What a mess. When I first saw this, I thought of posting a comment or two. But decided not to. For one, any subject relating to a moral judgment attracts trolls.
So what do we have here?
* Freedom of speech -
- - You don't have to like what people are saying, but they do have the right to say it (print it, etc). So long as your not saying it about a protected group. At that point you can loose your all your money, if not your liberty too.
* Business self preservation -
- - Amazon, like most businesses, want to stay in business and make money. Dropping this book is, probably, more in the way of good business sense than censorship.
* Child protection -
- - I see very little of that in society. Oh there are laws, but they're for prosecuting
after the fact. They don't do much protecting.
Freedom of speech. Interesting. You
can't stand up in a theater and shout FIRE. Someone could get hurt. A person
can, however, write a book on the safest way (for the pedophile) to have sexual relations with a child.
I may be wrong but I think he's supposed to have warned against penetration. Some legal distinction? Would penetration of a child be considered (legally) hurting someone, whereas doing the other things he advocates "not" hurt the child?
Some will say that all censorship is, ultimately, bad. Slippery slope, and all that stuff. For the most part I tend to agree. The problem comes in when people insist that it's
always bad.
Lets change to alcohol. For some it really is bad all the time, as in people on dialysis. Yet red wine ranks very high on the good list, in moderation. So. Is the freedom to drink, like free speech, always right? If someone has a bad liver and wants to drink, fine. Help yourself. But restricting the freedom of children to drink as much as they want is, I think, better for society as a whole. Some wine with the family at meal time, on the other hand, is quite acceptable in some areas of the world. It probably would have kept me from finishing every bottle that I opened when I was younger.
When people insist on everything being one way or another - black or white - you have great piles of manure piling up at each end of the bell curve.
There is no perfection. Somehow we have to come up with solutions that we can live with. And
it will restrict the rights of some people. Even if the pedophile really really wants that job in the daycare center, his rights must be restricted.
Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
|
"Police say that threats have been made against Greaves and that they are keeping an eye on him to protect him."
And yet, there is no way they can protect the children.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JLeighs
Yes. I'm not really sure why a self-described pedophile who writes a book teaching other pedophiles how to "properly" assault children should have any rights at all in our society.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
The reason is because all citizens have equal rights under the constitution.
In addition there is no evidence that the author is actually a pedophile, but was a child "victim" of pedophilia from what I understand.
|
You can't prove a negative. All we know for sure is that he hasen't been arrested or convicted of pedophilia.
Google -
sex capitals of the world
Has anyone checked to see if he travels to SE Asia, or even Mexico, a lot? Rhetorical question.