EPTAs a matter of fact a US company is in trouble for buying 'dancing boys' for Afghan police. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure - Page 58
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
As a matter of fact a US company is in trouble for buying 'dancing boys' for Afghan police. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:50 Jswizzy wrote: Extreme fundamentalism is easier to grasp than a gray area.Free speech is not absolute. Why do people think it is? Don't you notice that everyone supporting the book keep asking "where do you draw the line??". It's too hard for them to draw a line on a gray area. They cannot comprehend the difference between raping and not raping, which is where you would draw the line. But they cannot draw that line, it's too confusing. | ||
|
The_Dark
South Africa222 Posts
lol | ||
|
qwaykee
Norway268 Posts
| ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:27 qwaykee wrote: i think there is a difference between being pedophile and abusing children. when i think pedophile its a person that gets aroused by children, he doesn't have to abuse them of any sort. and its not something you could just turn off, just as being homosexual I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confused for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote: I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confusing them for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. Well I'm neither a pedophile nor a homosexual so it's really hard to judge if they are similar. I suppose they would be similar as in if it was a choice to be aroused by something? I don't know, but I remember reading a study where a man would have sex while listening to a certain noise, and eventually the noise aroused him without the actual sex, so maybe they're just conditioning. | ||
|
GP
United States1056 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:50 Jswizzy wrote: Free speech is not absolute. Why do people think it is? Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins. As long as he is not infringing on anyone else's freedoms he is technically protected by the freedom of speech. The gray area comes to whether you consider his book something that puts children at risk by making pedophilia acceptable. If the book does indeed put children at risk, then it is most certainly not protected under the freedom of speech. It really is hard, because whether you like it or not, where do you draw the line? If you're going to make some vague connections between actual child molestation and the child loving fantasies in this book then you have to admit a connection between violence in entertainment to actual real world violence. Are we then going to censor violent books and arrest the writers for obscure laws to protect people from violence? Did you know The Anarchist's Cookbook is available for sale on Amazon? Should William Powell (or whoever owns the publishing rights for it currently) be arrested for the sale of a book that promotes bomb building? It is comparable I think. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:50 GP wrote: Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins. As long as he is not infringing on anyone else's freedoms he is technically protected by the freedom of speech. No, in court cases dealing with child pornography the US courts(New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)The Court has ruled that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. And writing about crimes you have committed for profit is illegal in some states. The fact of the matter is freedom of speech was included in the Constitution to protect political activist and Religious freedom. Before it was illegal to speech out against say the "stamp act" or express religious views against the church of England. Freedom of speeches is not meant to protect child abusers or those who would do harm to society. | ||
|
GP
United States1056 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:06 Jswizzy wrote: No, in court cases dealing with child pornography the US courts(New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)The Court has ruled that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. Exactly. You just agreed with what I said, it's in the government's interest to protect the rights of children.The distribution of child pornography infringes on childrens' rights because it promotes the production of it. You're talking about child pornography. This is not pornography, only some man's sick and twisted fantasies. Like I said, the gray area here is whether you think tis book puts children at risk or not. If it is illegal to profit on writing about crimes you commit, than I agree he should be punished as he claims the book is written from his experiences. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
Yea the profit thing is called "son of sam laws" | ||
|
GP
United States1056 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:13 Jswizzy wrote: Pornography also includes written material according to child pornography laws. Yea the profit thing is called "son of sam laws" Okay. Well than if it's considered pornography by law than it's more cut and dry than I imagined. I can't say that I agree that this is pornography, but that doesn't change anything if it is considered pornography under the law. To me calling this porn is like calling horror films snuff films. | ||
|
Ancient.eu
Romania621 Posts
| ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:23 Ancient.eu wrote: Why do I always see this topic in the top 5 in the left bar ?!?!?! Please stop it already, I'm tired of going on TL and always seeing the pedophile guide thread in the left bar. What is there so much to discuss about ? The subject is disgusting, wrong, should not be allowed. Please stop all of the debating. Judging a subject also judges something inside yourself. Think about that for a minute. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:13 VIB wrote: Extreme fundamentalism is easier to grasp than a gray area. Don't you notice that everyone supporting the book keep asking "where do you draw the line??". It's too hard for them to draw a line on a gray area. They cannot comprehend the difference between raping and not raping, which is where you would draw the line. But they cannot draw that line, it's too confusing. A good rule of thumb for telling when you are making an intellectually dishonest argument, is when you fail to understand the position of your opponent, to the point that you are unable to accurately describe it. You are missing a very important caveat. Specifically, one about the difference between literature describing murder, and literature that does not. Both happen to be legal. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:23 Ancient.eu wrote: Why do I always see this topic in the top 5 in the left bar ?!?!?! Please stop it already, I'm tired of going on TL and always seeing the pedophile guide thread in the left bar. What is there so much to discuss about ? The subject is disgusting, wrong, should not be allowed. Please stop all of the debating. In other words your opinion is correct so what is there to discuss? I'm in two minds about the whole thing. On one hand, paedophiles exist. Sexual attacks on children happen. That's just how it is. The guy's stated claim is to decrease the harmfulness of said attacks on children. On the other hand, if there is a case to be made that the book actively encourages people to commit sex crimes, it's obviously a bad thing. Isn't there an organisation called NAAMBLA in the US who promote acceptance of 'love' between men and boys? I'm full square behind them, not because I think they're in any way correct but because they have the right to think that. I've never been of the 'string em up' camp on paedophiles, it can't be very nice being one*. If reincarnation exists I doubt people are lining up to be attracted to children. *please note difference between paedophiles and sex criminals in this context | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote: I doubt there is a pedophile gene, esp when you consider how hight the rate of child abusers who were also abused them selves is. I would think that most people who feel this way about kids were molested themselves at an impressionable age and could never quite come to terms with it leaving them sexually confused for the rest of their lives. Comparing pedophiles to homosexuals just don't hold up in my book. There's a large difference here. Child molesters (what you're describing) aren't necessarily attracted to children - they do it because it's something they experienced as children and so feel that it's necessary, they need the control, etc. etc... Similar to rapists. They don't usually rape out of sexual desire, they do it for psychological control. Pedophilia is simply being physically attracted to younger people. Like a previous poster said, pedophilia in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it's the fact that the media has changed the meaning of the word and lumped child molesters/abusers into the word pedophile that makes it such a terrible word. | ||
|
qwaykee
Norway268 Posts
On December 21 2010 23:00 Stratos_speAr wrote: There's a large difference here. Child molesters (what you're describing) aren't necessarily attracted to children - they do it because it's something they experienced as children and so feel that it's necessary, they need the control, etc. etc... Similar to rapists. They don't usually rape out of sexual desire, they do it for psychological control. Pedophilia is simply being physically attracted to younger people. Like a previous poster said, pedophilia in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it's the fact that the media has changed the meaning of the word and lumped child molesters/abusers into the word pedophile that makes it such a terrible word. what i was trying to say ^^! | ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
| ||
|
KMARTRULES
Australia474 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:50 Jswizzy wrote: Free speech is not absolute. Why do people think it is? Because when you start imposing limits on free speech it becomes very easy to impose whatever limits the government wants. First it's "don't sell books on pedophilia" then it's "don't sell books on breaking the law" and then it's "books dissenting with the government is now considered treason, inciting violence, libel, etc." The only limit on free speech should be the fact that you have no right to expect anyone to listen to you. On December 21 2010 21:23 Ancient.eu wrote: Why do I always see this topic in the top 5 in the left bar ?!?!?! Please stop it already, I'm tired of going on TL and always seeing the pedophile guide thread in the left bar. What is there so much to discuss about ? The subject is disgusting, wrong, should not be allowed. Please stop all of the debating. I don't know what freedom of speech is like in Romania, but it is very important to explore the rights guaranteed to us and to defend our positions. Though the thread title COULD be changed, it does make things awkward sometimes. | ||
| ||
