|
On November 11 2010 09:01 Champi wrote:
Fuck his free speech, what he is doing is teaching mentally sick people how to break the law safely and harm children without facing consequences, get rid of it amazon or you are no better than he is!
Contrary to popular belief (and maybe intuition, common sense or other sources of bias), paraphilias like this one do not constitute 'mental sickness' (glossing over the fact that this is not an actual term, either). (Usually) these people are actually normal, but their sexual preference happens to be hazardous to (the children, obviously, and) the rest of society, which is why it is illegal.
I'd have to read the book first to decide. I'm all for teaching pedophiles how to have pleasurable experiences as long as they pertain to activities they perform alone, or with other adults. Be that as it may, Amazon could surely choose not to sell the book, which wouldn't constitute censorship.
May I suggest to everyone the movie 'The Woodsman'? It's a pretty good movie about this topic.
|
On November 11 2010 09:05 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 09:01 VIB wrote:On November 11 2010 08:53 Krigwin wrote:On November 11 2010 08:45 _Darwin_ wrote:
I'm sorry to disappoint, but there are already limits on "free" speech. The prominent example is that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building. If you shout fire in a crowded theater you get charged with potentially causing harm, which is a different offense from saying something disagreeable. On November 11 2010 08:45 VIB wrote:Read the book samples I updated the first post with. + Show Spoiler + Looks like how to avoid getting charged for having child pornography, not how to avoid getting caught for actually having intercourse with a child. This seems like a very interesting book though, I wouldn't mind someone actually reading this and revealing the contents in its entirety. You are seriously going down all the way to semantic excuses? That's low O.o You are saying the difference between child pornography and intercourse with a child is merely semantic? That's low O.o
Their is NO difference in the illegality of the two. So, yeah, in a discussion of right-or-wrong, where we are NOT talking about degrees of something being wrong, I would say it is pretty irrational to bring up 2 wrong things and say one is less wrong than the other.
|
I really feel that this book should be removed. There is free speech, but I don't think you can make that argument if it is illegal. For example, you can't just publish a book on how to commit a murder.
|
On November 11 2010 09:23 Tazza wrote:
For example, you can't just publish a book on how to commit a murder.
Says who?
|
On November 11 2010 09:23 Tazza wrote:
I really feel that this book should be removed. There is free speech, but I don't think you can make that argument if it is illegal. For example, you can't just publish a book on how to commit a murder.
Still, that kind of censorship is the state/countrys job and not the one of amazon. They did the right thing.
|
On November 11 2010 09:23 Tazza wrote:
I really feel that this book should be removed. There is free speech, but I don't think you can make that argument if it is illegal. For example, you can't just publish a book on how to commit a murder.
yes you can, as was already discussed in this thread
|
my heart says ban, mind says no ban.
i think this is becoming a trend these days.
|
On November 11 2010 09:22 Firereaver wrote:
Their is NO difference in the illegality of the two. So, yeah, in a discussion of right-or-wrong, where we are NOT talking about degrees of something being wrong, I would say it is pretty irrational to bring up 2 wrong things and say one is less wrong than the other.
Except it wasn't a discussion of illegality or right or wrong, he merely made a statement that was partially incorrect and I was asking for where he got the information to substantiate such a statement, and then I made the distinction of how what the book was actually saying according to the passages provided was very different from what he was implying it was saying in his statement.
And you're kidding yourself if you think it's not important to draw a distinction between such acts even if all of them are morally wrong.
|
The principle of freedom of speech, press, etc. does not end because you personally are offended or do not like it.
Don't buy the book if you don't like it.
|
On November 11 2010 09:28 jinorazi wrote:
my heart says ban, mind says no ban.
i think this is becoming a trend these days.
No. It is just the case of being open-minded these days, set in motion by people who live in relative luxury within cosmopolitan cities and spread this idea of an "ideal" human being. While in most cases they focus on good things, their utter lack of connection to ground realities, esp. in the developing world and less priviledged societies, makes them come up with notions that go against oneself.
Remember the famous sayin: It is good to open-minded. But bad to be so open-minded that your brain falls out!
|
Stop the hypocrisy! I'm sure each and every one of you has at least one pedo vid stashed in your hard drive. Mine is about a 13 year old innocently and playfully cuddling and kissing with his make pretend dads penis. It has a good script imo.
|
I believe there should be a limit to free speech, and in my opinion, this book overstepped that limit.
You can disagree with me, maybe even, if you're skilled enough with words, convince me to change my mind, persuade me that there SHOULDN'T be a limit to free speech.
But nothing will change the revulsion I feel when I think about this story.
|
On November 11 2010 09:36 AbsentLover wrote:
Stop the hypocrisy! I'm sure each and every one of you has at least one pedo vid stashed in your hard drive. Mine is about a 13 year old innocently and playfully cuddling and kissing with his make pretend dads penis. It has a good script imo.
i agree. notice the desktop thread? half of them are 10-13 yr old girls with bikinis and short shorts, with huge boobs.
i think the correct action would be let this be, freedom of speech and freedom of speech.
however, brutal raping of a child should be punishable by death or removal of the penis through sledge hammer.
|
On November 11 2010 09:29 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 09:22 Firereaver wrote:
Their is NO difference in the illegality of the two. So, yeah, in a discussion of right-or-wrong, where we are NOT talking about degrees of something being wrong, I would say it is pretty irrational to bring up 2 wrong things and say one is less wrong than the other. Except it wasn't a discussion of illegality or right or wrong, he merely made a statement that was partially incorrect and I was asking for where he got the information to substantiate such a statement, and then I made the distinction of how what the book was actually saying according to the passages provided was very different from what he was implying it was saying in his statement. And you're kidding yourself if you think it's not important to draw a distinction between such acts even if all of them are morally wrong.
Let me get this straight please. I read very carefully the past thread and it seems to me evident that you are fine with a book that tells you how to get away with child pornography over the internet but you are against a book that tells you how to get away with intercourse with a child. To me that logic is way skewed.
Its obvious that theres a huge difference between the two. Any dumbass can see that. However, what I fail to grasp is the skewed logic that allows you to be fine with something wrong but object against something "more wrong".
|
On November 11 2010 09:22 Dagobert wrote:
May I suggest to everyone the movie 'The Woodsman'? It's a pretty good movie about this topic.
Wait, there's a movie with Kevin Bacon and Mos Def? Why have I not seen this movie?
|
I bought it and looked over it just for kicks and nothing in it condones sexual activities with minors, the book actually encourages pedophiles to not engage in any sexual activities with minors, and to control themselves
|
Amazon should pull this disgusting book immediately. As a for-profit institution, they are obligated to maximize revenue and the bad publicity from this book will damage their sales. They don't need the publicity to get their name out there since they already dominate the book market.
|
On November 11 2010 09:41 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 09:22 Dagobert wrote:
May I suggest to everyone the movie 'The Woodsman'? It's a pretty good movie about this topic. Wait, there's a movie with Kevin Bacon and Mos Def? Why have I not seen this movie?
I'm thinking of a different Woodman here. Porn aficionados know what i be talkin 'bout!
|
On November 11 2010 09:41 Firereaver wrote:
Let me get this straight please. I read very carefully the past thread and it seems to me evident that you are fine with a book that tells you how to get away with child pornography over the internet but you are against a book that tells you how to get away with intercourse with a child. To me that logic is way skewed.
Its obvious that theres a huge difference between the two. Any dumbass can see that. However, what I fail to grasp is the skewed logic that allows you to be fine with something wrong but object against something "more wrong".
Where did I state or otherwise imply that I am "fine" with such a book or any stated act in this thread? Let's not insult other posters' logic when you are incapable of even comprehending their posts.
|
On November 11 2010 09:36 AbsentLover wrote:
Stop the hypocrisy! I'm sure each and every one of you has at least one pedo vid stashed in your hard drive. Mine is about a 13 year old innocently and playfully cuddling and kissing with his make pretend dads penis. It has a good script imo.
I'm sure you used the generalization just for the force of your argument but please refrain henceforth from such wide-ranging statements especially when you are so far from the truth that I wonder if there is any point even replying to you.
+ Show Spoiler +You seem to be abnormal in your tastes! And extremely disgusting in your turn-ons imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/am1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/am2.jpg)
