|
On December 21 2010 09:54 Krikkitone wrote:
Well I think that things like this book should be controlled the way they currently are.. people don't want to sell it for fear that other people won't buy from them or their individual morals.
People who own ths book won't be displaying it int their living room libraries... and that's the way it should be... the book is Legally 'free', but has substantial social costs.
On the same page, it's just funneling all the profits from the book from to the few retailers who still decide to sell the book. Assuming there's a demand for the book. Owning the book hardly would have any social costs, I imagine. If you've been successful enough to hid your pedophilia tendencies, you'll be fine hiding a book.
|
On November 11 2010 07:39 DoubleZee wrote:
Of course there is a limit to free speech. You don't see pro holocaust books on amazon do you? (at least I hope you don't...lol)
Neo-Nazis are allowed to publish books. Just because you don't agree with something..
|
On December 21 2010 09:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2010 13:49 Keren wrote:
The funny part of this discussion to me is how willing people are to call for a ban on a perfectly legal book. That's honestly scarier to me than the fact that some nutjob wrote a book about pedophilia. In case you all were confused, this book isn't banned, won't be banned, and shouldn't be banned. However, it has been pulled from sale on Amazon as Amazon is well within their rights to do.
For what its worth, instructing people how to commit a crime isn't nor should it be illegal, see The Anarchist's Cookbook. And you know what, I am very glad books about how to commit crimes aren't illegal. Not that I endorse the pedophilia book in question but realize where this logic leads. Part of the reason why certain rights are protected is to reign government in from getting too crazy. In the instances above, building bombs and pedophilia, its quite clear to any reasonable person that they are illegal for very good reasons. But what if the government decided to outlaw something reasonable like civil demonstrations? Would you then be in favor of allowing government to censor Martin Luther King's writings? I don't think so. The point is if we want to make sure our rights are protected, we have to live with some awful things being said. That's why we have democracy. Government is there to do good things (ban bad things) and if they ban good things then you will vote someone else next time.
Bad things according to who? Just recently I've learned that bad things can consist of happy meal toys, plastic bags, guns, circumcision, homeschooling, porn, online gambling, etc. How can so many good people use so many bad things?
|
On December 21 2010 09:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 09:54 Krikkitone wrote:
Well I think that things like this book should be controlled the way they currently are.. people don't want to sell it for fear that other people won't buy from them or their individual morals.
People who own ths book won't be displaying it int their living room libraries... and that's the way it should be... the book is Legally 'free', but has substantial social costs. On the same page, it's just funneling all the profits from the book from the few retailers who still decide to sell the book. Assuming there's a demand for the book. Owning the book hardly would have any social costs, I imagine. If you've been successful enough to hid your pedophilia tendencies, you'll be fine hiding a book.
yeah dude its like putting porn under the bed, you don't have to have this book out on your coffee table.
or you can just get it on your kindle =/
|
On December 21 2010 09:58 Johnny Business wrote:That's disgusting... "Obscenity law" Sounds like the kind of law that can be adapted to anything.
that's because it is..
Even rap music, 2 Live Crew, or porn Max Hardcore
|
I feel I have to clear this up, and I apologize if I missed it in the first 55 pages.
Pedophilia is not the same thing as child abuse. In fact, the real definition of pedophile would exclude a large portion of child molesters. The media is squarely to blame on this one. It's been decades and they still can't get it right.
The trend for pedophiles being characterized as perverts and psychopaths (and the association with homosexuality) is not historically, or even globally accurate. Wordwide, people have married (and been sexually active) at ages incredibly younger than the standard ages we've been taught to accept. And often with partners of a different age.
We've all heard of the obscure tribe that has its young boys give fellatio to older men as a rite of passage. These boys accept the power of manhood through ingesting the seed of the older men. All of the boys grow up to be heterosexual, and one day, they are the ones getting the fellatio. And truly, nobody seems the worse for it. There are no patterns of abuse. The ancient greeks often took young boys for lovers, and yet we don't characterize them as evil men.
So what's the crime? Is it "wrong" to be attracted to a young person? It's not like its something you can control. A great many children are more attractive to me than a great many adults, truth be told. A 14 year old may have the body of an 18 year old, and a 18 year old may have the body of a 14 year old. Am I then supposed to switch my attraction based on some arbitrary number? Obviously not. So it's not wrong to be attracted to children. It can't be. So pedophilia isn't wrong at all.
The laws exist because of a pattern of abuse. In this culture, in this time, in this place, children are easily taken advantage of, and our cultural notion of self-determination compels us to protect them until the time we can trust they are capable to make their own decisions. In my opinion, we have picked a rather arbitrary age, to serve nothing else but make ourselves feel better about it. Really, let's face it. How is fucking a 15.999 year old wrong one second, and fucking an 16year old (ages may vary, depending on location, (also supports my point)) ok the next? Did he or she in that instant magically become conscious? Certainly there are 40 year olds that should not qualify to give consent. The whole system is a lie, based on moral garbage that tells you that sex is dirty and that you shouldn't do it except for the reasons on this list that god gave us. This guilt complex we have about children being sexual is absolutely retarded. And let's face it, child molesters are going to molest children, laws or no.
TLDR: Pedophilia is ok. Child abuse is not.
|
On November 11 2010 07:39 DoubleZee wrote:
Of course there is a limit to free speech. You don't see pro holocaust books on amazon do you? (at least I hope you don't...lol)
You absolutely do find pro holocaust books on amazon. I mean, you can find Mien Kampf at the very least if im not mistaken.
|
WHAT
THE FUCK
IS WRONG
WITH THESE PEOPLE
|
On December 21 2010 10:46 ToxNub wrote:
I feel I have to clear this up, and I apologize if I missed it in the first 55 pages.
Pedophilia is not the same thing as child abuse. In fact, the real definition of pedophile would exclude a large portion of child molesters. The media is squarely to blame on this one. It's been decades and they still can't get it right.
The trend for pedophiles being characterized as perverts and psychopaths (and the association with homosexuality) is not historically, or even globally accurate. Wordwide, people have married (and been sexually active) at ages incredibly younger than the standard ages we've been taught to accept. And often with partners of a different age.
We've all heard of the obscure tribe that has its young boys give fellatio to older men as a rite of passage. These boys accept the power of manhood through ingesting the seed of the older men. All of the boys grow up to be heterosexual, and one day, they are the ones getting the fellatio. And truly, nobody seems the worse for it. There are no patterns of abuse. The ancient greeks often took young boys for lovers, and yet we don't characterize them as evil men.
So what's the crime? Is it "wrong" to be attracted to a young person? It's not like its something you can control. A great many children are more attractive to me than a great many adults, truth be told. A 14 year old may have the body of an 18 year old, and a 18 year old may have the body of a 14 year old. Am I then supposed to switch my attraction based on some arbitrary number? Obviously not. So it's not wrong to be attracted to children. It can't be. So pedophilia isn't wrong at all.
The laws exist because of a pattern of abuse. In this culture, in this time, in this place, children are easily taken advantage of, and our cultural notion of self-determination compels us to protect them until the time we can trust they are capable to make their own decisions. In my opinion, we have picked a rather arbitrary age, to serve nothing else but make ourselves feel better about it. Really, let's face it. How is fucking a 15.999 year old wrong one second, and fucking an 16year old (ages may vary, depending on location, (also supports my point)) ok the next? Did he or she in that instant magically become conscious? Certainly there are 40 year olds that should not qualify to give consent. The whole system is a lie, based on moral garbage that tells you that sex is dirty and that you shouldn't do it except for the reasons on this list that god gave us. This guilt complex we have about children being sexual is absolutely retarded. And let's face it, child molesters are going to molest children, laws or no.
TLDR: Pedophilia is ok. Child abuse is not.
The core of the issue is someone with a (age given) greater mental capacity manipulating someone with a (age given) lesser mental capacity. Because of things like "listen to adults", "adults being smarter than kids", and the fact that when it comes down to it, an adult can persuade and manipulate a child VERY easily.
There is also the fact that much of the human brain is still yet to be fully developed by age 18, but that 18 is basically good enough. However, 18 is when people are considered legal adults, and thus have more confidence in their assessments. Therefore, when someone younger than 18 is engaged with sexual relations with someone above the age of 18, we can not know with certainty that the relationship is "pure" in the sense that the adult did not use their inherent mental advantage to manipulate the child into being attracted to the adult.
Furthermore, the argument that in history, as well as in more primitive modern-day cultures, humans have children when they are 14-16 does not have any implications. Children were also sent to war at much younger ages in primitive cultures, yet I would imagine no one would encourage 14 year old children to join the army.
|
|
|
they should of left it up and monitored the purchases imho.
i believe we should be able to say what ever we want, sadly- regardless.
freedom of speech all the way.
But the act should be punished. sick minded pedos.
reminds me why i hate 4chan, i dont care what memes or funny things are said. im glad they monitor the site now and are arresting those sickies.
such evil in the world.
|
Whilst I agree that censoring some books is wrong, comparing a guide on paedophilia to the works of Darwin is astonishing, I fully support Amazon in pulling this book off their (virtual) shelves
|
|
|
If the Bible and the Qaram are still legal, why this should be banned? It's a just a piece of paper (or a text file, if you wish). People would commit crimes with or without all these disgusting books.
|
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Speech that creates a clear and present danger to the public may be controlled. The classic examples are shouting Fire in a crowded theater or publishing times and locations of troop ship movements in time of war. In addition, speech amounting to slander or libel is not protected.
Speech that has been rules by courts not to be protected:
+ Show Spoiler +Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (includes libel, slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children. -New York v. Ferber Sources+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 21 2010 11:43 r3z3nd3 wrote:
If the Bible and the Qaram are still legal, why this should be banned? It's a just a piece of paper (or a text file, if you wish). People would commit crimes with or without all these disgusting books.
IIRC the Bible talks alot about marrying children, random killings, lots of bad stuff too.
I mean honestly people, get over it. It's a fucking book. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but there's nothing compelling you to listen to what they have to say.
|
Ya pretty sure that is the guy.I have NO problem with Amazon refusing to sell the book. That is completely their right. But I don't have a fucking clue how he was arrested for this.
Honestly this guy is a freak and it's scary that he wrote this and that people possibly purchased it. However, might be scarier that he was arrested for TOTAL bullshit.
|
This is sick. There is no "gray" area in a subject like this one. It should be banned full stop, and the freak who wrote it should be locked away, and the key dropped into the Mariana Trench.
When someone starts teaching other pedo's to rape kids, their "freedom of speech" just flew out the window imo. Lock the fucker up!
|
|
|
On December 21 2010 12:12 Ridiculisk wrote:
This is sick. There is no "gray" area in a subject like this one. It should be banned full stop, and the freak who wrote it should be locked away, and the key dropped into the Mariana Trench.
When someone starts teaching other pedo's to rape kids, their "freedom of speech" just flew out the window imo. Lock the fucker up!
Where, pray tell, do you draw the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
