Amazon Pedophile Book

Off Topic
181

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
A Lot of you guys in here are seriously retarded and are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing…

This book WAS NOT banned.

This isnt a freedom of speech issue.

Dude wrote a book to help out other pedos (im pretty sure one of his quotes said “OTHER pedos” which means the author is a pedophile) not to get caught and a privately owned company decided not to sell it. That isnt BANNING a book nor is it restricting freedom of speech. [/quote]

Dude, a bunch of us sitting around talking about how good it is that Amazon isn’t selling the book makes for a short thread.

A good discussion about free speech and personal liberties, and the difficulties involved with those ideals makes for a good thread.[/quote]

yeah it does make for a better thread… I will admit it was a good read (just read through it this morning while watching some NFL games) The people saying that this was going against freedom of speech was what I was talking about/took issue with.

I know what you are saying though. Carry on discussing personal liberties and free speech :)[/quote]

Reading comprehension fail. No said expressly that Amazon’s decision was an abridgment of freedom of speech. In fact, I and others defended it as their right and explicitly said it wasn’t a freedom of speech issue. The freedom of speech discussion arose from those that suggested the book be banned. It was for the most part an intelligent respectful thread. I think you were paying more attention to the football games. Assuming you’re not a member of the team, maybe you should stop betting or, stop multi-tasking :)[/quote]

is this more the arguing for the sake of arguing?

Your point is the same thing that I just said in my post. The author can write a book about whatever he wants and Amazon has the right not to sell it if they dont want to.

and in reference to the portion in my second post up there “the people saying that this was going against freedom of speech is what I took issue with.” wasnt referring to the book being written. It was in response to the people who took issue with their being a public backlash caused by the book and the subsequent pulling of the book by Amazon (there were a few people who talked about that)

182

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Now that he and his house have appeared on the local news, who wants to bet on an over/under for vandalism, demonstration, assault or firebombing? Or, society’s greatest crime - apathy?[/quote]

I think there will be some sort of a backlash… especially since they showed his cars license plate number. Would be pretty easy to track down. You’d think that they would have blurred that out at least.

183

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Interview with the author:

[/quote]
I had to skip to the end to see if he was still alive by the time the interview was over…too bad i was disappointment.

184

[quote]andrew_live wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Interview with the author:

[/quote]
I had to skip to the end to see if he was still alive by the time the interview was over…too bad i was disappointment.[/quote]

Please post spoilers in future.

185

notice how he make quotation marks with his hands each time he use the word “pedophiles” and the words “victims”.

it’s symptomatic.

relativization of semantics
which leads to
euphemization of crime
which leads to
banalization of evil

186

sorry Roybot. So wheres that deathpool thread? I’m willing to put bet supplements thats this guy will be dead in a year. With a book like that I could see ppl driving across states to burn his house down and shit. Free speech my little fucking ass.

187

[quote]kamui wrote:
notice how he make quotation marks with his hands each time he use the word “pedophiles” and the words “victims”.
[/quote]

quotation marks.

188

500×550 45.2 KB

…well the guy did say he sold one book.

189

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
sorry Roybot. So wheres that deathpool thread? I’m willing to put bet supplements thats this guy will be dead in a year. With a book like that I could see ppl driving across states to burn his house down and shit. Free speech my little fucking ass.[/quote]

No need to apologize. I was kidding about the spoiler comment, as in “don’t spoil the movie for the rest of us”. Seriously though, I’m more concerned with the sales of the book than with the nuts and bolts of how it ended up on Amazon.

Looking at the clip, this “author” is full of shit. There are a few choice quotes in that interview, but saying that he wrote the book because “he wanted to get some of the trauma that he got from his parents and his religion out of his system from when he was a child in that situation” tops them all.

Where does his experience to write this book come from? Either he’s lying about not being a pedophile or (more likely) he’s a victim trying to blot out the abuse by justifying it (and he does that a lot).

190

he actually said he hadnt been touched or anything as a kid and then later talked about getting the trauma out of his system.

191

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

What I can say is that in a democracy public opinion plays a large role. Do you think the majority of Americans would be OK with this book being sold? Or happy with the idea of their 16 year old daughter sleeping with a 48 year old man? [/quote]

I think the majority of Americans will never read this book and are basing their opinion on hear-say and gut reaction to the idea itself. I have no clue what is in this book and I doubt most people acting like it should be “banned” do either. We all agree that the act of raping a child is dead wrong. What we don’t all agree on is whether this book causes illegal acts or contributes to them.

You are also now making up arbitrary issues with age because it doesn’t matter how old the guy is if the girl is legally within the age range of consent. These are all subjective cultural issues that aren’t present in every society on the planet.

It isn’t like 200 years ago people were gasping at the idea of a 16 year old girl having sex with a man much older. By that age, it may have been rare back then for her NOT to be in a situation like that.

All we can say is that in THIS country and in SOME states TODAY it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with someone much older. Anything more that you make of it is largely social conditioning.[/quote]

The author has made his intentions perfectly clear, there is no hear-say or gut reactions. That should give you a clue about the content.

The age issue is not arbitrary at all. It illustrates that the law doesn’t always align with what is seen as right or wrong in the eyes of the general public.

If you read my post above you would have seen that I made exactly the same point about the age of consent being very subjective. With that said, just because some savage on the other side of the world does it, doesn’t mean we should.[/quote]

It is very interesting that you would call people “savages” for the simple act of granting a different age of consent than you may agree with.

What is seen as “right or wrong” by the public is a changing entity. People PROTESTED Elvis. Could you imagine people doing the same today? Why? Because what is acceptable can change over time when discussing some “taboo” subjects in society. That is why we have a Constitution instead of a country built on the passing fancy of some people who feel so morally superior that they call those who don’t believe the same “savages”.[/quote]

Where did say what my definition of a “savage” was? Or that I feel superior to anyone?

Your Elvis arguement is plain retarded. People who protested Elvis were in the minority. Apples and orages.

192

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FutureGL wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:
Again, this is a very good argument from an academic point of view. But now you have a Victim in the mix. A real, living, breathing child. No amount of civil action is going to change anything for that person or their family.[/quote]

“True Crime” accounts often give very detailed and accurate information about how crimes were committed, investigated, and solved/unsolved. Certainly they “legitimize” murder, rape, or other violent crimes to some extent and, in some ways, can be seen as “instruction manuals” of sorts, although they are certainly not intended to do so.

Should they be banned as well? Legitimate question, because I’m not sure there are really right or wrong answers to this stuff.

Although I will say, please don’t give me the “living, breathing, child” argument like I don’t abhor pedophilia. Get off your fucking high horse. I think anybody who writes a “how to” manual on making love to little boys deserves to get buttraped for eternity. However, I recognize that society isn’t constructed around what I personally think is right or wrong, and legal decisions in one area can have drastic ripple effects elsewhere.

Liberty is not something to be taken lightly.[/quote]

Well said. I am a little tired of the moral heroics in this thread as if anyone who isn’t for burning this book somehow supports pedophilia.[/quote]

I don’t like your use of the phrase “moral heroics.” I consider myself a moral heroic and still defend free speech and the dissemination of this book.[/quote]

Then you misunderstand my use of the word. I am referring to people who consider themselves superior to others based on what they personally choose to defend…like the guy above who, on the issue of age of consent, considers those with a lesser age than 18 “savages” even though some states in this country allow the age of consent at an earlier age.

I am also referring to those who act as if denying censorship means you are about to throw a pedophile parade.
[/quote]

For someone who is constantly bleeting about reading comprehension (usually when your argument has been shot to shit), this is pretty funny.

Pleas show me where in this entire thread I posted the number 18? Or better yet, where did I say that 18 should be the age of consent?

Stop putting words in peoples mouth and stick to the debate. Seriously, you are one of the most belligerent indeviduals I’ve ever come across,and I’m in law enforcement.

Most people who disagree with eachother can still have a freindly debate without being a dick.

193

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

What I can say is that in a democracy public opinion plays a large role. Do you think the majority of Americans would be OK with this book being sold? Or happy with the idea of their 16 year old daughter sleeping with a 48 year old man? [/quote]

I think the majority of Americans will never read this book and are basing their opinion on hear-say and gut reaction to the idea itself. I have no clue what is in this book and I doubt most people acting like it should be “banned” do either. We all agree that the act of raping a child is dead wrong. What we don’t all agree on is whether this book causes illegal acts or contributes to them.

You are also now making up arbitrary issues with age because it doesn’t matter how old the guy is if the girl is legally within the age range of consent. These are all subjective cultural issues that aren’t present in every society on the planet.

It isn’t like 200 years ago people were gasping at the idea of a 16 year old girl having sex with a man much older. By that age, it may have been rare back then for her NOT to be in a situation like that.

All we can say is that in THIS country and in SOME states TODAY it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with someone much older. Anything more that you make of it is largely social conditioning.[/quote]

The author has made his intentions perfectly clear, there is no hear-say or gut reactions. That should give you a clue about the content.

The age issue is not arbitrary at all. It illustrates that the law doesn’t always align with what is seen as right or wrong in the eyes of the general public.

If you read my post above you would have seen that I made exactly the same point about the age of consent being very subjective. With that said, just because some savage on the other side of the world does it, doesn’t mean we should.[/quote]

It is very interesting that you would call people “savages” for the simple act of granting a different age of consent than you may agree with.

What is seen as “right or wrong” by the public is a changing entity. People PROTESTED Elvis. Could you imagine people doing the same today? Why? Because what is acceptable can change over time when discussing some “taboo” subjects in society. That is why we have a Constitution instead of a country built on the passing fancy of some people who feel so morally superior that they call those who don’t believe the same “savages”.[/quote]

Where did say what my definition of a “savage” was? Or that I feel superior to anyone?

Your Elvis arguement is plain retarded. People who protested Elvis were in the minority. Apples and orages.[/quote]

Have you really made up your own definition for savage?

And Martin Luther King was supported by the minority…

194

[quote]TwinIron wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

What I can say is that in a democracy public opinion plays a large role. Do you think the majority of Americans would be OK with this book being sold? Or happy with the idea of their 16 year old daughter sleeping with a 48 year old man? [/quote]

I think the majority of Americans will never read this book and are basing their opinion on hear-say and gut reaction to the idea itself. I have no clue what is in this book and I doubt most people acting like it should be “banned” do either. We all agree that the act of raping a child is dead wrong. What we don’t all agree on is whether this book causes illegal acts or contributes to them.

You are also now making up arbitrary issues with age because it doesn’t matter how old the guy is if the girl is legally within the age range of consent. These are all subjective cultural issues that aren’t present in every society on the planet.

It isn’t like 200 years ago people were gasping at the idea of a 16 year old girl having sex with a man much older. By that age, it may have been rare back then for her NOT to be in a situation like that.

All we can say is that in THIS country and in SOME states TODAY it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with someone much older. Anything more that you make of it is largely social conditioning.[/quote]

The author has made his intentions perfectly clear, there is no hear-say or gut reactions. That should give you a clue about the content.

The age issue is not arbitrary at all. It illustrates that the law doesn’t always align with what is seen as right or wrong in the eyes of the general public.

If you read my post above you would have seen that I made exactly the same point about the age of consent being very subjective. With that said, just because some savage on the other side of the world does it, doesn’t mean we should.[/quote]

It is very interesting that you would call people “savages” for the simple act of granting a different age of consent than you may agree with.

What is seen as “right or wrong” by the public is a changing entity. People PROTESTED Elvis. Could you imagine people doing the same today? Why? Because what is acceptable can change over time when discussing some “taboo” subjects in society. That is why we have a Constitution instead of a country built on the passing fancy of some people who feel so morally superior that they call those who don’t believe the same “savages”.[/quote]

Where did say what my definition of a “savage” was? Or that I feel superior to anyone?

Your Elvis arguement is plain retarded. People who protested Elvis were in the minority. Apples and orages.[/quote]

Have you really made up your own definition for savage?

And Martin Luther King was supported by the minority…[/quote]

I am astounded that no one else called him on that. I have been waiting…but clearly no one else has a problem with this poster making up his own definitions of words and back peddling so much that his use of “savages” now apparently means the opposite of its textbook definition.

Arguing with people like that is pointless. Their thinking is off and unless he is a kid under the age of 18, I am amazed an adult would argue that way.

195

I kind of like the word “savage” though. It’s one of those awesomely condescending old-school whitey words. I’m going to start bringing it back. Next person who cuts me off in traffic is hereby labeled to be a “savage.”

196

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Now that he and his house have appeared on the local news, who wants to bet on an over/under for vandalism, demonstration, assault or firebombing? Or, society’s greatest crime - apathy?[/quote]

I think there will be some sort of a backlash… especially since they showed his cars license plate number. Would be pretty easy to track down. You’d think that they would have blurred that out at least. [/quote]

The guys in charge of editing out number plates and the like probably, accidently on purpose forgot to do his/her job, opps!

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Or, society’s greatest crime - apathy?
[/quote]

Now this is very true and is what really pisses me off about the mentality the persists in Ireland. It always reminded of the the following…

Societies/people go from bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Now that is a whole other discussion…

197

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I kind of like the word “savage” though. It’s one of those awesomely condescending old-school whitey words. I’m going to start bringing it back. Next person who cuts me off in traffic is hereby labeled to be a “savage.”[/quote]

The last time I called a person a savage was when my friend Gio downed a half pint of Southern Comfort in one swig.

I’ve got to be honest though, I’m not surprised that someone in law enforcement would use that word based on my past experiences.

198

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
he actually said he hadnt been touched or anything as a kid and then later talked about getting the trauma out of his system.[/quote]

Yeah. He contradicts himself several times during the interview, so much so that he doesn’t offer a credible explanation of why he wrote the book in the first place. Which in itself is weird.

If he’s never been a pedo or been the victim of one, where does this “trauma” come from? And why did he think that writing the equivalent of “A Pedo’s Guide To Dating” would be an appropriate outlet for it?

I’m not trying to psychoanalyze the guy, but things don’t add up. From what I gather from the interview, he is trying to present the book as a method of how pedophilia should be a mutual mutually pleasurable, trauma-free experience between adult and child.

His logic is that if the victim enjoys the experience, then there is no ‘victim’ to speak of.

199

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
he actually said he hadnt been touched or anything as a kid and then later talked about getting the trauma out of his system.[/quote]

Yeah. He contradicts himself several times during the interview, so much so that he doesn’t offer a credible explanation of why he wrote the book in the first place. Which in itself is weird.

If he’s never been a pedo or been the victim of one, where does this “trauma” come from? And why did he think that writing the equivalent of “A Pedo’s Guide To Dating” would be an appropriate outlet for it?

I’m not trying to psychoanalyze the guy, but things don’t add up. From what I gather from the interview, he is trying to present the book as a method of how pedophilia should be a mutual mutually pleasurable, trauma-free experience between adult and child.

His logic is that if the victim enjoys the experience, then there is no ‘victim’ to speak of.

[/quote]

Well, he’s clearly lying. I applauded his bravery for standing there and answering questions on camera, but his bravery was borne of sociopathic and other mental issues. Guy is a fucking loon no doubt. I wanted to explode his face when he talked about knowing 4 year olds with a certain mental maturity. It’s clear to me he’s a pedo. Would love to know how his brothers and sisters feel since he mentioned nieces and nephews. Now THAT would be an interesting interview.

200

[quote]TwinIron wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

What I can say is that in a democracy public opinion plays a large role. Do you think the majority of Americans would be OK with this book being sold? Or happy with the idea of their 16 year old daughter sleeping with a 48 year old man? [/quote]

I think the majority of Americans will never read this book and are basing their opinion on hear-say and gut reaction to the idea itself. I have no clue what is in this book and I doubt most people acting like it should be “banned” do either. We all agree that the act of raping a child is dead wrong. What we don’t all agree on is whether this book causes illegal acts or contributes to them.

You are also now making up arbitrary issues with age because it doesn’t matter how old the guy is if the girl is legally within the age range of consent. These are all subjective cultural issues that aren’t present in every society on the planet.

It isn’t like 200 years ago people were gasping at the idea of a 16 year old girl having sex with a man much older. By that age, it may have been rare back then for her NOT to be in a situation like that.

All we can say is that in THIS country and in SOME states TODAY it would be illegal for a 16 year old to have sex with someone much older. Anything more that you make of it is largely social conditioning.[/quote]

The author has made his intentions perfectly clear, there is no hear-say or gut reactions. That should give you a clue about the content.

The age issue is not arbitrary at all. It illustrates that the law doesn’t always align with what is seen as right or wrong in the eyes of the general public.

If you read my post above you would have seen that I made exactly the same point about the age of consent being very subjective. With that said, just because some savage on the other side of the world does it, doesn’t mean we should.[/quote]

It is very interesting that you would call people “savages” for the simple act of granting a different age of consent than you may agree with.

What is seen as “right or wrong” by the public is a changing entity. People PROTESTED Elvis. Could you imagine people doing the same today? Why? Because what is acceptable can change over time when discussing some “taboo” subjects in society. That is why we have a Constitution instead of a country built on the passing fancy of some people who feel so morally superior that they call those who don’t believe the same “savages”.[/quote]

Where did say what my definition of a “savage” was? Or that I feel superior to anyone?

Your Elvis arguement is plain retarded. People who protested Elvis were in the minority. Apples and orages.[/quote]

Have you really made up your own definition for savage?

And Martin Luther King was supported by the minority…[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t realise that we had to stick to text book definitions. Lets say that someone called you a retard. Do you think they mean to say that your developement has been retarded or that you are hadicaped? Probably not.

Ever heard the phrase “savage beating”? It’s not meant literally, although you could call that savage behavior.

I witessed a frenzied knife attack when I was younger. I would call that person a savage.