|
On December 23 2010 18:48 Rebornlife wrote:
I HAVE NOT read the contents of this book. But for someone to publish an accurate and detailed description on getting away with and having sex with kids, and to also portray views from the child's perspective tells me something about the author. He has very likely been abused as a child, and he has very likely abused children. Now the police obviously can't arrest him on that merit. So they pull a few strings and get him in on something else (which is most likely bogus). They don't want him spreading this information clearly.
And don't compare this to "How to kill a person" Or "How to build a bomb" etc. Because they are very different. For one, the general public doesn't know how to get away with something like child abuse. If you asked a large survey of people how to get away with murder, and how to get away with sexually abusing a child, my bet is people will generally know how to kill, and not rape. Killing is physical work you do yourself, and is completely dependent on YOU. While rape is something very psychological. It is not 100% dependent on you, but also the victim.
You can teach someone how to kill in person, how to construct weapons, etc. But teaching someone how to abuse a child is something you most likely do over a medium (a book?). So stopping at least one small part of that medium helps.
My money goes on that this author has committed crimes, and the police will try to figure them out. I think the police are more concerned with bringing down a child abuser who shares his techniques with the world to teach others than bringing down "Free speech". Unfortunately to bring him down "Free speech" comes as collateral.
Child abusers get away with it because the child doesn't outcry until 15 years later if at all...and by then there is no way you're getting the evidence required to convict someone.
A book isn't going to change this simple fact and because of the psychology involved this sort of thing will be a nuisance forever.
Freedom of Speech is a blunt stick law and should remain that way. You don't have to agree with the contents of the book...but to ban it sets a stupid precedence. I know people hate the slippery slope argument but it ALWAYS starts with something so outlandish that people think " well that's so bad, i'll never agree to ban something that's not as bad as that but this has got to go." Inevitably this is forgotten.
|
On December 23 2010 08:10 Warrior Madness wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2010 08:08 The Touch wrote:On November 11 2010 07:37 VIB wrote:![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JNUPSxbJL._SL500_AA272_PIkin3,BottomRight,28,7_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qtxuE.png) Unfortunately I don't see a cat...
It's kind of hanging over the shoulder of the kid on the left. The cat's head is the blob on the right, and its front paws are hanging down the kid's chest. It almost looks like it's bowing to the hungry man.
|
On December 23 2010 18:59 Jayme wrote:
Freedom of Speech is a blunt stick law and should remain that way. You don't have to agree with the contents of the book...but to ban it sets a stupid precedence. I know people hate the slippery slope argument but it ALWAYS starts with something so outlandish that people think " well that's so bad, i'll never agree to ban something that's not as bad as that but this has got to go." Inevitably this is forgotten.
Businesses not carrying the book is not a ban. It has not thwarted the author in writing it. He has a right to write whatever book he wants-- everyone else has a right to not publish it, not read it, and not buy it. Obviously it has already been published, but the point stands. It is only interfering with his freedom of speech if he is not allowed to write the book, and if it is illegal for him to hand out the book-- which is not the same as a company choosing not to sell it.
|
On November 11 2010 08:13 _Darwin_ wrote:
This one certainly encourages it. Like Mein Kampf encouraged the slaughter of Jews.
Godwin's law is proven yet again
|
On December 24 2010 00:53 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2010 18:59 Jayme wrote:
Freedom of Speech is a blunt stick law and should remain that way. You don't have to agree with the contents of the book...but to ban it sets a stupid precedence. I know people hate the slippery slope argument but it ALWAYS starts with something so outlandish that people think " well that's so bad, i'll never agree to ban something that's not as bad as that but this has got to go." Inevitably this is forgotten.
Businesses not carrying the book is not a ban. It has not thwarted the author in writing it. He has a right to write whatever book he wants-- everyone else has a right to not publish it, not read it, and not buy it. Obviously it has already been published, but the point stands. It is only interfering with his freedom of speech if he is not allowed to write the book, and if it is illegal for him to hand out the book-- which is not the same as a company choosing not to sell it.
He's obviously referring to the government not banning it, as there is lots of advocates in this thread that support a simple government ban on the book.
|
So is it okay if there are books on how to kill people without getting caught??
|
Everyone shall be allowed to express himself as long as they don't directly put lives in danger. When you start banning things it grows to a snowball and takes many useful things with it.
Take for example the COICA act of USA which ,if passed, would make it anti-democratic like China.
Books shall not be banned simply because they are offensive. Remember there was a time when Great Scientists/Intellectuals/Artists were deemed offensive and some of them were burned alive as their works 'hurted' religious feelings of the masses (You say Earth isn't center of universe!!! Die infidel! Burn him alive!). 
Today we owe it all to those renegades who paved the way for renaissance. Ofcourse, if you think it is wrong then go ahead and bash the freedom of expression BY USING the freedom of expression....
|
this is a disturbing book and should be banned.
|
To jail with you, you little paedophile pig.
I respect people, that actually seeks help, when they are having lusts for minors.
But those encouraging and helping paedophiles way of ruining families and children's lives. No go.
And yes, when it comes this far there is a limit of free speech.
Somehow reminds me of that Geoffrey Leonard from Australia, that 'luckily' avoided getting charged for being a paedophile, because the law was getting changed at that certain moment. It's a long time ago I've read about him, so there might be some issues in my post. But he's walking around as a free man - God knows, what he ruined.
|
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
I think people are assuming the book is a lot worse than it is. While it does give instructions for safer sexual practices with younger males, it doesn't encourage rape or the abuse of power in fact it discourages it. While I don't agree some of the relationships justified in the book are ethical the manual could be a lot worse and far "sicker" pedophile literature exists on the internet in the nooks and crannies of the underground.
This doesn't seem like it will encourage anyone to go have sex with a child who wasn't already doing it. It's more of a "If you're going to do it, minimize or eliminate the damages" message which I feel iffy about but at least he isn't encouraging people to rape children. I can't speak for exactly how young the boys described in the book are but I've heard figures of about 10-11 which I can't get behind considering how late boys enter puberty.
I still think people are overreacting based on irrational fear and misunderstanding toward pedophiles in general.
|
Purchasing the book will surely result in a list of names people would probably rather not be on. Regardless it is despicable that this even exists.
|
On December 28 2010 04:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
This doesn't seem like it will encourage anyone to go have sex with a child who wasn't already doing it. It's more of a "If you're going to do it, minimize or eliminate the damages" message which I feel iffy about but at least he isn't encouraging people to rape children. I can't speak for exactly how young the boys described in the book are but I've heard figures of about 10-11 which I can't get behind considering how late boys enter puberty.
Any sexual conduct with a minor, age of consent varying from location to location but usually 16-18 out of a given threshold that also varies, 3-5 years is statutory rape. It is against the law more or less every where, and there should be no tolerance of the perpetuation of "pro-statutory rape" material, ever.
|
On December 28 2010 04:53 CanadianStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
This doesn't seem like it will encourage anyone to go have sex with a child who wasn't already doing it. It's more of a "If you're going to do it, minimize or eliminate the damages" message which I feel iffy about but at least he isn't encouraging people to rape children. I can't speak for exactly how young the boys described in the book are but I've heard figures of about 10-11 which I can't get behind considering how late boys enter puberty.
Any sexual conduct with a minor, age of consent varying from location to location but usually 16-18 out of a given threshold that also varies, 3-5 years is statutory rape. It is against the law more or less every where, and there should be no tolerance of the perpetuation of "pro-statutory rape" material, ever.
Your logic is bankrupt. Because something is against the law, no one should be able to write literature supporting it? Wouldn't this preclude people from EVER writing out in protest of laws they considered unjust? ie, "Slavery is the law in all confederate states, and there should be no tolerance of the perpetuation of "pro-abolition" material, ever."
It really sickens me how quickly some people would be willing to give up democratic rights it took thousands of years for the western world to secure...
|
On December 28 2010 04:53 CanadianStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
This doesn't seem like it will encourage anyone to go have sex with a child who wasn't already doing it. It's more of a "If you're going to do it, minimize or eliminate the damages" message which I feel iffy about but at least he isn't encouraging people to rape children. I can't speak for exactly how young the boys described in the book are but I've heard figures of about 10-11 which I can't get behind considering how late boys enter puberty.
Any sexual conduct with a minor, age of consent varying from location to location but usually 16-18 out of a given threshold that also varies, 3-5 years is statutory rape. It is against the law more or less every where, and there should be no tolerance of the perpetuation of "pro-statutory rape" material, ever.
im aware that it is illegal, but i dont agree with the law
by your logic any literature justfying or encouraging illegal activity should be banned.
|
two different topics
child abusse/rape whatever: against.... mutual agreement idk where to draw the line....
free speech: you cant ban any book, movie or whatever.. you cant do exceptions because nobody should have the power to make exceptions..
|
I would prefer you not twist my quote in to something perverse, I would like you to remove those quotations. I have never and will never support slavery.
I was not going to write a wall of text on the topic and I still do not want to. However, I will further explain a perspective that was misinterpreted.
Laws are created under certain social principles, constructed based on ideas and values of certain eras and regions. They are what people use to combat absolute chaos, lending power to a higher authority for the guarantee of order.
I outlined what statutory rape is, because a previous post seemed to neglect its legal standing. People go to jail for committing this crime, and more over pedophiles are typically separated from other offenders in prisons because they have the tendency of ending up dead. Murders apparently can not stomach the idea of molesting children.
Tolerance is a different idea. I did not say the book should not be able to be written or sold. I said it should not be tolerated. Tolerance is the sense that there is a difference in values that is uncompromisable but the party in a situation of power choose to let that entity co-exist regardless. Canada is a nation that is for instance known for its cultural tolerance.
As such I am suggesting that the engagement of sexual acts with those who are naive, easily persuaded, innocent and fragile is vile and should not be tolerated. If there is an argument to be made for changing the age of consent that is another matter, but the statutory rape law exists for the same purpose as all other good laws. To protect those who otherwise cannot protect them selves. I am not going to respond to anything in this post again because if there exist someone who is willing to say there is no harm in the molestation of children they are not moral or sane enough to constructively argue with.
People should be heard on the issue and a sense of vulgarity should surround this atrocious book. Buying it is not supporting freedom of speech, it is a simple admission that the person thinks protecting the helpless is some shape incorrect and that everyone should be able to do as they please, even if that means raping children.
If you do not agree with the law, then write a book about why the law is flawed, not how to circumvent it. All this does is make people bitter and start a hardened argument that will only counter any sense of progress.
|
Do you believe it is vile and disgusting for a 19 year old male to have sex with a 16 year old female and that he should receive severe punishment or be labeled as a "rapist"?
Of course I don't believe it is ok to have sex with pre-pubescent children.
|
Like I said, age of consent is a different issue. In Canada the age of consent varies from each province and is sixteen in Saskatchewan. In other words, a sixteen year old having sex with a nineteen year old is not a crime where I live. The age of consent here use to be fourteen till recently. Technically a fifteen year old can still sex with some as long as they are only three years older than that fifteen year old. The spirit of the law protects children, it has little concern with the sexual conduct of teenagers and young adults. It exists to prevent some forty five year old from legally being allowed to seduce, as you so nicely put it pre-pubescent children.
My suggestion to people who live somewhere the age of consent is strict, move to somewhere where it is not. If this option is not savvy to you, than that sexual relationship is obviously not that meaningful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=408760289596&id=a85b62259584800f6b89fa68319bbd79)
