If you want people to stop downloading, make a list that populates with everyone who has purchased the book.
Scarlet Letter style. Done.
I am against pedophilia just as much as I am against the banning of books. Who gets to decide which books we can and can not read?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
Maybe not intentionally, but it is the first step whether you see it or not. People were having the same debate over homosexuals a few decades ago. The is a very real movement trying to legitimise pedophilia and they are using the tactics that other groups have used with great success.
In theory you are right about the censorship side of things. In reality no good can come from this book, and debating something this ugly from a purely accademic perspective is not going to help anyone.
All our rights and freedoms should still be suject to ones moral compass, you have to draw the line somewhere and this is a pretty good place to start.
Edited for format. [/quote]
Good post. What about my last post. Where is the line drawn? 12? 14? 15? 16? 18? And where is your moral compass located - because that matters. If your compass is in S. America, it’s a different age. If your compass is located in the middle east, that’s yet a different number. Here in NJ, it’s 16 but if I cross the bridge to PA, it’s 17. Does my moral compass change as I travel? You do realize that a grown man can engage in sexual relations with a girl of 16 years old in many States, including Canada? I don’t care what the law says, personally my moral compass says it wrong for a grown man to have sex with a 16 year old.
So how do we define pedophilia? Where is the line drawn? Of course, I’m asking for the purposes of an intellectual debate. I don’t need any such lines. I think the medical term (it is a medical term) defines it generally to be interest in sex with those that are “prepubescent” or about 13 years or younger. So, I ask you, is sex with a 14 year old girl in puberty okay? Morally?
For the record, I don’t think pedophilia as I understand that above definition (sex with prepubescent children) is defensible in any time, in any country, under any “moral compass”. But we must realize that we do brand those that engage in sex with minors “child molesters”, “sex offenders” and loosely “pedophiles”. Again, I’m not defending them, but looking at the ages of consent around the world, I see lots of imaginary lines and very little “morality”!![/quote]
I agree that age of consent brings up a lot of moral issues when you are talking about pedophilia. In Canada, it is legal for a man of 21 years old to have sex with a 16 year old (there is a maximum 5 year age difference). At 21 and 16, you have a moral compass.
As for a molester, if he is banging kids younger than the age of consent in his home country, he should fucking well know better and be legally accountable.
I have not read the book, but if it an set of instructions for having sex with kids, it’s wrong. Nothing good can come of that. Rights of kids not to get raped trumps Freedom of Speech or Press.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
Maybe not intentionally, but it is the first step whether you see it or not. People were having the same debate over homosexuals a few decades ago. The is a very real movement trying to legitimise pedophilia and they are using the tactics that other groups have used with great success.
In theory you are right about the censorship side of things. In reality no good can come from this book, and debating something this ugly from a purely accademic perspective is not going to help anyone.
All our rights and freedoms should still be suject to ones moral compass, you have to draw the line somewhere and this is a pretty good place to start.
Edited for format. [/quote]
Good post. What about my last post. Where is the line drawn? 12? 14? 15? 16? 18? And where is your moral compass located - because that matters. If your compass is in S. America, it’s a different age. If your compass is located in the middle east, that’s yet a different number. Here in NJ, it’s 16 but if I cross the bridge to PA, it’s 17. Does my moral compass change as I travel? You do realize that a grown man can engage in sexual relations with a girl of 16 years old in many States, including Canada? I don’t care what the law says, personally my moral compass says it wrong for a grown man to have sex with a 16 year old.
So how do we define pedophilia? Where is the line drawn? Of course, I’m asking for the purposes of an intellectual debate. I don’t need any such lines. I think the medical term (it is a medical term) defines it generally to be interest in sex with those that are “prepubescent” or about 13 years or younger. So, I ask you, is sex with a 14 year old girl in puberty okay? Morally?
For the record, I don’t think pedophilia as I understand that above definition (sex with prepubescent children) is defensible in any time, in any country, under any “moral compass”. But we must realize that we do brand those that engage in sex with minors “child molesters”, “sex offenders” and loosely “pedophiles”. Again, I’m not defending them, but looking at the ages of consent around the world, I see lots of imaginary lines and very little “morality”!![/quote]
Also a good post, but now we’re heading into a completely different thread.
Morality is a very subjective thing, and I’m sure you will agree that if something is legal it doesn’t mean it “right”. By the same token, some ilegal acts can be considered “right” in some circumstances.
You also bring up an interesting point about prepubescent children. I’m sure we’ve all seen fully developed 12 year old girls, so the medical defenition might not apply in all cases.
So now that neither the medical nor the legal definitions are of any help to us, we’re back at the moral debate, which is of course a very subjective thing.
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]jtrinsey wrote:
One thing that is important to remember is that many child predators are not quite exactly the same as people with “regular” sexual appetites. Many child predators have a similar sort of ritualistic behavior as a serial killer.
For example, many serial killers start with the torture and killing of animals. Eventually, this becomes more ritualized and they start to create elaborate fantasies about killing people and may substitute animals but eventually that isn’t enough. They will fetishistically plan their killing for a long time until they find the “right” victim. Of course, it doesn’t stop there, as they usually keep “improving” their kills to match their fantasies.
Child predators are often the same way. Many begin with what they believe to be “innocent” admiration for a certain child, which builds into fantasy. Almost all of them indulge in pornography, but for many of them it is not enough to complete their specific fantasy. This is why many child predators (similar to serial killers) have a “type” that they keep molesting as they are trying to recreate their own fantasy perfectly.
So, I do think there is danger in allowing this sort of stuff to be out there. With that said, I cannot support banning it. I support banning child pornography, because a child is harmed in the very making of the video or whatever. But I can’t support banning material like this. I think they should be held to the same standard that, for example, makers of other instructional materials are: if somebody is harmed following their instructions, they can be held liable. At the very least, I support the right for the parents of a child who was harmed using this sort of “instruction manual” to sue the author in civil court. The majority of Americans (like myself) can read “true crime” accounts and not see them as an instruction manual of sorts, when in fact they do often contain extensive and detailed analysis that could be seen as such.
It’s a tough topic. I do think there is danger in “legitimizing” child molestation by allowing stuff like this. There have already been defenses tried that use the logic of being “born this way” as a pedophile- aping the argument that homosexuals (whom I have no problem with) have successfully used to legitimize behavior that was once thought to be deviant. Despite all of that, I must stand by the Thomas Jefferson (I think) quote that is something along the lines of, “those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither.” Outright banning of books is a slippery slope indeed. [/quote]
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]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]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]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]worzel wrote:
Amazon have been selling a book “The PedophilesGuide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lovers Code of Conduct”.
It has since been removed from their sellers list but Amazon defended their right to sell this book based on an individuals freedom of expression and non-censorship!
Personally I think its fuckin disgusting and they should never have gone near the book!
Censorship yes! But seriously we/they have to draw a line somewhere!
Imagine a book on how to blow up a plane or a ‘how to guide’ for terrorists…[/quote]
pedo book=disgusting
Terrorist book=amusing/scary
called “The Anarchist’s Cookbook by The Jolly Roger”
…
just saying…
[quote]KAS wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]KAS wrote:
Maybe not intentionally, but it is the first step whether you see it or not. People were having the same debate over homosexuals a few decades ago. The is a very real movement trying to legitimise pedophilia and they are using the tactics that other groups have used with great success.
In theory you are right about the censorship side of things. In reality no good can come from this book, and debating something this ugly from a purely accademic perspective is not going to help anyone.
All our rights and freedoms should still be suject to ones moral compass, you have to draw the line somewhere and this is a pretty good place to start.
Edited for format. [/quote]
Good post. What about my last post. Where is the line drawn? 12? 14? 15? 16? 18? And where is your moral compass located - because that matters. If your compass is in S. America, it’s a different age. If your compass is located in the middle east, that’s yet a different number. Here in NJ, it’s 16 but if I cross the bridge to PA, it’s 17. Does my moral compass change as I travel? You do realize that a grown man can engage in sexual relations with a girl of 16 years old in many States, including Canada? I don’t care what the law says, personally my moral compass says it wrong for a grown man to have sex with a 16 year old.
So how do we define pedophilia? Where is the line drawn? Of course, I’m asking for the purposes of an intellectual debate. I don’t need any such lines. I think the medical term (it is a medical term) defines it generally to be interest in sex with those that are “prepubescent” or about 13 years or younger. So, I ask you, is sex with a 14 year old girl in puberty okay? Morally?
For the record, I don’t think pedophilia as I understand that above definition (sex with prepubescent children) is defensible in any time, in any country, under any “moral compass”. But we must realize that we do brand those that engage in sex with minors “child molesters”, “sex offenders” and loosely “pedophiles”. Again, I’m not defending them, but looking at the ages of consent around the world, I see lots of imaginary lines and very little “morality”!![/quote]
Also a good post, but now we’re heading into a completely different thread.
Morality is a very subjective thing, and I’m sure you will agree that if something is legal it doesn’t mean it “right”. By the same token, some ilegal acts can be considered “right” in some circumstances.
You also bring up an interesting point about prepubescent children. I’m sure we’ve all seen fully developed 12 year old girls, so the medical defenition might not apply in all cases.
So now that neither the medical nor the legal definitions are of any help to us, we’re back at the moral debate, which is of course a very subjective thing.
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 are intelligent enough to understand that books like this are tolerated so that we preserve greater liberties. I also think that most americans would be uncomfortable with the idea of their 16 year old daughter having sex with a grown man, although in many States it would be legal.
[quote]overstand wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
There’s a difference between banning a book and choosing not to sell it. If Amazon has a policy against selling books about certain topics then they should follow that policy. People are taking this too far. They are advocating boycotting Amazon completely and PETA has asked Amazon to remove books about dogfighting (didn’t know there were books about dogfighting and I think their authors should be treated just like people who breed dogs for dogfighting and that is not becoming the QB of a pro football team). This has snowballed into a whole different thing now. [/quote]
Wait…some of you thought it wouldn’t? This is what we were talking about. Once it is “publicly ok” for people to raise hell until this book is pulled, everyone with any axe to grind will be calling for the same thing.
It is a tough position for Amazon but the general public’s reflex reaction to hot button topics is exactly how freedoms get lost.
I predict eventual screening committees for all media which will lead to even more media being “censored” whether you agree with it or not.[/quote]
You’re acting like this is some unprecedented thing. Read my post above. Freedom of speech has never been unconditional for as long as society has existed. Protesting the draft was made illegal in WWII based on the concept of ‘clear and present danger.’ If you’re at an airport and talk about hijacking a plane, you’re going to suffer consequences, even if you were just joking. We allow people freedom of expression up until the point where it infringes on somebody else’s civil liberties, at which point we draw the line.
Just because somebody has an agenda doesn’t mean their opinion holds any weight. People protested Catcher in the Rye, but it persists. People protested Elvis, yet he persisted. People protested CSI, yet it persists. Dogfighting books or whatever the fuck PETA is bitching about now will persist.
The pedophile book crossed the line, it was indefensible, it was pulled. Simple as that.
[/quote]
no one is arguing whether the book should have been pulled or not… as a business amazon can do whatever it wants(or I think thats the consensus)… We are arguing that this guy whoever he is has the right to write this book and sell it… This book at least to my knowledge in no way infringe on someones civil liberties… I was unaware a book was even capable of that. You can not compare a book with someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. One has unknown and immeasurable consequences and the other has a known and instantaneous consequence. You are placing this line… how are we to know when you’ll stop and what else you think crosses this line.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
Totally irrelevant… but when you were talking about 200 years ago… It reminded me of my grand parents… and their was a 40ish year age gap(grandma 16-17)… and thats just 70ish years ago. Don’t remember exactly what it was for sure. It was definitely the norm though for the time(not this country).
[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.
This really isn’t an issue of censorship. Amazon is not a government and is not forbidding the sale of the book, it is just refusing to be the one who sells it. Which is a smart fucking choice considering that Amazon’s number one priority is to earn profit and that the outcry/boycotts from the general public in response to the continued sale of this pederasty book would certainly cut into that profit.
If the government bans it, that’s a whole new issue. I personally am against censorship of any kind. The 120 Days of Sodom is about as disgusting and malicious as anything that has ever been put to paper, but I would defend it against censorship to the end. Its easy to talk about freedom and rights when its The Catcher in the Rye that’s being discussed, but its books like this pedophile one that really test our belief in the Bill of Rights. I say choose principle over gut reaction and let the book be what it is: a disgusting piece of shit written by some halfwit that can’t even spell. It may appeal to some of the sick-and-twisted pedophile crowd, but its not like its going to start winning over converts or anything. Ultimately it will censor itself.
[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]
You touched on intent there, which I think must play some kind of role. It already does make or brake certain criminal charges already.
This is not some thinly veiled novel we’re talking about here (Check out some the interviews the author had done if you have any doubt). This is a man with a very sick agenda openly admitting that he wants to help pedophiles avoid prosecution.
Like I said earlier. This is something that almost universally sickens people. If there was censorship (which there already is BTW) this is prime candidate.
Somewhat unrelated, but do you think we have seen any of this ripple effect with regards to terrorists and Miranda rights? Im not trying to draw you into another debate here, just interested in your thoughts.
[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.
to all the “freedom of speech” defenders here :
if this book is ok, what about the first “pedo pride” crossing YOUR street ?
[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]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]kamui wrote:
to all the “freedom of speech” defenders here :
if this book is ok, what about the first “pedo pride” crossing YOUR street ?
[/quote]
Once again, just like the Ku Klux Klan can still march, you have the right to publicly protest against what anyone else is marching for or against.
No one here wants to see pedophiles cheered on, and that is NOT what is going on when we discuss freedom of speech.
This author who can’t spell wrote a book that would have probably sold one copy had this “outrage” not broken out. People using this as a pedestal helped create the “pride parade” on this one.
Now, the world is watching.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]worzel wrote:
Just to reiterate’ this sick fuck can write whatever he wants to but dont expect me to be rejoicing about his freedom to do so or a business who chooses to profit off of sick shit material.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure no one is rejoicing about it dude. Don’t project shit onto the side you may not agree with to try and make your argument valid. Enough idiots around here project their own insecurities onto others as it is, don’t become like that.
Book sucks, author sucks, but it is a slippery slope once the state starts dictating what information gets out to the public.
Plus if this shit brings attention to the situation and starts helping the effort to protect kids, good. Getting all indignant on an internet forum is all well and good, but until this book was sold, how often did some of you council suicidal victims, or otherwise try and protect anyone’s kids?
Simple fact is kids get raped every day in this world. And no one gives shit about it unless some douche bag writes a book about it? But rather than do something constructive, lets just burn a book…[/quote]
Firstly, the tone of my post came off as such because my net connection was dying and judging by my lack of posts thereafter it sadly passed away (much to my dismay) but its up and running again.
Anyhoo I think we all agree that this type of material is beyond disgusting and I am not naive enough to believe that it will cause someone to ‘become’ a pedo (referring to other posts).
Your point about bringing attention to a very sensitive subject is a good thing because in the media saturated world we live in today people too often take their eye off the ball and loose focus on important shit like this.
Referring to your point, “how often did some of you (incl. me I persume) council suicidal victims, or otherwise try and protect anyone’s kids?” and your point about people only giving a shit about kids getting raped becasue now there is a book about it and not doing something constructive other than advocating the burning of books is some major projection right there! You know nothing of my experience with said topics so dont project your assumptions onto me.
I am not for book burning I am for a major distributer like Amazon dumping material like this because they are the biggest book retailers online and as such should be governed by ‘some sort’ of moral compass. The direction this compass should point will be dictated by our (the majority) perception of what is ‘really’ right/wrong i.e. pedo = beyond fucked up. The fact that the majority of us ‘feel’ (yes emotion people!) that this material is very wrong should steer Amazon and the likes in the right direction.
The author is free to personally sell his book on the streets and then we will see how he gets on!