Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure: Should This Guy be Censored?

I like the new guy

 

Bloody hell, that's not the way things work. Crime-facilitating speech not only provides the means to commit crime, but it bolsters a potential criminal's confidence that the gains outweigh the risks and therefore their willingness to act also increases. It's for good reason that such speech is indeed illegal.

Knives are legal because they have valid uses. Or would you rather try and carve your Thanksgiving turkey with a pair of chopsticks?

Son, you've really gotta stop pulling your "logic" out of your ass. You say the law isn't "just" (how ironic) because it contradicts your own ultra-left-wing ideals? Those "fully legal freedoms" are not "fully legal", they are constitutional rights limited by law. I like how you added that "if it isn't imposing on the freedom or physical comfort of anyone else" clause, as it proves my point - laws limit civil freedoms so that harm is not wrought.

I also like how you completely ignore how I proved your first (and only) claim wrong just to respond with such inane rambling.

I couldn't care less if you're new or not. If you're a moron, expect to be corrected.

 

Eh, my bad. I was being obtuse.

I meant that in this sense : You can't jail knife manufacturers if their knives were bought and misused. When a murderer murders, the fault lies in him. You can't blame his grocers for supplying low brain-protein food, or Top Ten Criminals in his bookshelf for providing him the inspiration to commit murder, even if it probably did influence him in some ways.

I suppose the act of 'guiding' itself could be a literal crime in some countries - heck, I admit I wouldn't know that.

My opinion is simply this : even if it encouraged potential pedophiles, they would have to be rotting in the core to begin with.

Edit : Oh and uh, in my first post - when I mentioned 'not a crime', I meant that in a slang/metaphorical way. Not literally not a crime. >_> That really depends on where you reside and the country's laws.

 

Well, crime is certainly the fault of the perpetrator before all else. I also apologise if I was being harsh on you, I just felt I had already addressed that issue. However, in regards to influence and inspiration, there is a big difference. This paper explains things far better than I can be bothered to - scroll down to pages 11 and 12.

I suppose when it comes to pedophilia though (which IIRC is classed as a mental illness), all bets on sanity and rational thinking are off.

 

'zis okay. This IS the debate board - you don't come here unless you want to be verbally boxed around.

You misplaced the link, by the way.

While we're on the topic of pedos...I do wonder if the popularity of 'shotas in anime reflects somewhat on human mentality though, or if it's really as innocent as simple partiality to childlike characters.

 

Really?
I would never have thought it a mental illness. Its just what you find attractive isn't it?

 

Oh whoops. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf

Wikipedia says:

I hope you weren't saying that I find it attractive

 

I wonder how many people in this thread have actually read the book. Because I sure as hell have not, and thus can't give a fair opinion about it.

The author claims however that his book has been misunderstood just by simply looking at the title, and the whole censorship action against his book was a "knee-jerk" reaction due to people judging his book by its cover.

 

i believe none of us have read it... but some of us (including me) do want to read it....

 

No I wasn't it was just a poor choice of word from me, as usual.
I don't agree that its a mental illness, its not something I know a lot about admittedly but by logic it doesn't make sense.
Why is it an illness? because society says its wrong? Can we say gay people are mentally ill also, because sex is meant to be a man and a woman? It doesn't make sense to me, I think people just find different things attractive.
Im sure society would like to label them mentally ill and it wouldn't surprise me if its so just to keep people happy.

 

I don't know the details, but there appears to be some kind of medical basis for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Biological_associations

 

That's what I'm lead to believe after reading the responses on this thread, thus this whole topic is considered pointless until someone can present all the contents of the book itself in its entirety.

Also, to further elaborate on tehuber's point regarding pedophilia being a mental illness, here's a WebMD article on it: Explaining Pedophilia.

 

Yeah, that's why I've been trying to speak generally on the issue of crime-facilitating or -inciting speech rather than specifically commenting on this case.

 

I never said this, it is an inference on your behalf.

*Buzzer*. Wrong again. Fuck the federal government. I would never associate with liberals.

Mentioning the rationality of civil freedom doesn't prove your point, it merely surfaces the argument. You are fucking high. The question of importance is WHERE the line is drawn, not if it was drawn. Please, let's turn this from a 10-year-old discussion of psuedo-theory to something worth debating. The ball is in your court, try to stop dropping it.

My first (AND ONLY, your own words) claim was that morals are subjective and we should respect each others opinions. Really. Go back and look. Thank you from saving the day from objectivity, science, logic, kindness, and human affinity.

This is really like watching the middle school student call the teacher stupid. Go take a nap, tehuber. There's no way you're a legal adult.

 

This is amusing. I like this Epistles guy. If everyone's arguments weren't so tl;dr and I wasn't slightly intoxicated I'd be leaping in there with a "Have at you, you sycophantic fucks!"

I looked, this is true, but what irks me here is that moral subjectivity is not a sufficient basis for allowing someone to write what may well be a serious book on a widely-held taboo subject that is illegal in many parts of the world. But hell, if you think so, by all means let me know. Don't make it too verbose though, I get bored if people waffle on.

The irony here is that both of those comments are equally condescending and fucktarded. Stick to the arguments gentlemen, attacks on credibility really don't help you when the majority of the userbase isn't clever enough to follow a debate.

 

I'd call trumpeting the virtues of civil freedom a left-wing viewpoint. I wonder when you'll realise that political ideals hold no actual relevance to politics, though.

Yep, yep, now I see that your criticism of the very existence of legal boundaries is actually questioning where those boundaries are placed. You might want to backpedal a little more though, maybe you'll reach the hell from whence you came.

Sure does sound like a claim to me. Maybe you should go back and look, because this claim is exactly what I disputed.

You're stupid and I'm going to take a nap. Wake me up when you're capable of maintaining a consistent and logically sound argument not plagued by red herring rambling and ad hominem.

 

Hey Suis,youve made a friend.Maybe you could car share to the next NAMBLA fund raiser

LOL

 

I'm already going with Littlekill.

Hold on a minute there, Hale. Civil libertarianism is compatible with both left- and right-wing political ideals.

 

tehuber1337: I will never, in a million years, give you the time of day to read that post. 90% of it is quoting me. If I don't have to read it, you win. But that doesn't make you any less of a plague. The only thing I want to comment on is that classical liberalism influenced libertarianism (which would truly the most accurate generalization of my civil opinions based on your given knowledge), which is considered right-wing. Calling human rights interests left or right-wing is so incredible naive. Stop trying. Pleaaaase.

First things first, I have no idea what this book is or what I'm arguing about at all really. Something about a guy making a book about how much he digs kids. Cool with me. I disagree with it, but who am I to stop him from expressing his fucked up thoughts? At the same time, cultures have always censored different, obscure mentalities to various degrees. I don't disagree or agree with you. More than anything, I'm just trying to incite a riot.

 

Yeah, I'm gonna say this one has gone on long enough.

Locked.