|
On December 28 2010 14:55 CanadianStarcraft wrote:
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.
That's easily said. Just get up and move if you value your relationship. So are you suggesting that if a 19 year old is having a relationship with a 16 year old, the 19 year old, if he values his relationship should tell his 16 year old girlfriend to move with him to Sasketchwan? That's a lot of assumptions that in most cases don't work. Seducing pre-pubescent children differs from this greatly, but if you're arguing about statutory cases then you're going to need to find a better way to justify your logic than just suggesting that all people who value their relationships move somewhere else. Obviously I realize that "It's the law!" but if you think critically about it, it makes a bit less sense. It really comes down to a case-by-case basis.
|
I think you missed what I was trying to convey.
A) That the law has very little concern with nineteen year olds and sixteen year olds sexual relations.
B) The focus is to prevent exploitation of children
The idea is that it is illegal to be a pedophile pretty much everywhere but the age varies from place to place. The simple fact that you think the idea of moving just to have sex is ridiculous indicates that you do not take your relation with that person that seriously. Or if you felt that serious about the issue you would engage in the political process and seek change. However, as most studies will tell you, 18-30 is the most inactive political age group in most liberal democracies, mostly because of apathy. In other words despite that a few people might say the think it should change, they are not likely to do anything about it.
Also note it is not against the law for you to have a relationship, it is against the law for you to have sex. Put in the proper context, if I told you that you respecting a law present children from being molested, it just seems immature that you detest the law because you want to have sex with someone three years younger than you. If that person means a great deal to you, it is no unrealistic that you wait. If you just want the sex, than finding someone of age is also not that unrealistic.
This is not an issue where the legal standing needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. It is an issue where the idea is simple but setting the appropriate age parameters is a little more rigorous. I have said it multiple times, the argument for changing the age of consent is separate from pedophilia I think there are plenty of good arguments to be made to change that number, Saskatchewan is a good case study for that. We have had an age of consent at 18, 14 and now 16. In regards to this book though, I feel it is irrelevant and that is my point. The book is not about that valid concern, it is about getting away with molesting children and that should not be tolerated.
|
what i don't understand is why older people would want to have sex with people under 18, it's obvious that younger people don't understand what their sexuality actually means. not to mention that they're probably terrible at it. anyways as for the discussion above teenage relationships are mostly just about sex and exploring, i assume that's why the law is the way it is. older people are usually more attached to their sexual partners and that can cause some serious complications for the younger people growing up.
|
lawlz that would be kind of funny if they sold it as Barnes and Nobles. I can't imagine walking up to the counter going like "I'd like to purchase this." =D
|
Shouldn't 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 be banned first?
|
This book should be released in a special edition with Lolita.
|
On December 28 2010 20:13 AMaidensWrath wrote:
This book should be released in a special edition with Lolita.
I was more thinking along the lines of a free copy of this book with every highschooler anime purchase.
|
On December 28 2010 19:51 lysergic wrote:
Shouldn't 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 be banned first?
I think our society's past the point where we try to silence any sort of opposition to our governments.
|
On December 28 2010 15:39 Malgrif wrote:
what i don't understand is why older people would want to have sex with people under 18, it's obvious that younger people don't understand what their sexuality actually means. not to mention that they're probably terrible at it. anyways as for the discussion above teenage relationships are mostly just about sex and exploring, i assume that's why the law is the way it is. older people are usually more attached to their sexual partners and that can cause some serious complications for the younger people growing up.
It isn't such a logical process. Pedophiles find children arousing although many acknowledge sexual relationships with children are unethical, impossible, or inferior to normal sexual relationships between adults. Whether or not they find children sexually attractive or arousing is completely separate from that fact.
An adult male might find a mentally retarded or fully paralyzed woman arousing if she was physically attractive. That doesn't mean they'd think sex with that person was a good idea.
On December 28 2010 21:03 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 19:51 lysergic wrote:
Shouldn't 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 be banned first? I think our society's past the point where we try to silence any sort of opposition to our governments.
I think a lot of people would disagree what with the whole Patriot Act and Wikileaks thing as well an increasing desire by the government to censor the internet.
On December 28 2010 15:39 CanadianStarcraft wrote:
I think you missed what I was trying to convey.
A) That the law has very little concern with nineteen year olds and sixteen year olds sexual relations.
B) The focus is to prevent exploitation of children
The idea is that it is illegal to be a pedophile pretty much everywhere but the age varies from place to place. The simple fact that you think the idea of moving just to have sex is ridiculous indicates that you do not take your relation with that person that seriously. Or if you felt that serious about the issue you would engage in the political process and seek change. However, as most studies will tell you, 18-30 is the most inactive political age group in most liberal democracies, mostly because of apathy. In other words despite that a few people might say the think it should change, they are not likely to do anything about it.
Also note it is not against the law for you to have a relationship, it is against the law for you to have sex. Put in the proper context, if I told you that you respecting a law present children from being molested, it just seems immature that you detest the law because you want to have sex with someone three years younger than you. If that person means a great deal to you, it is no unrealistic that you wait. If you just want the sex, than finding someone of age is also not that unrealistic.
This is not an issue where the legal standing needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. It is an issue where the idea is simple but setting the appropriate age parameters is a little more rigorous. I have said it multiple times, the argument for changing the age of consent is separate from pedophilia I think there are plenty of good arguments to be made to change that number, Saskatchewan is a good case study for that. We have had an age of consent at 18, 14 and now 16. In regards to this book though, I feel it is irrelevant and that is my point. The book is not about that valid concern, it is about getting away with molesting children and that should not be tolerated.
The book isn't about getting away with molestation though. It's not "How to have sex with a child and not get caught". Did you read it?
It also isn't illegal to be a pedophile. Thankfully you can't be prosecuted for finding children appealing, although I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.
|
On November 11 2010 07:43 No_Roo wrote:
Free speech, take the good with the bad.
That said, prosecute the shit out of pedophiles.
Amen.
|
On December 21 2010 14:01 IronInko wrote:
Ultimately it's better to preserve free speech than to futilely chase after the prevention of an offense, when said offense is most likely to happen because of an individual rather than a resource and the chase itself would be a blow to society.
Ive read through random pages here and there, way too much to read, but I think this bit pretty much sums up my point of view as well.
|
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)
A limit to free speech, by definition, is no longer free speech.
There should be no absolute ban on pro-Holocaust books. And there isn't, seeing as how the KKK and other such groups are able to print and distribute this kind of material.
|
I've been trying to buy this book all day, and can't seem to find a single place on the internet that sells it now. For those that already bought this book, can you help me find a way to get it to me? I don't believe it was ever in print either, just sold as an e-book? Thanks in advance.
|
On December 29 2010 07:53 0mar wrote:
A limit to free speech, by definition, is no longer free speech.
There should be no absolute ban on pro-Holocaust books. And there isn't, seeing as how the KKK and other such groups are able to print and distribute this kind of material.
Well, u see, every single one of people's fundamental rights has its limits. The limits are set by the other rights themselves. As such, free speech can never be unlimited, because it has to respect other fundamental principles, dignity, privacy, etc.
But here the question should be fairly simply answered: if there is a law prohibiting the support of sexual intercourse with children (as far as the book does that; as it happens, I did not read it), it must be banned. If there is not, amazon might take it off their shop anyway for morally inspired reasons or because they fear the public. But in itself, if it does not violate a law, why shouldn't authors be able to write about this? After all, that's what free speech is about.
|
On January 17 2011 10:59 Spekulatius wrote:
Well, u see, every single one of people's fundamental rights has its limits. The limits are set by the other rights themselves. As such, free speech can never be unlimited, because it has to respect other fundamental principles, dignity, privacy, etc.
But here the question should be fairly simply answered: if there is a law prohibiting the support of sexual intercourse with children (as far as the book does that; as it happens, I did not read it), it must be banned. If there is not, amazon might take it off their shop anyway for morally inspired reasons or because they fear the public. But in itself, if it does not violate a law, why shouldn't authors be able to write about this? After all, that's what free speech is about.
wait.... how does drawing diagrams and recording the process of how to have sex with a child different from anime videos depicting sex with minors? i mean, in both cases, it could not be proven that a real child was harmed in the production anyways.
|
On January 17 2011 12:44 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 10:59 Spekulatius wrote:
Well, u see, every single one of people's fundamental rights has its limits. The limits are set by the other rights themselves. As such, free speech can never be unlimited, because it has to respect other fundamental principles, dignity, privacy, etc.
But here the question should be fairly simply answered: if there is a law prohibiting the support of sexual intercourse with children (as far as the book does that; as it happens, I did not read it), it must be banned. If there is not, amazon might take it off their shop anyway for morally inspired reasons or because they fear the public. But in itself, if it does not violate a law, why shouldn't authors be able to write about this? After all, that's what free speech is about. wait.... how does drawing diagrams and recording the process of how to have sex with a child different from anime videos depicting sex with minors? i mean, in both cases, it could not be proven that a real child was harmed in the production anyways.
that anime is also fucked up and wrong, but at least it doesnt have instructions on how not to get caught ^^
the anime is for living out a fantasy in a fantasy world, this book is for living out a fantasy in the real world.
|
On January 17 2011 10:40 CatfooD wrote:
I've been trying to buy this book all day, and can't seem to find a single place on the internet that sells it now. For those that already bought this book, can you help me find a way to get it to me? I don't believe it was ever in print either, just sold as an e-book? Thanks in advance.
no
|
On January 17 2011 10:40 CatfooD wrote:
I've been trying to buy this book all day, and can't seem to find a single place on the internet that sells it now. For those that already bought this book, can you help me find a way to get it to me? I don't believe it was ever in print either, just sold as an e-book? Thanks in advance.
dude, why would u even want it when you could get v& for it.
I am pretty sure TL tracks your IP and will turn it over thanks to the patriot act or something like it.
|
first amendment, etc.
cant get v& for having a book
|
On January 17 2011 13:03 annul wrote:
first amendment, etc.
cant get v& for having a book
Well you can't get arrested for it but you should realize that even though you can borrow books from the library on how to make homemade bombs, the government keeps track. You don't have to take my word for it, just use your own common sense.
If I wanted to get ahold of a book like this for example, I would contact the writer personally, if he's not still locked up in Florida, that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
