|
On November 11 2010 08:36 ZapRoffo wrote: I'm saying I don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech applied carte blanche. ...You do realize that definitively conflicts with the idea of "free", right? Do you know what freedom is?
|
On November 11 2010 08:42 RaFeStaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:41 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:39 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:32 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:28 pfods wrote: i like everyone losing their collective shit over this. this book does not make people commit pedophilia, therefor it doesn't go against any law.
amazon also sells sex toys. does their cut of the dildo market make them aggressive gay apologists pushing for the homosexual agenda? of course not. Expect that not not many gays are child-rapists or rapists in general, and selling sex toys to gays doesn't harm anyone. the point is, because they sell something does not mean they necessarily support or condone it, legally or personally. I don't oppose the sale of this book (as disgusting as it is), its just that his metaphor was terrible. you mean analogy, right? and the analogy works fine. you're just a sensationalist and made assumptions about this book and it's intentions, and are now basing everything you say about it on those assumptions. That analogy isn't remotely fucking close, stop being an idiot. Have you actually looked at the content? Did you see the above post? People like you make me sick. Stop trying to be a rebel and get a grip.
yes i have, jack ass. i too have an internet machine.
and fascist little pigs like you make me sick. pull the knotted brown shirt out of your ass and get a grip.
|
i get it, this is a trap set by the FBI, they will record down who buy this book and keep an eye on them
LOLOLOL ... i hope they do
|
On November 11 2010 08:37 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:32 ZapRoffo wrote:On November 11 2010 08:27 CheezDip wrote: Freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular ideas. Popular ideas don't need protection. I don't understand why ideas that have no value beyond harming those in helpless positions (something that has been demonstrably shown and is accepted worldwide) should be protected? Just because you cannot see the value beyond that is your own personal problem. Many others see value in having the general public informed about how criminals go about things. There are varying opinions on this, theres no clear right or wrong as seen from this thread. Free speech is partly designed to protect matierial in the situation of moral grey area.
I believe in looking at it as a trade-off that we, reasonable people in a time of relative general political calm and lack of turmoil in western society, can evaluate. Is it worth standing up for the idea that we, as a society, might be suppressing the idea of pedophilia that will one day be revealed as a practice or idea that has value to everyone, when doing so might contribute to the harm of the helpless here and now?
My answer is that at this time it's not worth it.
OK then I don't agree with "free speech" if that's how you all want to interpret it. Living in society we sacrifice freedoms, that's a given no matter how much you want to deny it. I guess everyone is against freedom?
|
The same knowledge used to advance evil can also be used to thwart it. If a monitored sex offender actually attempts to use this knowledge to commit crimes, the officer(s) watching him can more ably preempt him when armed with this knowledge.
|
On November 11 2010 08:43 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:36 ZapRoffo wrote: I'm saying I don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech applied carte blanche. ...You do realize that definitively conflicts with the idea of "free", right? Do you know what freedom is?
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.
|
On November 11 2010 07:53 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 07:37 VIB wrote:The book does exactly what you think it does. Teaches pedophiles how to love children and avoid getting caught. did you read it? from the title and description it doesn't sound like that to me.
On November 11 2010 08:41 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 07:37 VIB wrote:There's a book selling online on Amazon.com that is creating a lot of polemic. " Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" have already got over 600 one-star reviews. The book does exactly what you think it does. Teaches pedophiles how to love children and avoid getting caught. Wait, what? According to the description the book is apparently about how to make "situations", by which I assume the author means relationships and intercourse, between adults and children safer for the children. How does it teach the reader to avoid getting caught? Read the book samples I updated the first post with. + Show Spoiler +
|
Zap so your saying freedom of speech only applies to ideas that have potential to be universally valuable as well as not cause potential harm in the present?
a "fine" view to have, but I would advise taking the word "freedom" out of it.
|
On November 11 2010 08:44 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:42 RaFeStaR wrote:On November 11 2010 08:41 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:39 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:32 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:28 pfods wrote: i like everyone losing their collective shit over this. this book does not make people commit pedophilia, therefor it doesn't go against any law.
amazon also sells sex toys. does their cut of the dildo market make them aggressive gay apologists pushing for the homosexual agenda? of course not. Expect that not not many gays are child-rapists or rapists in general, and selling sex toys to gays doesn't harm anyone. the point is, because they sell something does not mean they necessarily support or condone it, legally or personally. I don't oppose the sale of this book (as disgusting as it is), its just that his metaphor was terrible. you mean analogy, right? and the analogy works fine. you're just a sensationalist and made assumptions about this book and it's intentions, and are now basing everything you say about it on those assumptions. That analogy isn't remotely fucking close, stop being an idiot. Have you actually looked at the content? Did you see the above post? People like you make me sick. Stop trying to be a rebel and get a grip. yes i have, jack ass. i too have an internet machine. and fascist little pigs like you make me sick. pull the knotted brown shirt out of your ass and get a grip. Wtf man... Getting all raged and everything, if you said something along the lines of "a book about constructing bombs" it would've been a good "analogy" (<- ty for this).
|
On November 11 2010 08:45 EchOne wrote: The same knowledge used to advance evil can also be used to thwart it. If a monitored sex offender actually attempts to use this knowledge to commit crimes, the officer(s) watching him can more ably preempt him when armed with this knowledge.
I'm not sure that an officer knowing that a latex finger coit is more fitting for an underage boy's penis than a regular condom will aid in arresting the rapist.
|
On November 11 2010 08:44 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:42 RaFeStaR wrote:On November 11 2010 08:41 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:39 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:32 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:28 pfods wrote: i like everyone losing their collective shit over this. this book does not make people commit pedophilia, therefor it doesn't go against any law.
amazon also sells sex toys. does their cut of the dildo market make them aggressive gay apologists pushing for the homosexual agenda? of course not. Expect that not not many gays are child-rapists or rapists in general, and selling sex toys to gays doesn't harm anyone. the point is, because they sell something does not mean they necessarily support or condone it, legally or personally. I don't oppose the sale of this book (as disgusting as it is), its just that his metaphor was terrible. you mean analogy, right? and the analogy works fine. you're just a sensationalist and made assumptions about this book and it's intentions, and are now basing everything you say about it on those assumptions. That analogy isn't remotely fucking close, stop being an idiot. Have you actually looked at the content? Did you see the above post? People like you make me sick. Stop trying to be a rebel and get a grip. yes i have, jack ass. i too have an internet machine. and fascist little pigs like you make me sick. pull the knotted brown shirt out of your ass and get a grip. Lol? If by fascist you mean a loving parent then sure, you got me! Get a clue~
|
Is there anything you CAN censor with the internet being so easily available? Seems like anything a potential pedo wants to learn about can find it somewhere on the internet.
So who cares whether or not this book exists. Stopping its production ultimately does nothing but publicize it more. We are in an age where censorship just isn't possible anymore.
Book might make for a funny gag gift though with Christmas coming up, who knows?
|
On November 11 2010 08:36 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:32 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:28 pfods wrote: i like everyone losing their collective shit over this. this book does not make people commit pedophilia, therefor it doesn't go against any law.
amazon also sells sex toys. does their cut of the dildo market make them aggressive gay apologists pushing for the homosexual agenda? of course not. Expect that not not many gays are child-rapists or rapists in general, and selling sex toys to gays doesn't harm anyone. Selling guns and missiles and helicopters to Pakistan and African warlords doesn't hurt anyone either, right? It's good the US doesn't do anything like that. Not like rape, pedophilia, or child soldiers happens in those countries we're selling weapons to either! A bunch of people here getting all hot and bothered and disgusted with this book. I wonder how active they are in protesting the US propping up regimes that preserve cultures that are okay with all of the above crimes against humanity.
And this is a thing people mix up. A gun is not an opinion or a book. It's a gun. You kill people with it. And it is gennerally accepted that any human has a right to live and that killing eachother should be avoided as much as possible. You don't have a freedom to bare arms as a result of freedom of speech or freedom of living. >__>
|
Is this book satirical or serious? Either way it shouldn't be censored (free speech and all) but if it's serious then that is pretty messed up.
|
On November 11 2010 08:46 XeliN wrote: Zap so your saying freedom of speech only applies to ideas that have potential to be universally valuable as well as not cause potential harm in the present?
a "fine" view to have, but I would advise taking the word "freedom" out of it. I never said universally valuable, I just say can be construed in some way to have some value that reasonable people can recognize (very broad).
|
|
On November 11 2010 08:47 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:45 EchOne wrote: The same knowledge used to advance evil can also be used to thwart it. If a monitored sex offender actually attempts to use this knowledge to commit crimes, the officer(s) watching him can more ably preempt him when armed with this knowledge. I'm not sure that an officer knowing that a latex finger coit is more fitting for an underage boy's penis than a regular condom will aid in arresting the rapist.
If you catch a dude buying a box full of finger coits and hanging around the playground every day, I'd say that's a pretty good lead.
|
On November 11 2010 08:47 RaFeStaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:44 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:42 RaFeStaR wrote:On November 11 2010 08:41 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:39 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 pfods wrote:On November 11 2010 08:32 shwaffles wrote:On November 11 2010 08:28 pfods wrote: i like everyone losing their collective shit over this. this book does not make people commit pedophilia, therefor it doesn't go against any law.
amazon also sells sex toys. does their cut of the dildo market make them aggressive gay apologists pushing for the homosexual agenda? of course not. Expect that not not many gays are child-rapists or rapists in general, and selling sex toys to gays doesn't harm anyone. the point is, because they sell something does not mean they necessarily support or condone it, legally or personally. I don't oppose the sale of this book (as disgusting as it is), its just that his metaphor was terrible. you mean analogy, right? and the analogy works fine. you're just a sensationalist and made assumptions about this book and it's intentions, and are now basing everything you say about it on those assumptions. That analogy isn't remotely fucking close, stop being an idiot. Have you actually looked at the content? Did you see the above post? People like you make me sick. Stop trying to be a rebel and get a grip. yes i have, jack ass. i too have an internet machine. and fascist little pigs like you make me sick. pull the knotted brown shirt out of your ass and get a grip. Lol? If by fascist you mean a loving parent then sure, you got me! Get a clue~
no by fascist i mean someone who thinks they know what should and should not be censored based upon their little cry baby sensibilities. if you're worried about your child being raped, keep a better eye on them. this book certainly isn't going to be the cause.
|
On November 11 2010 08:45 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:43 Krigwin wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 ZapRoffo wrote: I'm saying I don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech applied carte blanche. ...You do realize that definitively conflicts with the idea of "free", right? Do you know what freedom is? 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.
Life goes before freedom :D it's a walk of balance.
|
On November 11 2010 08:45 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:43 Krigwin wrote:On November 11 2010 08:36 ZapRoffo wrote: I'm saying I don't agree with the idea of freedom of speech applied carte blanche. ...You do realize that definitively conflicts with the idea of "free", right? Do you know what freedom is? 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.
Yes because they made a law saying you couldn't. And saying Fire in a crowded building isn't what many would deem as free speech, it is deemed to be enciting panic and this against the law. Its only a free speech issue if the word fire was banned altogether, or becuase it is simply deemed offensive.
Next argument someone will make is you can't swear at police..... again thats not because you don't have the right to express those emotions, its because its deemed to be abuse and it is against the law to be abusive to a police officer, or infact its simply against the law to swear loudly and repeatedly in public period. That one is called disturbing the peace.
|
|
|
|