T
ZydalineHowever disgusting the topic is though, writing the book is not a crime. By guiding after all, he's not providing anything other than the knowledge of how to go about it. If someone followed his advice and hurried off to molest a kid, he can't even be called a mastermind. He just wrote a book and dump it on a shelf - it's their choice to follow it.If they deep six him, then logic will follow that we'll get a lot of knife manufacturers jailed up around here...
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?
EpistlesFirst of all: it's a fun spectacle to see someone of such logical deficiency attempt to be condescending, but I applaud the effort nonetheless. The underlying problem with your argument is that, contrary to your conceived impressions of law as a just and omnipotent machine, law is a huge fucking abstraction. Laws that are made that infringe on peoples abilities of freedom and expression can't ever really be justified, because it already contradicts peoples FULLY LEGAL FREEDOMS to say what they want, do what they want, see what they want, think what they want, and fuck who they want if it isn't imposing on the freedom or physical comfort of anyone else.Do I approve of pedophilia? No. Am I using as a tether to stomp your logic? Yes.Jumping on the new guy works most of the time, but don't embarrass yourself here. It would be a good place to stop trying.
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.
Replying to #42
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.
Replying to #43
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.
M
tehuber1337 · #44I suppose when it comes to pedophilia though (which IIRC is classed as a mental illness), all bets on sanity and rational thinking are off.
Really?
I would never have thought it a mental illness. Its just what you find attractive isn't it?
Zydaline · #45'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.
Oh whoops. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf
Replying to #46
Wikipedia says:
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder...
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.
C
Replying to #48
i believe none of us have read it... but some of us (including me) do want to read it....
tehuber1337Wikipedia says
I hope you weren't saying that I find it attractive :(
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.
Replying to #50
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
calvin_0 · #49i believe none of us have read it... but some of us (including me) do want to read it....
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.
Replying to #52
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.
tehuber1337 · #42You say the law isn't "just" (how ironic)
I never said this, it is an inference on your behalf.
tehuber1337 · #42because it contradicts your own ultra-left-wing ideals?
*Buzzer*. Wrong again. Fuck the federal government. I would never associate with liberals.
tehuber1337 · #42I 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.
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.
tehuber1337 · #42I also like how you completely ignore how I proved your first (and only) claim wrong just to respond with such inane rambling.
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.
tehuber1337 · #42I couldn't care less if you're new or not. If you're a moron, expect to be corrected.
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!"
Replying to #54
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.
Replying to #54
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.
Epistles · #54I never said this, it is an inference on your behalf.
Epistlescontrary to your conceived impressions of law as a just and omnipotent machine
Epistles · #54*Buzzer*. Wrong again. Fuck the federal government. I would never associate with liberals.
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.
Epistles · #54Mentioning 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.
EpistlesLaws that are made that infringe on peoples abilities of freedom and expression can't ever really be justified, because it already contradicts peoples FULLY LEGAL FREEDOMS to say what they want, do what they want, see what they want, think what they want, and fuck who they want if it isn't imposing on the freedom or physical comfort of anyone else.
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.
Epistles · #54My 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.
EpistlesThe only implications present with opinions that challenge the status quo are morals.
Sure does sound like a claim to me. Maybe
you should go back and look, because this claim is exactly what I disputed.
Epistles · #54This 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.
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 raiserLOL
S
Replying to #57
I'm already going with Littlekill.
tehuber1337 · #56I'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.
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.
Suiseiseki · #55I 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.
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.
