|
United States5162 Posts
On December 22 2010 07:05 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:57 sikyon wrote:On December 22 2010 06:52 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:49 Krigwin wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok. That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it. If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion. That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know. But thats just it, whether anyone agrees here or not our American society DOES base the severity of a crime on moral standards. Look at any major crime commited and then ask yourself why it was such a big deal. If I shoot 10 people in the head it's terrible but if I torture ten kids and smear their blood on the walls thats going to effect my "fair" trail and sentence. Will it not? On December 22 2010 06:51 CarlyZerg wrote:
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
But there is a defined law that does take in to account age when it comes to these things. Under the age of 18 by law means you are less likely to make the same decision as someone over 18, especially if the other "consenting" partner is an adult. I don't say I agree with this but it is a law. So when did writing a book about something become morally tantamount to committing the act itself? After all, people write books about murder which have not only realistic depictions but describe techniques that were used in successful murders - these books could easily be used as manuals. Isn't murder a more heinous crime than child molestation anyways? Well, morally, it depends on who you kill and who you ask. In most of the murder cases in America it's some drug dealer or gangster getting popped that the world would be better off without anyway so actually I think child molestation is worse. In the end no one can win this argument because I am arguing the point of morality and obviously your morals are a whole lot different than mine which is ok, but we still think each others morals are wrong. Also, I think those how to commit murder books shouldn't be sold either.
An important point is that something doesn't have to be written as an instruction manual to be used as one. A story that details how someone got away with murder could be just a educational as an instruction manual even though it's clearly not written as one.
|
On December 22 2010 07:05 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:57 sikyon wrote:On December 22 2010 06:52 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:49 Krigwin wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:22 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:21 ckw wrote:Theres a HUGE difference between ripping off a rich casino and raping or taking advantage of a child fyi. You can't compare apples and oranges, just like the guy who tried using a book talking about weed as an equal to writing about how to be a better pedophile. Not even close. The law has to compare apples and oranges though. How do you draw the line between instruction guides for crimes that are ok, and those that should be dealt with legally? I don't think the fleeting emotional beliefs of ckw are a sufficient system for this. Well the law does take in to account that different crimes are worse than others, hence bail amounts for theft are low and bail amounts for people who commit murder or rape are in the millions. Sure, my feelings don't mean jack crap when it comes to LAW but my point remains that theres a huge difference between the crimes people use to justify this creeps ideals and right to promote them. Of course no one here has kids of their own so it's ok. That's not the point. The point is that the supposed "crime" this guy is committing, ie how to get away with child rape or whatever else you think it is when you presumably haven't actually read the book, is the same crime as this other guy - the crime of teaching people how to get away with a crime. What crime they're getting away with is irrelevant, they are both committing the same act - allegedly teaching others how to commit crimes and get away with it. If you want to draw a line on which instruction manuals are okay and which should be illegal, how do you go about doing it? Do you honestly suggest we as a society make that distinction based on your personal moral beliefs on which crimes are worse? I don't think that's a good enough criterion. That's a largely rhetorical question, by the way. We already have legal guidelines in place to determine which writings should be illegal and which shouldn't, and this book doesn't meet any of them so far as I know. But thats just it, whether anyone agrees here or not our American society DOES base the severity of a crime on moral standards. Look at any major crime commited and then ask yourself why it was such a big deal. If I shoot 10 people in the head it's terrible but if I torture ten kids and smear their blood on the walls thats going to effect my "fair" trail and sentence. Will it not? On December 22 2010 06:51 CarlyZerg wrote:
I don't see any legal problem with the book, its author, or the people who choose to read it. Yes, it disturbs me, but so do lots of things. From the released segments, the books appears to rely on the assumption of a willing child participant. We can argue all day about the ethical dimensions of that assumption, but it does not appear to me that the author is advocating rape.
The fact is there is no clear ethical line between 'old enough to consent' and 'not old enough yet'. If we're going to use a bar like intelligence or maturity, then there are a lot of adults who don't qualify (should we be preventing the developmentally handicapped from having sex? Or is it ok because their bodies are old enough?). If we're going to use an arbitrary figure like age, then how are we to respond to other reasonable societies who choose a different age (15 is the age of consent in a lot of the world...)?
And lastly, there is some merit to the comparison with homosexuality (obviously there are differences too!). If pedophiles are making the argument that it is hardcoded in their DNA or whatever, then we as a society have no right to make their desire a moral issue. We CAN make acting on that desire a legal issue, aka laws against child molestation, obscene acts with a child, etc. But if someone wants to write a book about the joy of having sex with kids, I don't see any problem with it.
But there is a defined law that does take in to account age when it comes to these things. Under the age of 18 by law means you are less likely to make the same decision as someone over 18, especially if the other "consenting" partner is an adult. I don't say I agree with this but it is a law. So when did writing a book about something become morally tantamount to committing the act itself? After all, people write books about murder which have not only realistic depictions but describe techniques that were used in successful murders - these books could easily be used as manuals. Isn't murder a more heinous crime than child molestation anyways? Well, morally, it depends on who you kill and who you ask. In most of the murder cases in America it's some drug dealer or gangster getting popped that the world would be better off without anyway so actually I think child molestation is worse. In the end no one can win this argument because I am arguing the point of morality and obviously your morals are a whole lot different than mine which is ok, but we still think each others morals are wrong. Also, I think those how to commit murder books shouldn't be sold either.
Ah but you see, that's my point. I'm not supporting child mollestation or whatnot, I am trying to show that morals vary! Now a society has to be based on morals, of course (laws are based on morals) so how do we resolve this?
Well, in our society, we use a democratic system. We elect a government and they should enact laws that reflect the morals of the people who voted them into office.
What I believe is that even though most people's morals are against even writing a book such as how to mollest children, their moral belief in favor of free speech should be stronger. Which is why I find the public opinion so shocking!
|
On December 22 2010 06:51 FecalFrown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:39 huameng wrote:On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter... That's not the point he was trying to make. He's saying just because you are attracted to little kids doesn't mean you are going to have sex with them, so you should stop using "being a pedophile" and "being a child rapist" interchangeably. Its funny to me that after 65 pages people are still using this argument as a defense for this book. No sane person says, "Don't worry Jimmy, I'll be back to pick you up at 5, and don't be silly, he's just a pedophile, not some sort of CHILD RAPIST!" Making the distinction hardly matters in any real life context.
Why does the distinction never matter in real life? I'd guess, according to you, it's because everyone conception that all pedophiles are child rapists is so obviously true it's absurd to question it! Well I'm gonna go out on a limb and claim that pedophiles raping kids isn't standard behavior. Do you agree with that or not?
|
The problem with people and principles is the principles go out the window the moment emotion gets involved.
I think it's quite simple: The First Amendment references the right of the people to express themselves freely.
So, the author of this book has done so. Those that disagree with the book, its contents, it being available, etc., are all doing so as well.
However, if you try to get the book banned, you're clearly missing the point. You have no idea what makes the US what it is, and you just don't fucking get it.
If you don't like the book, don't buy it. Don't read it. Don't support the author. Don't support Amazon.
The implicit point of free speech is that people have thoughts and ideas others don't like. There are things I see and hear in the media that makes me very angry. There are phrases and expressions used that make me cringe. But I don't expect everyone to bend out of respect of my sensibilities. That's bullshit.
|
Canada603 Posts
Are we sure this isn't just /b/ trolling amazon?
And I agree, the book can't be removed as it conflicts with free speech. Just because we don't agree with the author, doesn't give us the right to silence him.
And I like Mani's idea of tracking who buys the books and putting them on sex offender watch list.
|
On December 22 2010 08:24 FREEloss_ca wrote:
And I like Mani's idea of tracking who buys the books and putting them on sex offender watch list.
Because everyone who buys this book must be a sex offender?
Rethink and make it right this time.
|
On December 22 2010 08:24 FREEloss_ca wrote:
Are we sure this isn't just /b/ trolling amazon?
And I agree, the book can't be removed as it conflicts with free speech. Just because we don't agree with the author, doesn't give us the right to silence him.
And I like Mani's idea of tracking who buys the books and putting them on sex offender watch list.
That sure is true speech. Letting people buy it but registering their purchase and holding it against them. Well thought.
|
On December 22 2010 07:08 zobz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:39 danl9rm wrote:On December 22 2010 06:24 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:23 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:18 micronesia wrote:On December 22 2010 06:16 Haemonculus wrote:On December 22 2010 06:04 danl9rm wrote:
I find it hard to believe so many people on this site think this is wrong.
If this guy believes he's a pedophile from birth and is only getting hated on because society hasn't "caught up" culturally in their understanding, then what's so different between his odd sexual preferences and a homosexual's?
If homosexuality is ok, why isn't pedophilia? Children can't consent. Yes that is the weakness in his post however I think he just means it isn't the pedophiles fault to have the preference they do (similar to a homosexual not having control over his/her preference). If he's actually saying child rape is ok then that's obviously another matter. Oh, I agree. If someone is just born that way and seriously only gets off to little kids... that fucking sucks, lol. What a shitty life they would have then t.t; I have no statistics but I think there is a lot of overlap between pedophilia and other types of (more socially acceptable) sexuality. I would be interested to see what estimated percentage of pedophiles are sexually disinterested in virtually all adults. Ya, I can't help you with any statistics, but it's been my experience as well. So, when people are born with these sexual preferences, why does our culture believe they are ok? I mean, I was born thinking I should have everything my way. I was a baby king of the world. My dad promptly rid me of that belief, however. Why are these other things excluded? And why, if someone claims they believe homosexuality is wrong, do they get ridiculed for their narrow-mindedness? Perhaps your parents were being narrow-minded when they said you shouldn't do... anything? Just wondering what you guys think. You're seriously missing an incredibly large chunk of the bigger picture of life if you hold that everything we restrict each other from doing, and everything we allow ourselves to be restricted from doing, is arbitrarilly chosen, that we have these restrictions "just because" and you shouldn't break them "just because" and that no argument can be made for lifting any of these restrictions which can't be applied equally to all of them. Here's something you seem amazingly to have forgotten or somehow failed to ever understand: when people speak of homosexuality as something which ought not be restricted, they're usually speaking of how there is no reason for it to be restricted because no harm is done; when people speak of pedophelia, they're usually speaking of how it is very harmful and threatens the livelihood of every child and the comfort of every parent.
So, homosexuality is wrong, but it's ok because it doesn't harm anyone?
Also, who are you to judge that no harm is done? Because there are several people that have been arguing that pedophiles can live their life of pedophilia without harming anyone either.
Where's the line?
|
On December 22 2010 01:30 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 23:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 21 2010 20:36 Jswizzy wrote: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. 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. I don't really have time to debunk you except to say that pretty much everything you said is false. Rape is very much a "sexual desire," and child molesters are not what they are because of something that happened to them during childhood. Read less bad psychology.
What bad psychology books are you reading? its 101 that its more about power and control than a sexual urge. Its ridicules to offer chemical castration to these sickies for a lighter sentence, to have the bastards reoffend anyway. yes they reoffend without there junk working!
because its in the mind, the pleasure comes from being dominate not so much the actual act.
It is also fact that an abused child has a potentially higher risk to offend once in adult hood. There has also been many cases of abused children, abusing other children.
|
On December 22 2010 04:22 MrBarryObama wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 04:07 floor exercise wrote:On December 22 2010 02:33 buhhy wrote:On December 22 2010 02:20 CaffeineFree-_- wrote:Good news indeed! Not... So much for free speech... There's also nothing wrong with being a pedophile, just like how there's nothing wrong with being gay. Do you guys really think this low of homosexuals? I really hate these comparisons. They are not the same. Consenting same sex adults has absolutely nothing to do with having sex with a child Yes, very true... sex with a child fucks them up. Molestation fucks them up. It may work in other societies... such as truly backward tribal arabs (not to be confused with most arabs)... but in western society where adult-child sexual intimacy is taboo and outlawed, it WILL screw with the child's upbringing. Gay sex, on the other hand, just replaces a pussy with an asshole. Really, the two are as comparable as straight sex and pedophilia.
On December 22 2010 04:07 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 02:33 buhhy wrote:On December 22 2010 02:20 CaffeineFree-_- wrote:Good news indeed! Not... So much for free speech... There's also nothing wrong with being a pedophile, just like how there's nothing wrong with being gay. Do you guys really think this low of homosexuals? I really hate these comparisons. They are not the same. Consenting same sex adults has absolutely nothing to do with having sex with a child
... I was implying pedophilia in itself is not wrong. Pedophilia means sexual interest towards minors, it's not an act, just like how being homosexual is not an act. Also, I said there's NOTHING WRONG with being gay... you guys misunderstood.
On December 22 2010 06:33 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 06:30 justle wrote:
Pedophilia and child rape are not the same thing, I don't know why every post on this thread is predicating that they are. Well if I have sex with my girlfriend and she is under 18 and I am over 18 I got to jail for RAPE even if she consents... The law doesn't differentiate between the two as much as they should, you get put on the same list as the guy who rapes his 2 year old daughter...
Pedophilia is not an act, it's a sexual deviancy. I'm not too sure on this, but I don't believe there's a complete consensus on whether pedophilia has a genetic component or not, though evidence seems to point to it being psychological.
|
--- nvm, double posted ---
|
On December 22 2010 07:23 LazyMacro wrote:
The problem with people and principles is the principles go out the window the moment emotion gets involved.
I think it's quite simple: The First Amendment references the right of the people to express themselves freely.
So, the author of this book has done so. Those that disagree with the book, its contents, it being available, etc., are all doing so as well.
However, if you try to get the book banned, you're clearly missing the point. You have no idea what makes the US what it is, and you just don't fucking get it.
If you don't like the book, don't buy it. Don't read it. Don't support the author. Don't support Amazon.
The implicit point of free speech is that people have thoughts and ideas others don't like. There are things I see and hear in the media that makes me very angry. There are phrases and expressions used that make me cringe. But I don't expect everyone to bend out of respect of my sensibilities. That's bullshit.
Are you kidding? Freedom of speech only goes so far. If I were to read this book, then molest a relative of yours that is a child, i believe you might have a different view on this whole matter.
Saying that people trying to get it banned are against freedom of speech is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard. If you really believe in your theory, answer me this? If I were to stalk you, find out everything about you, post it in a book and explain exactly how I could get you alone and torture you, do you think this is ok because I have freedom of speech?
Common sense tells you that some things are just obviously very very very wrong.
|
What disgusts me is how people use gay rights to justify pedophillia. I know a lot of pedophiles and I am more than certain that they would never harm a child or even have sex with one for that matter but is there evidence that a child (one that has not reached puberty and does not have sexual feelings as a result) could consent.
With gay rights, we have two consenting partners who love each other and both agree that they are not doing any harm to anyone else. I cannot imagine advocating such things.
|
uhhhhhhh
im all for free speech but...
this is totally against all that is good, moral and sane in the universe and should be burned and never published and it's author thrown in jail for corrupting society and advocating crime of the worst kind.
|
On December 22 2010 10:19 Baz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 07:23 LazyMacro wrote:
The problem with people and principles is the principles go out the window the moment emotion gets involved.
I think it's quite simple: The First Amendment references the right of the people to express themselves freely.
So, the author of this book has done so. Those that disagree with the book, its contents, it being available, etc., are all doing so as well.
However, if you try to get the book banned, you're clearly missing the point. You have no idea what makes the US what it is, and you just don't fucking get it.
If you don't like the book, don't buy it. Don't read it. Don't support the author. Don't support Amazon.
The implicit point of free speech is that people have thoughts and ideas others don't like. There are things I see and hear in the media that makes me very angry. There are phrases and expressions used that make me cringe. But I don't expect everyone to bend out of respect of my sensibilities. That's bullshit. Are you kidding? Freedom of speech only goes so far. If I were to read this book, then molest a relative of yours that is a child, i believe you might have a different view on this whole matter. Saying that people trying to get it banned are against freedom of speech is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard. If you really believe in your theory, answer me this? If I were to stalk you, find out everything about you, post it in a book and explain exactly how I could get you alone and torture you, do you think this is ok because I have freedom of speech? Common sense tells you that some things are just obviously very very very wrong.
Let's break down your two examples:
1) "If I were to read this book, then molest a relative of yours that is a child, i believe you might have a different view on this whole matter."
You're right, he almost certainly would feel differently about you reading the book and then molesting a child related to him, than he would about you just reading the book. The problem with this comparison is that you added molesting a child, something which I don't think is protected by free speech. If you take that part out though, it seems fine.
2) "If I were to stalk you, find out everything about you, post it in a book and explain exactly how I could get you alone and torture you, do you think this is ok because I have freedom of speech?"
Again, I think you're 100% right in that this isn't okay... but again, you are doing a lot more than just writing a book! Stalking isn't protected by free speech either. Furthermore, this book isn't about a specific child, so no personal information about anyone is being leaked to the public.
|
On December 22 2010 09:38 Mayfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 08:24 FREEloss_ca wrote:
Are we sure this isn't just /b/ trolling amazon?
And I agree, the book can't be removed as it conflicts with free speech. Just because we don't agree with the author, doesn't give us the right to silence him.
And I like Mani's idea of tracking who buys the books and putting them on sex offender watch list. That sure is true speech. Letting people buy it but registering their purchase and holding it against them. Well thought.
Allow me to buy a book under a false name, send it to you, and then report you for having a copy of the book. I'm SURE you'll be taken off a watchlist when you explain that you're innocent and have no idea what's going on...
|
The way I look at it, of course the guy should be in jail. Quite simply, he made an instruction manual on how to abuse children... so either he has experience abusing children, or the guy is has commited fraud with his book.
Either way it is a big red X in my opinion.
|
On December 22 2010 07:16 sikyon wrote:
Ah but you see, that's my point. I'm not supporting child mollestation or whatnot, I am trying to show that morals vary! Now a society has to be based on morals, of course (laws are based on morals) so how do we resolve this?
Well, in our society, we use a democratic system. We elect a government and they should enact laws that reflect the morals of the people who voted them into office.
What I believe is that even though most people's morals are against even writing a book such as how to mollest children, their moral belief in favor of free speech should be stronger. Which is why I find the public opinion so shocking!
This is entirely incorrect. First if morals vary and don't have defined properties, there there is nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs onto someone else. Pedophilia is illegal. If morals do have defined properties, then it is our obligation to ensure that the population follows them. Pedophilia is still illegal.
Moral belief has nothing to do with freedom or criminality. Writing a book about how to break the law is illegal. That is a criminal matter. Not all laws are moral, not all morals are laws. Trying to equivicate the two because they have some overlapping causality is irrelevant.
We also can't vote into office people to make things illegal/legal, because the test is the constitution, not the peoples will. Rights trump any law, so even if morals were used to create laws, it would still be overthrown if it infringes on someones rights. Saying that a moral belief in a right is entirely wrong. The right to freedom of speech doesn't include illegal activities. What you are arguing for is neither right, lawful, or moral, which makes you incredibly wrong.
|
On December 22 2010 11:12 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 07:16 sikyon wrote:
Ah but you see, that's my point. I'm not supporting child mollestation or whatnot, I am trying to show that morals vary! Now a society has to be based on morals, of course (laws are based on morals) so how do we resolve this?
Well, in our society, we use a democratic system. We elect a government and they should enact laws that reflect the morals of the people who voted them into office.
What I believe is that even though most people's morals are against even writing a book such as how to mollest children, their moral belief in favor of free speech should be stronger. Which is why I find the public opinion so shocking! This is entirely incorrect. First if morals vary and don't have defined properties, there there is nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs onto someone else. Pedophilia is illegal. If morals do have defined properties, then it is our obligation to ensure that the population follows them. Pedophilia is still illegal.
Pedophilia is not illegal.
On December 22 2010 11:12 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Writing a book about how to break the law is illegal.
Writing a book about how to do illegal things is not illegal.
|
On December 22 2010 11:12 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
This is entirely incorrect. First if morals vary and don't have defined properties, there there is nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs onto someone else. Pedophilia is illegal. If morals do have defined properties, then it is our obligation to ensure that the population follows them. Pedophilia is still illegal.
Moral belief has nothing to do with freedom or criminality. Writing a book about how to break the law is illegal. That is a criminal matter. Not all laws are moral, not all morals are laws. Trying to equivicate the two because they have some overlapping causality is irrelevant.
We also can't vote into office people to make things illegal/legal, because the test is the constitution, not the peoples will. Rights trump any law, so even if morals were used to create laws, it would still be overthrown if it infringes on someones rights. Saying that a moral belief in a right is entirely wrong. The right to freedom of speech doesn't include illegal activities. What you are arguing for is neither right, lawful, or moral, which makes you incredibly wrong.
a) Pedophilia is not illegal. Having sex with small children is illegal. Those aren't the same thing.
b) Writing a book about how to break the law isn't illegal, I think. If it were illegal, I think they would've tried to arrest the author of this book on those charges, but they got him on obscenity instead. That must be more work than getting him on writing a book about breaking the law, so I can only conclude that there's no law against writing a book that tells you how to break laws. At least I'm gonna need a citation on that before I believe it.
c) The constitution can be changed. We certainly can, and do, vote people into office, or just hold votes, to get things made legal/illegal; I'm sure you can find some examples of this from the last election. (Prop 19 comes to mind)
dammit beaten badly D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
