People are so rabid to defend their freedoms. Ill donate a few of mine gladly to clean up this world.
That's nice, but there is no freedom-trade-in centre where you can go and trade in your freedoms and get a few criminals in jail as a return. You are advocating taking freedoms away from other people.
Everyone seems so upset about losing their freedoms. Theres even a guy a few posts above me saying its "his choice" if he wants to rape a kid. What about the kids choice? People who talk like that sound an awful lot like they just never have known what its like to have something to lose.
I was violently mugged a few years ago. The experience still messes with my head. But the ability to choose our actions, and the corresponding risk we all run, every day, of being a victim---well, it's part of being human, and I for one do not want to lose it.
On November 11 2010 12:20 parkin wrote: What if some author wrote a fictional roman about a pedophile who uses the all tips in the book? Would you moralists think that should be banned to and want the feds to track people who buy that fictional book?
Maybe the tv series dexter should be banned too because being a serial killer is kind of immoral too and only disgusting serial killer wants to watch a show about serial killings right? Maybe counter-strike should be banned to cause of the washington sniper, columbine high etc. Its not good with violent video games that are psychologically rewarding people to shoot other people in the head.
My opinion is that this book should not be banned. Freedom of of communication is extremely important and is very different from criminality in reality.
Iunno if you know this but in both the movie and the novel Fight Club the listed ingredients for making the homemade explosives were censored when the author originally used real receipes. It's harmful information that only puts other people in danger. If any purpose of this book is to help a pedophile (aka: child molester) then this book should simply be banned.
Seriously abortion, capital punishment, torture of PoWs, denial of the halocaust whatever I really don't give two shits of each. I plan to join the military and if I'm tortured then fuck sucks to be me probably shouldn't have joinned the army. But child molesting? That's fucking wrong. If we humans don't live to protect the young then the world will just continue to get worse.
Thinking about it now, I think pedophiles commit the most heinous crime possible. Murder violates my moral compass less than true child molestion. Statutory rape with like teenagers is slightly different in today's generation as most teens are already fucking. Not saying it's not bad but, a child is wrong to the core. I remember being like 14 and on my old block which was a pretty poor ass section of town and this little girl playing outside clearly had like a huge glob of cum in her hair. That girls dad was murdered like 3 months afterwards ~_~ wonder if it was related.
Either way in Canada the charter of rights and freedoms gives rights to a certain extent. A book like this just violates the general safety of the public sphere.
On November 11 2010 12:20 parkin wrote: What if some author wrote a fictional roman about a pedophile who uses the all tips in the book? Would you moralists think that should be banned to and want the feds to track people who buy that fictional book?
Maybe the tv series dexter should be banned too because being a serial killer is kind of immoral too and only disgusting serial killer wants to watch a show about serial killings right? Maybe counter-strike should be banned to cause of the washington sniper, columbine high etc. Its not good with violent video games that are psychologically rewarding people to shoot other people in the head.
My opinion is that this book should not be banned. Freedom of of communication is extremely important and is very different from criminality in reality.
Iunno if you know this but in both the movie and the novel Fight Club the listed ingredients for making the homemade explosives were censored when the author originally used real receipes. It's harmful information that only puts other people in danger. If any purpose of this book is to help a pedophile (aka: child molester) then this book should simply be banned.
Seriously abortion, capital punishment, torture of PoWs, denial of the halocaust whatever I really don't give two shits of each. I plan to join the military and if I'm tortured then fuck sucks to be me probably shouldn't have joinned the army. But child molesting? That's fucking wrong. If we humans don't live to protect the young then the world will just continue to get worse.
Thinking about it now, I think pedophiles commit the most heinous crime possible. Murder violates my moral compass less than true child molestion. Statutory rape with like teenagers is slightly different in today's generation as most teens are already fucking. Not saying it's not bad but, a child is wrong to the core. I remember being like 14 and on my old block which was a pretty poor ass section of town and this little girl playing outside clearly had like a huge glob of cum in her hair. That girls dad was murdered like 3 months afterwards ~_~ wonder if it was related.
Either way in Canada the charter of rights and freedoms gives rights to a certain extent. A book like this just violates the general safety of the public sphere.
please enlighten me. not all pedophiles are active in their sexual pursuits? At the very least I'll say all child molesters are pedophiles. Please, argue.
On November 11 2010 13:04 MiniRoman wrote: please enlighten me. not all pedophiles are active in their sexual pursuits? At the very least I'll say all child molesters are pedophiles. Please, argue.
The first is true. Not all pedophiles molest children. Someone earlier posted a ratio from his abnormal psychology class that it was something like 94:1 (pedos to child molesters)
Not all child molesters are pedophiles in the same way that not all men who rape another man are homosexuals. While the majority of them may well be, rape and molestation is more about domination and power than it is about sexuality.
On November 11 2010 12:37 Mellotron wrote: People are so rabid to defend their freedoms. Ill donate a few of mine gladly to clean up this world.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
You can stop posting now.
I'm not even sure that Franklin quote is a relevant response. Essentially Mellotron was arguing that voluntarily being less selfish or self-indulgent for the greater good, could be beneficial. Not that he would be giving up institutionalized liberty.
Institutionalized liberty allows people to have choice, but not all choices are equal. With that liberty in place, people seem to revel in the really poor choices because 'it's their freedom.' Yes it is, but it doesn't necessarily build a more positive society. The only good thing is we haven't created a restrictive society whereby one cannot even choose to do what is right (government is terrible at defining what is good and what is not). However, the ones that revel in the excesses of self-indulgence, I think, abuse their freedom and do not contribute.
Thus voluntarily giving up on those excesses has little in common with Franklin's concern.
And that offers any sort of redemption in what way? The book offers guidance on how to avoid being caught while carrying on sexual interactions with children. You seriously gonna get into potential justifications for why the sexual assault occurs?
If you want to feel powerful over a child, offer them an icecream and hold it above your head. Wow you're so powerful. feel better? No? Might as well rape them, then I'll feel in control!
People describing censorship as if it's that monster that eats through their freedom need to look at things from a different angle.
I'm pretty sure every single one of us at least practiced censorship themselves. Be it hiding their porn from their younger brothers, hiding their school marks from their parents, talking to friends/family members with a language only they understand while others don't or even hiding your "shame" when somebody catches you naked. All of those are acts of censorship on some level.
There is a greater benefit from censorship if used fairly and wisely. Kids are most of the time not ready for certain things or do not fully understand the consequences of certain actions. Censorship gives them time to be prepared.
That being said, I'm with censorship on taking this book off market due to it's dangerous effect on children even though I don't support censorship most of the time. It is your right to read whatever you want, however., but this book goes beyond one's freedom and invades others'.
On November 11 2010 12:55 So no fek wrote: Looks like the removed it; link in the OP brings up an error page.
Sad, people may risk their safety in the name of an ideal, but a company will never risk their profits to do so...
What's the ideal here? Amazon is a business. They can sell whatever they want. They deemed it not in their company's long term interests to sell a book that many found objectionable.
The author can still write books, and can sell them independently, or through someone else if he can find a difference business willing to sell his book.
I'm so confused about where this freedom of speech argument comes in. Who's freedom of speech is being restricted?
I'm totally buying this book with my next paycheck. I am neither a pedophile nor a child molester, but a book worthy of public censorship is a gem in my eyes.
On November 11 2010 13:10 MiniRoman wrote: And that offers any sort of redemption in what way? The book offers guidance on how to avoid being caught while carrying on sexual interactions with children. You seriously gonna get into potential justifications for why the sexual assault occurs?
If you want to feel powerful over a child, offer them an icecream and hold it above your head. Wow you're so powerful. feel better? No? Might as well rape them, then I'll feel in control!
Clearly rape isn't sexual.
I'm not talking about the book. I'm just saying it's ignorant to assume all pedophiles are child molesters who want to hurt children.