Actually I was just trying to point out that what we consider a crime now wasn't necessarily considered a crime in the past. I wasn't trying to be an advocate in this books favor, just to point out that there is a history of books dealing with similar topics that were written well over a century ago. Of course the notion of a ''how to' book on the subject is a new wrinkle, one that I agree we could do without. I don't think it would have redeeming qualities even as a reference guide for someone writing a book/screenplay or tv script for a show like Law & Order since they don't get graphic about the offense. Usually the 'crimes' on such programs occur off camera in fact so that avenue is out for defending such. Anyway such things as pedophilia and slavery as you pointed out weren't always considered criminal. It was just business as usual back then. People's perceptions changed over time. It's only been 90 years since the 19th amendment which gave women the right to vote was passed for example. Prior to that most people (well the men anyway) didn't see that there was a problem. The concept of a childhood itself is fairly new if you think about it. For thousands of years once you reached an age of being able to understand and could walk you were ready to work just like the adults. So, no, I don't support the book in question, and was just pointing out that our perceptions of pedophilia being wrong are only a few generations old. From my perspective in fact they are only about 3-4 generations old. My paternal grandparents were born between 1896-1900 so such laws protecting children had just been put into effect shortly before their births. In the end though books don't cause people to molest kids I don't think any more than having firearms for sale makes people go out and shoot someone else. Guns don't shoot people, other people shoot people and likewise books don't make someone molest a child. They make that decision on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper_
Hi, Crich. 
I agree with one of your points, but disagree with the relevance of the other.
The point that there were no laws against pedophilia until the 19th century is mostly true, but I always wonder why people use it in their arguments against people voicing their objections to it. Isn't it like responding to an outcry against slavery by pointing out that it was legal until the late 19th century?
On your other point, though,
Yes. I agree with the spotlight problem. Had I come across the book on Amazon, I wouldn't have drawn attention to it in the public.
But in this case, by the time most people heard about it, it was already all over the news, thanks to some twitterers that lead to an AP story, then the media blasting it all over the web an TV news.
At that point, it was already in the spotlight, and the public was presented with a challenge to take a stand.
I am glad the stand they chose showed the depth and breadth of American intolerance of books that advocate pedophilia - and yes, this one gives tips on how to do it, e.g., go buy finger cots to use as condoms for little boys.
By taking that stand instead of treating this book on the same level as other "just offensive" books (which they accept due to other variables this one lacks), they sent an important message to pedophiles - some who are trying to convince themselves that it's not really THAT bad, and others who are doing all they can to normalize and desensitize their abuse of children, and would love to use Amazon as a platform to go crazy with pushing their agenda. |