| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
As for Ragnar's books, he talks about hunting and efficient use of firepower but when they relate to humans, I propose that they should be banned as is my viewpoint with this pedophilia book. A quick google search agrees with me in fact, with Ragnar's several books having been banned in a number of countries. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: The Mark Chapter 2: Unarmed Kills Chapter 3: Edged and Piercing Weapons Chapter 4: Gun Kills Chapter 5: Defenestration and Hit and Run Chapter 6: Garrote and Zip Guns Chapter 7: Explosives Chapter 8: Poisons Chapter 9: Silent Movement Chapter 10: Protecting your "ass"ets Chapter 11: Planning the Hit Chapter 12: Getting In Chapter 13: The Human Factor Chapter 14: Make 'em Talk Chapter 15: Equipment You aren't allowed to ignore the fact that books that teach you how to murder are legal. Edit: Actually wait, I've heard Ted Bundy personally describe his techniques on television. I'm surprised people are repulsed by the existence of these kinds of books. It's practically played to you on the news and history channel at this point. | ||
|
mikado
Australia407 Posts
Societies are formed by and based on consensus laws. Australian society, as is many, is against a citizen killing another. If such a book exists that promotes and encourages people (especially if it targets people with psychiatric disorders that lead to aggressive or psychotic behaviors, as is the case with this pedophilia book and rape) to kill one another for pleasure in a premeditated fashion, it should be banned as well, no question. | ||
|
NickC
233 Posts
 ((((((((((( | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
On November 13 2010 10:44 mikado wrote: 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 All good democracies understand the danger of the tyranny of the majority, he is absolutely right even in a true democracy not everything can or should be the subject of a vote. Take slavery for example. In a democracy in the 1700s the population is 75% white 25% black and there's a vote of whether or not to have black slavery in the country. Big shocker the vote comes out 60/40 in favor of having slavery, does that make slavery an ok thing to have in this democratic state? fuck no it doesn't. What about for gay marriage? The majority is against it, does that mean its a good democratic solution to not allow gay marriage? What about inter-racial marriage? If they had a country wide vote on whether or not to make inter racial marriage illegal in the United States in the early 1900s, an overwhelming majority would have voted to make it illegal. Is that democratic? fuck no it isn't. There are a lot of inalienable rights that can NEVER be the subject of a vote or popular opinion. Everyone is entitled to them and the public can't just 'decide' one day that certain people can't have them even if 95% of the population is in favor of it. Free speech is one of those rights and the majority (however overwhelming it may be) can't just up and vote someone out of possessing that right because they don't agree with the things he/she is saying. or think they're immoral or think they're dangerous or whatever else they think there is wrong with it. The only exceptions to this is actually seriously threatening someone, actually seriously harassing someone, or yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. And before you even get started those things are completely different than this book so don't even try to say that the book belongs on this list. its a BOOK it isn't making threats or harassing people or causing an emergency. (yes i know amazon is a private company and they don't make laws and this doesn't directly apply here but i think the debate has become more about whether or not the book should be banned PERIOD rather than just at amazon because somehow a lot of people seem to be for doing that. so stfu about how the argument isn't directly relevant to amazon banning the book, we know that but its still a valid and important argument to have) | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:13 mikado wrote: They shouldn't be legal then, if it leads to encouragement of murder for pure fantasy and pleasure. Books relating to war strategies and the profession of military officers and personnel are obviously an exception to this. Fighting between nations is written in our DNA unfortunately, for the evolutionary principle of the need to compete for resources. Societies are formed by and based on consensus laws. Australian society, as is many, is against a citizen killing another. If such a book exists that promotes and encourages people (especially if it targets people with psychiatric disorders that lead to aggressive or psychotic behaviors, as is the case with this pedophilia book and rape) to kill one another for pleasure in a premeditated fashion, it should be banned as well, no question. The United States and Australia have very different legal systems with regard to freedom of speech. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Australia has very strict censorship laws which while possibly providing protection against books of this nature, can also spill over into the suppression of legitimate speech. As an example, American Psycho is banned in Queensland, and its sale is heavily restricted in other provinces. While the book is extremely graphic, it is nonetheless a work of serious literature. Pornography and violent video games are prohibited in Australia(most games release a special version for the Australian market with blood, etc, removed). The internet is heavily censored(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/19/australia_list_leaked/print.html). The article on the subject I linked states "The list contains some 2,395 sites about half of which do not contain child sexual abuse images. It includes online poker sites, fetish, satanic and Christian sites, Wikipedia pages, gay and straight pornography, a travel operator and even the website for a Queensland dentist.". The United States has a much more liberal stance on freedom of speech. Very few forms of speech are restricted and they basically involve things depicting a crime having actually happened(ala Child Porn) or things encouraging a specific criminal act being commited at a specific time(ala a flier saying "LETS START A RIOT IN NYC NEXT TUESDAY"). Any changes to this would not require a simple law change, it would actually require a constitutional amendment, which would end up having far more broad scope. You are correct that societies are built on consensus laws. The point is that the US and Australia have arrived at different consensuses. In Australia the consensus is that the dangers of certain kinds of speech outweigh the benefits of allowing that speech, while in the US the consensus is that the dangers of restricting that speech generally outweigh the benefits of restricting said speech. | ||
|
Beaudereck
Canada140 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:33 NickC wrote: where is the "view all pages" button gone (((((((((((I was looking for it too, and even if you change the page number to "all" in the URL, it doesn't work | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Unfortunately depending on perspective, democracy very much is about the opinions and will of the massess as having precedant. Freedom and equality are often considered an integral part to democracy, but then you get into the unfortunate paradox of "if people are all considered free and equal as human beings, and each vote is given equal weight, what if the majority vote for something that diminishes the freedom and equality of a group?". | ||
|
ibreakurface
United States664 Posts
On November 12 2010 11:10 LunarC wrote: Yes they can. The law already did. Plus, most of these issues should be dealt with case-by-case. And they are. People in this thread want to use blanket statements to cover everything. If things are done case by case you get unfair/inconsistent results depending on who's judging. You believe our freedoms should be only allowed if approved and accepted by others? That isn't freedom. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On November 14 2010 04:59 XeliN wrote: Great post funnybanana, only thing i'd disagree with is where you say "is that democratic, fuck no it isn't" Unfortunately depending on perspective, democracy very much is about the opinions and will of the massess as having precedant. Freedom and equality are often considered an integral part to democracy, but then you get into the unfortunate paradox of "if people are all considered free and equal as human beings, and each vote is given equal weight, what if the majority vote for something that diminishes the freedom and equality of a group?". Then you'd have to change the political system. In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein, he has a character propose different political rules that could protect against what you are talking about much better than our current system. Like have 2 bodies of congress, where one passes laws and the other only gets rid of laws. Having laws needing to be passed by 2/3rd majorities and vetoed by only a 1/3 minority. (If 2/3 of the people don't support it, it's probably not a good a law, and if 1/3 of the people hate it, it's also probably not a good law). Or how about having government positions be unpaid, or paid very little so that people don't make a career of just protecting their own power over others. Etc, I don't remember them all, and the point isn't that stuff like this would necessarily work, but that there are lots more options than just what humans have tried so far, and some of them might work out better than what we have now. (sorry I got a little off-track the subject, but I think redesigning a country to promote freedom and equality is an interesting intellectual problem). | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On November 20 2010 06:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Then you'd have to change the political system. In "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein, he has a character propose different political rules that could protect against what you are talking about much better than our current system. Like have 2 bodies of congress, where one passes laws and the other only gets rid of laws. Having laws needing to be passed by 2/3rd majorities and vetoed by only a 1/3 minority. (If 2/3 of the people don't support it, it's probably not a good a law, and if 1/3 of the people hate it, it's also probably not a good law). Or how about having government positions be unpaid, or paid very little so that people don't make a career of just protecting their own power over others. Etc, I don't remember them all, and the point isn't that stuff like this would necessarily work, but that there are lots more options than just what humans have tried so far, and some of them might work out better than what we have now. (sorry I got a little off-track the subject, but I think redesigning a country to promote freedom and equality is an interesting intellectual problem). As a libertarian I 100% agree with this type of government. The less intervention the government does the better and this would promote less intervention in the long run. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
| ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
| ||
|
Craton
United States17303 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:33 NickC wrote: where is the "view all pages" button gone (((((((((((There seems to be an upper limit of posts. Once it passes that, they remove the button. It's probably a resource-saving thing. In any event, I'm completely unsurprised that Amazon eventually caved and removed the listing. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:13 mikado wrote: They shouldn't be legal then, if it leads to encouragement of murder for pure fantasy and pleasure. Books relating to war strategies and the profession of military officers and personnel are obviously an exception to this. Fighting between nations is written in our DNA unfortunately, for the evolutionary principle of the need to compete for resources. Societies are formed by and based on consensus laws. Australian society, as is many, is against a citizen killing another. If such a book exists that promotes and encourages people (especially if it targets people with psychiatric disorders that lead to aggressive or psychotic behaviors, as is the case with this pedophilia book and rape) to kill one another for pleasure in a premeditated fashion, it should be banned as well, no question. I am also against murder, but if someone else wants to write a book about how to murder someone and why you should do it, I don't believe we should silence that. I also do not see any legitimate argument for banning such material. Even supposing that it increases violence and murders, it has been shown that video games/TV violence do the same, so shouldn't we also ban those? You could argue that unlike such a book, video games and TV shows portraying violence also provide entertainment, but a book explaining how/why to murder someone could also be read for entertainment by some people, even if that isn't its primary goal. Also, as has been stated by practically everyone else, it sets a bad precedent of banning things that the majority finds abhorrent but isn't directly harming anyone. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On November 20 2010 06:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Or how about having government positions be unpaid, or paid very little so that people don't make a career of just protecting their own power over others. Just wanted to point out that although this may sound like a good idea to you, it's actually completely backward and achieves the opposite of the goal you intend. Basically, you would make it so that the only people who can even consider a job in politics are people who are already rich. | ||
|
xxSK8rGUy277xx
300 Posts
| ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:13 mikado wrote: They shouldn't be legal then, if it leads to encouragement of murder for pure fantasy and pleasure. Books relating to war strategies and the profession of military officers and personnel are obviously an exception to this. Fighting between nations is written in our DNA unfortunately, for the evolutionary principle of the need to compete for resources. Fighting between individuals, and fucking kids can also be said to be written in peoples DNA, should that make them obvious exceptions too? | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Still, it amazes me how unthinking many of these posts are. How quick people are to condemn myriad acts that all fall under the label of pedophilia. Many of you are very quick to compare pedophilia to rape, and indeed that is how discussion of pedophilia is framed in this society, but must all pedophiles be rapists? Of course not. Think of it, how many of you would have loved to, as children, have sex with an adult... maybe a teacher, a babysitter, a friend's mom, on and on. I know that I had many sexual fantasies about adult women when I was 10, 11, 12... And if my fantasies had been fulfilled, my sexual partners would be labeled as pedophiles. My girlfriend was repeatedly molested between the age of 10 and 13, by various people, but especially one family friend in particular. Her feelings are mixed, but she says that much of the emotional pain she experienced was more the result of other people's reactions to what happened, rather than her own experience. In other words, when you are molested, you are framed as a victim, and you experience the shame that people assign to your experiences. I've read first hand accounts of people who were "molested" as young children, who say exactly the same thing: the act was fine, even wonderful, but it was the reaction from parents, clergy, psychologists, etc, that was intensly painful and damaging. Yes, some children are raped, and I strongly oppose all rape. But not all sexual acts that occur between children and adults are non-consensual. So people then claim that children are too young to decide to have sex or not (not old enough to consent). Sex is too powerful and too damaging for the young mind and body, it is claimed. Yet the same people who make this claim will often expose children to movies, books, cartoons, religions, etc, that glamorize brutal violence. The same people will manipulate, brainwash, etc, young children, and this is somehow acceptable, even though the child is too young, supposedly, to consent to such exposure, indoctrination, experiences, etc. Also, realize that pedophilia has not always been condemned as immoral. Look at teacher/student relationships in ancient greece... realize that philosophers like Socrates and others were, by today's standards, pedophiles. But, so far as I am aware, the relationships children and adults entered to in those days were desired by all parties, and were enjoyed. It may seem absurd today, but is that because it IS absurd, or because we simply don't approach life the same way? 18 is just a number. 21 is just a number. The idea of adulthood is just that, an idea. I don't condone pedophila, nor do I have any sexual interest in children. I also do not condone thoughtlessly rehashing dominant moral opinions. Keep in mind, just a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and people still wrestle with the morality of homosexuality, though it is gaining acceptance in modern societies (and, of course, had been a perfectly acceptable part of life in many societies in the past). America is a country that celebrates mass violence and destruction, and practices mass violence and destruction. This is often ignored or treated as normal, even desirable. Little children are routinely exposed to extremely graphic violence: people being impaled, blown up, mutilated, tortured, shot, burned, etc. This receives virtually none of the vicious commentary and social outrage that would fall upon a consensual relationship between a minor and an adult. Beyond what I have said above, I support absolute freedom of speech. The answer to speech we do not approve of is not censorship, but more speech. Nick / InkMeister | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On November 13 2010 13:01 Offhand wrote: Murder Inc - The Book: Table of contents You aren't allowed to ignore the fact that books that teach you how to murder are legal. Edit: Actually wait, I've heard Ted Bundy personally describe his techniques on television. I'm surprised people are repulsed by the existence of these kinds of books. It's practically played to you on the news and history channel at this point. Truth. After all of the crap people hear about everyday from the the media, I honestly don't see how this is that much different from every soccer mom's, "informal," Fox news report. ...And I don't know if this is weird or not, but I REALLY want to read this book. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Shinee
Action vs Shine
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Paralyze
Jaedong vs Speed
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
