion. Right up there with the right to life, and the right to not be strapped to a chair and forced to watch reality TV for 24 hours a day.
|
On November 13 2010 11:48 mikado wrote:
I don't see how the occurrence rate of the said disorder has anything to do with this discussion. Would it matter if it was 2% or 5%?. If one was more common than the other? They still exist.
It's true, from a purely biological stand-point, lusting after same sex individuals is wrong as well (and pointless in evolutionary terms). But same sex relationships tend to exist between individuals that are legally capable of making their own decision with their lives (religion, sexual orientation, etc) and they don't harm anyone; they're not minors. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexuality leads to rape/murder.
However the mere existence of pedophilia is a threat to minors' well-being, wouldn't you agree? Existence of any sexual/behavioural disorder would be a threat to the society at large if it promoted illegal activities (rape, in this circumstance). Unless you think underage-adult relationships are merely a subject of social taboo (as is the case with homosexuality), you can't possibly disagree with it.
I think his point was that pedophiles don't necessarily "rape" acting on their urges, they might be merely "fantasizing" about preteens or watching "animated porn", as he mentioned.
"Mere existence or pedophilia" cannot be cured (whatever that means), just like homosexuality cannot be cured. Those people can be hazardous to the society or they can be harmless sick people.
The reason I asked about the statistic was that "normal" is judged by the percentage of occurrence, thus knowing that lusting after, say, 14 year old girls is more common than homosexuality would mean that pedophilia is more "normal".
I was too slow, micronesia answered everything I think
|
There's no legal right to ban this kind of thing. Certainly, whoever wrote the book probably got a visit from the police and asked a few awkward questions. I can't understand why people would buy this online, with a credit card, identifying exactly who they are and what they're interested in.
The reaction is also appropriate, because negative press will probably be enough to get amazon to take it down. Honestly, I wish people would do that to more books (like anything written by Ann Coulter).
+ Show Spoiler +Who published this anyway? Paladin Press?
E: Requisite joke: How much overlap is there between kindle owners and pedophiles anyway?
|
United States24768 Posts
On November 13 2010 12:18 Offhand wrote:There's no legal right to ban this kind of thing. Certainly, whoever wrote the book probably got a visit from the police and asked a few awkward questions. I can't understand why people would buy this online, with a credit card, identifying exactly who they are and what they're interested in.The reaction is also appropriate, because negative press will probably be enough to get amazon to take it down. Honestly, I wish people would do that to more books (like anything written by Ann Coulter). + Show Spoiler +Who published this anyway? Paladin Press?
I haven't looked into it at all for this case, but it's fairly easy to self-publish stuff and sell it on places like amazon nowadays... and it was only available via download on kindle anyway.
+ Show Spoiler +
And that is crap!
|
On November 13 2010 12:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 12:18 Offhand wrote:There's no legal right to ban this kind of thing. Certainly, whoever wrote the book probably got a visit from the police and asked a few awkward questions. I can't understand why people would buy this online, with a credit card, identifying exactly who they are and what they're interested in.The reaction is also appropriate, because negative press will probably be enough to get amazon to take it down. Honestly, I wish people would do that to more books (like anything written by Ann Coulter). + Show Spoiler +Who published this anyway? Paladin Press? I haven't looked into it at all for this case, but it's fairly easy to self-publish stuff and sell it on places like amazon nowadays... and it was only available via download on kindle anyway. + Show Spoiler +And that is crap!
True I didn't realize it would be quite easy to self publish with an e-book.
|
On November 13 2010 11:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 11:25 mikado wrote:On November 13 2010 11:11 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote: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. You think, given the choice, would a homosexual individual rather watch porn or engage in sex? You said acting on urges is having sex... I am just saying you are misrepresenting your case. Obviously taking the urges to the 'next level' past fictional stimulation would include things like statutory rape. Show nested quote +And to top that, there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex, there's everything wrong with underage-adult sex. True from a legal/ethical standpoint. However from a biological standpoint homosexual sex is no 'better' than sex with children or animals or trees or anything else. Any sex that isn't allowing for procreation is just silliness to mother nature (still being investigated I suppose). Show nested quote +Everything in your biology is there to support you to have sex, it's the reason you're alive; to perpetuate your line.
Acting on pedo-urges leads you then, by your argument, to:
1- Underage porn: serious offense in many countries Agreed. Major ethical issues with illegal porn like this. Show nested quote +2- Rape: even 'consentual' sex with minors is considered rape since they're assumed not to have the capacity to make such a decision with full comprehension of circumstances or without being easily manipulated. Agreed. Show nested quote +3- Murder: If not in most of the circumstances (won't chase after stats on internet, to accommodate you we'll use some), in some circumstances rape leads to murder. Not to mention the postramatic stress disorders and the suicidal tendencies of the victims; which can be considered indirect murder. This is common sense, you don't need evidence for this I suppose.
4-Seek treatment or try to control your urges
I still think you should leave off the whole 'murder' argument since the only reason why it's likely to lead to murder is because of how illegal and socially unacceptable it is (of course you mentioned risk of suicide or long term damage to children which is valid). That's not inherent to the issue that needs to be controlled. Show nested quote +And the other stratum of pedophiliacs would see that lusting after children is not normal What is normal? Lusting after children is just as 'normal' as lusting after animals, same-sex, trees, etc. It's just much less ethical. Show nested quote +, talk to their psychiatrists/psychologists and seek treatment. I'm shocked that you ask such questions like 'is this like homosexuality cures'; there's credible science behind this as it's a recognized medical disorder. From the googling I've just done there has been some effort into 'treating' people for 'this' and not many cases of 'success.' The same way it's not easy to 'treat' someone for being a homosexual. People's brains are hard-wired sexually like you implied, and you can't undo that. My issue is probably the fact that you are assuming sexual deviants can just 'go get treatment.' If treatment was readily available and at least fairly effective then I'd say any uncomfortableness or dilemma regarding seeking out treatment would be outweighed by the potential risk to children if the person assessed them-self to be at risk of actually committing related crimes. But this is not the case. Treatment is lackluster and probably very difficult for many people to seek out. From the little bit I do know, many pedophiles also are attracted to some other group such as men or women (I remember reading about cases of men with wives and families being caught for inappropriate activities with children decades after leading a 'normal' life). Not all of these people are going to need treatment though. As with most things like this, I'd bet the percentage of people who qualify as pedophiles is larger than what is normally reported, and that many cases go unreported simply because the person doesn't engage in related behaviors and doesn't seek out treatment (forcing experimental treatments for people who actually go over the line and do something to children definitely makes sense to me though... a bit of a tricky issue I guess). Show nested quote +If you were in the middle, you wouldn't need to read such a book to take advice on how to stalk kids and get them to have sex with you, what sort of condoms you should use and how you would avoid the law.
Agreed. I also haven't read the book so I can't defend it one way or the other.
As we agree on most of the issues, the only thing to discuss is the efficacy of the treatment I suppose. Although it's a given that sexual orientation is hard to change or manipulate, it's the only help we can offer to suffers of this disease, should they ask for treatment. If they can handle the urges on their own and not act on them, that's all the better.
In terms of the actual effect of the treatment; as with most of the physiological or psychological disorders, pedophilia might prove incurable as well (although studies still continue, as they will until they find one I suppose, brain is still a largely uncharted area). In this case, treatment can only comprise of management of symptoms and this is obviously still better than feeding the urges.
On November 13 2010 12:00 News wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 11:48 mikado wrote:
I don't see how the occurrence rate of the said disorder has anything to do with this discussion. Would it matter if it was 2% or 5%?. If one was more common than the other? They still exist.
It's true, from a purely biological stand-point, lusting after same sex individuals is wrong as well (and pointless in evolutionary terms). But same sex relationships tend to exist between individuals that are legally capable of making their own decision with their lives (religion, sexual orientation, etc) and they don't harm anyone; they're not minors. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexuality leads to rape/murder.
However the mere existence of pedophilia is a threat to minors' well-being, wouldn't you agree? Existence of any sexual/behavioural disorder would be a threat to the society at large if it promoted illegal activities (rape, in this circumstance). Unless you think underage-adult relationships are merely a subject of social taboo (as is the case with homosexuality), you can't possibly disagree with it.
I think his point was that pedophiles don't necessarily "rape" acting on their urges, they might be merely "fantasizing" about preteens or watching "animated porn", as he mentioned. "Mere existence or pedophilia" cannot be cured (whatever that means), just like homosexuality cannot be cured. Those people can be hazardous to the society or they can be harmless sick people. The reason I asked about the statistic was that "normal" is judged by the percentage of occurrence, thus knowing that lusting after, say, 14 year old girls is more common than homosexuality would mean that pedophilia is more "normal". I was too slow, micronesia answered everything I think
Obviously I only explored the options open to pedophiles and went through them as well as the any possible effect that this book could have on them. The likelihood of a pedophile raping someone wasn't our point of discussion.
More to your point, 'normal' in ethical standards is not judged by percentage points. Does racism become acceptable if the majority of the population is racist? It may enforce its influence on the law-making process, but it's still not acceptable within our 'human' definition and the fundamental rights attached therein.
Nevertheless, pedophilia is not so common as to label it normal. There are various other reasons why it's wrong but I won't even get into that, I'm shocked for the second time today that you suggest it could be viewed normal given the societal values practiced upon today.
I'll put it simply once more, the only reason a pedophile would read this book is to feed the urge, commit the crime and get away with as the book doesn't advice people on how to manage the feelings but blatantly guides them through a criminal ordeal at the expense of the society. You cannot defend this.
|
On November 13 2010 12:24 mikado wrote:
I'll put it simply once more, the only reason a pedophile would read this book is to feed the urge, commit the crime and get away with as the book doesn't advice people on how to manage the feelings but blatantly guides them through a criminal ordeal at the expense of the society. You cannot defend this.
It's very plausible to defend rights universally while still cracking down on actual crimes. Buying a book is not a crime, regardless of how reprehensible you may find it's contents. Actually going out and raping children is a crime, there's no overlap between the two.
|
I think Mikado's tirelessly being political while everyone else is being quite philosophical.
|
^^^ I'm just having fun.
List of other books protected by free speech:
Defeating Electromagnetic Door Locks
Hidden Street Weapons
Anarchists Cookbook
Murder Inc - The Book
Beginners Guide to Growing Marijuana
How to Grow Psychedelic Mushrooms
Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacturing
Silent but Deadly - More Homemade Silencers from Hayduke the Master
Fooling the Bladder Cops - The Complete Drug Testing Guide (I've actually emailed this to a few people in the high thread)
Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book
Ragnar Benson's Mantrapping
Ragnar Benson's Ten Best Traps
The list goes on...
|
I propose to look at issues with a touch of reality but people are valorously trying to defend philosophical view-points which, I agree, should be upheld but people aren't perfect and that's just not the reality. As such, blind defense of such ideals aren't practical.
'All of the free speech ideal is sacred, majority doesn't rule, societal needs don't matter, everyone has every right to do everything' are phrases of common use in these situations, and I sincerely wish that those could reflect truth but unfortunately human nature and greater good doesn't allow everything to be so black and white. That being said, I consider myself a libertarian.
Eh, I've had enough of this matter for today, good exercise in debate 
On November 13 2010 12:41 Offhand wrote:
^^^ I'm just having fun.
List of other books protected by free speech:
Defeating Electromagnetic Door Locks
Hidden Street Weapons
Anarchists Cookbook
Murder Inc - The Book
Beginners Guide to Growing Marijuana
How to Grow Psychedelic Mushrooms
Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacturing
Silent but Deadly - More Homemade Silencers from Hayduke the Master
Fooling the Bladder Cops - The Complete Drug Testing Guide (I've actually emailed this to a few people in the high thread)
Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book
Ragnar Benson's Mantrapping
Ragnar Benson's Ten Best Traps
The list goes on...
Alright, just before I sign out, i'll say this to you again: stealing, learning to do explosive tricks and growing shrooms don't compare to rape/murder. So, bad comparisons
|
Winners don't use shrooms
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 13 2010 12:45 mikado wrote:I propose to look at issues with a touch of reality but people are valorously trying to defend philosophical view-points which, I agree, should be upheld but people aren't perfect and that's just not the reality. As such, blind defense of such ideals aren't practical. 'All of the free speech ideal is sacred, majority doesn't rule, societal needs don't matter, everyone has every right to do everything' are phrases of common use in these situations, and I sincerely wish that those could reflect truth but unfortunately human nature and greater good doesn't allow everything to be so black and white. That being said, I consider myself a libertarian. Eh, I've had enough of this matter for today, good exercise in debate Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 12:41 Offhand wrote:
^^^ I'm just having fun.
List of other books protected by free speech:
Defeating Electromagnetic Door Locks
Hidden Street Weapons
Anarchists Cookbook
Murder Inc - The Book
Beginners Guide to Growing Marijuana
How to Grow Psychedelic Mushrooms
Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacturing
Silent but Deadly - More Homemade Silencers from Hayduke the Master
Fooling the Bladder Cops - The Complete Drug Testing Guide (I've actually emailed this to a few people in the high thread)
Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book
Ragnar Benson's Mantrapping
Ragnar Benson's Ten Best Traps
The list goes on... Alright, just before I sign out, i'll say this to you again: stealing, learning to do explosive tricks and growing shrooms don't compare to rape/murder. So, bad comparisons
Did you see the last two books? Or perhaps the one on how to make your own silencers? Or the one titled Murder Inc?
|
On November 13 2010 12:45 mikado wrote:Alright, just before I sign out, i'll say this to you again: stealing, learning to do explosive tricks and growing shrooms don't compare to rape/murder. So, bad comparisons
Several of those books are about how to kill people...
|
United States5162 Posts
damn quote button being next to the edit button
|
On November 13 2010 12:45 mikado wrote:
I propose to look at issues with a touch of reality but people are valorously trying to defend philosophical view-points which, I agree, should be upheld but people aren't perfect and that's just not the reality.
What's not realistic about not banning books? It's very realistic, and easy to do too . . .
human nature and greater good doesn't allow everything to be so black and white
The reality is that most people are a fan of freedom until they see something they don't like, then they become authoritarians. That's the real truth of human nature revealed in stories like this.
|
On November 13 2010 12:45 mikado wrote:I propose to look at issues with a touch of reality but people are valorously trying to defend philosophical view-points which, I agree, should be upheld but people aren't perfect and that's just not the reality. As such, blind defense of such ideals aren't practical. 'All of the free speech ideal is sacred, majority doesn't rule, societal needs don't matter, everyone has every right to do everything' are phrases of common use in these situations, and I sincerely wish that those could reflect truth but unfortunately human nature and greater good doesn't allow everything to be so black and white. That being said, I consider myself a libertarian. Eh, I've had enough of this matter for today, good exercise in debate Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 12:41 Offhand wrote:
^^^ I'm just having fun.
List of other books protected by free speech:
Defeating Electromagnetic Door Locks
Hidden Street Weapons
Anarchists Cookbook
Murder Inc - The Book
Beginners Guide to Growing Marijuana
How to Grow Psychedelic Mushrooms
Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacturing
Silent but Deadly - More Homemade Silencers from Hayduke the Master
Fooling the Bladder Cops - The Complete Drug Testing Guide (I've actually emailed this to a few people in the high thread)
Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book
Ragnar Benson's Mantrapping
Ragnar Benson's Ten Best Traps
The list goes on... Alright, just before I sign out, i'll say this to you again: stealing, learning to do explosive tricks and growing shrooms don't compare to rape/murder. So, bad comparisons
For a terrorist 'learning to do explosive tricks' means precisely murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
