The Vent and Rant Thread

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

I think I'm going to throw up.

I don't care who does what to whom, or how, or where, so long as all parties involved properly(*) consent to it. Children are one of the subsections who cannot properly consent to... this.

(* And agreeing to something because of threats of something worse happening if you don't, or not knowing what you're actually consenting to doesn't count as consent)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by recluse

It's farking high time that decent people stopped waiting for the Law to catch the fark up and declared hunting season open on those monsters!
I'm sick of finding flyers in my mailbox warning me that another registered sex offender has moved into my neighborhood!
How about a flyer letting me know when one of them has been lynched?

"As far as I'm concerned, there ain't no excuse for the raping and the killing and the child abuse, and I got a way to put an end to all of that mess. You just take them rascals out in the swamp, you put 'em on their knees and tie 'em to a stump, let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest."
"Simple Man": Charlie Daniels

I'm sorry Recluse and others here calling for death and burning and crucifixion but that is not how society works. A recent thread was closed here just because someone said Spammers should Die.

We are a society of law, we must follow the law, apply it fairly and accurately as best we can to meet societies needs.

Ask yourselves What Would Atticus do?

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm sorry Recluse and others here calling for death and burning and crucifixion but that is not how society works. A recent thread was closed here just because someone said Spammers should Die.

We are a society of law, we must follow the law, apply it fairly and accurately as best we can to meet societies needs.

Ask yourselves What Would Atticus do?

So does that mean your offer to kick his butt is withdrawn?

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

We are a society of law, we must follow the law, apply it fairly and accurately as best we can to meet societies needs.

Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech should not be construed to mean freedom from responsibility. Presenting methodologies intended to 'reduce penalties when arrested for immoral actions' treads closely upon that very same immorality.

There isn't a society today that condones pedophilia for any reason or with any extenuating circumstance. Having 'how to' books on the subject, while legal in the broad sense of the word, is in the grossest bad taste.

Should we find ourselves defending the writers of such work on the grounds of free speech, perhaps we need to ask ourselves how we will feel when we discover that our 12 year old daughter's baseball coach has been shagging more than fly balls.

Stitchawl

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech should not be construed to mean freedom from responsibility. Presenting methodologies intended to 'reduce penalties when arrested for immoral actions' treads closely upon that very same immorality.

There isn't a society today that condones pedophilia for any reason or with any extenuating circumstance. Having 'how to' books on the subject, while legal in the broad sense of the word, is in the grossest bad taste.

Should we find ourselves defending the writers of such work on the grounds of free speech, perhaps we need to ask ourselves how we will feel when we discover that our 12 year old daughter's baseball coach has been shagging more than fly balls.

Stitchawl

No disagreement with that. But it is a slippery slope. Should books describing how to build bombs be outlawed? What about books on building nuclear devices or methods of assassinating political leaders? Again Homosexuality? Torture....

We must be a nation of Law.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

So does that mean your offer to kick his butt is withdrawn?

I think he probably needs his butt kicked as well as the publisher of the book but as Stitchcrawl says above it's more a matter of "what is right" than legality.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No disagreement with that. But it is a slippery slope. Should books describing how to build bombs be outlawed? What about books on building nuclear devices or methods of assassinating political leaders? Again Homosexuality? Torture....

We must be a nation of Law.

Bombs may be legally used by governments. They are not criminal.
Nuclear devices may by legally used by governments. They are not criminal.
Assassination is legally (if not immorally ) used by governments. It is not criminal.
Homosexuality is legal in most instances.
There are even some governments that condone torture.

There are none that condone pedophilia. There simply are none.

Advocating the breaking of a law is, in many instances, a crime. Accessory before the fact, conspiracy to commit a criminal act, and probably a host of others. These are crimes. Many crimes rate severe penalties. In my book, this crime rates the most severe penalty available.

Stitchawl

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by SneakySnake

Paedophilia is not socially acceptable. We all want them dead.

Do all paedophiles abuse children?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

..
There are none that condone pedophilia. There simply are none.
..

Stitchawl

Simply not true. Certainly the book/author mentioned does. Regardless of whether I or others agree or not.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Simply not true. Certainly the book/author mentioned does. Regardless of whether I or others agree or not.

I thought Stitchawl meant there are no laws that condone it, rather than no individuals.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I thought Stitchawl meant there are no laws that condone it, rather than no individuals.

Could be.

Don't want you guys to get idea that I'm in favor of this sort of thing. Just playing the devils advocate here...

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 - 19??), who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire with the title The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.
Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," [1] (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself), as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs in her biography on him.[2] Hall's quote is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by rogue_red

Okay, so I'm not normally all political/ranty but...

I cannot believe that Amazon has published an ebook called "A Pedophiles Guide to Love and Pleasure".
They (Amazonians) say that they don't support censorship blah blah but as a company with a financial interest in the sale of this book it smells more like a buck in heat than free speech.
Being the open minded 'I won't burn you at the stake til I've proven you're evil' kinda girl, I downloaded the freely available sample to be sure it wasn't a joke. I seriously wish I hadn't. Can kids go on Amazon with their kindles? Is there and age restriction to downloading free sample ebooks? I'd hate for some kid to read what Mr Greaves wrote.

Absolutely disgusting, who at Amazon thought that that would possibly be a good book to offer for sale.

There is a link at the bottom of the page you can click to "report this content as inappropriate". It looks like you have to click it from within the page or I'd post it here. I'd urge everyone to post a comment asking them to remove it.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Don't want you guys to get idea that I'm in favor of this sort of thing. Just playing the devils advocate here...

Kenny I agree with you that there is no reason the book shouldn't be written or offered for sale. I do however question the moral and ethical viewpoint of all parties concerned, from the author to the publisher to Amazon, in the production and sale of it. It seriously shakes my faith in society that at some point one of them didn't say "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it."

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

I thought Stitchawl meant there are no laws that condone it, rather than no individuals.

It was as Am says. There are no laws, no governments, nor any cultures that condone the actions of pedophiles.

But of course, even as I wrote I was thinking about the concept of censorship and how here I was being an advocate for censoring someone's writings. But damn it, there has to be some sort of line to which we can not cross and still consider ourselves moral individuals.

What makes a human being human? (Not speaking biologically here either.)
To me, to qualify as human, one must act in a humane fashion. If one doesn't act in a humane fashion, should one be protected by the laws of society? Or is that what society is all about; i.e. the protection of any and all, regardless of their actions. Personally, I don't think so! I think we have to qualify as humans before we can receive humanity's gift of society.

Stitchawl

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Absolutely disgusting, who at Amazon thought that that would possibly be a good book to offer for sale.

There is a link at the bottom of the page you can click to "report this content as inappropriate". It looks like you have to click it from within the page or I'd post it here. I'd urge everyone to post a comment asking them to remove it.

I too have used this button to report this title.
IMHO - free speech laws have to be interpreted rationally by adults to protect children (who can't protect themselves).