Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes, really. Your statement is a blatant attempt at misdirection.

It is?

[Penforhire]

Yes, the first amendment seems clear to me, as does its value. The whole point is what you hold sacred someone else wants to repress or tear down. We need to defend it, no matter how distasteful the subject matter.

[mjhudston]

I just wonder how far you will be willing to let your liberties to be eroded before you act to protect them. We have a saying in the UK and it's "The thin edge of the wedge."

[kennyc]

Yep the Creationists continue to use the wedge approach...

Also any time this sort of thing comes up I'm reminded of:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep the Creationists continue to use the wedge approach...

Also any time this sort of thing comes up I'm reminded of:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Could we not run afoul of Godwin's law, please?

Besides, Hitler liked sugar.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Could we not run afoul of Godwin's law, please?

Besides, Hitler liked sugar.

This statement is irrelevant and distracting of the topic at hand. My point stands and my post is absolutely appropriate to the discussion under way.

Do you have anything relevant to add? Or are you just sniping?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Could we not run afoul of Godwin's law, please?

Besides, Hitler liked sugar.

First of all, the quote he used is dead on: if we don't protect the fringe things when an attempt is made to erode the freedom of citizens, then why should any other be protected.

I can't think of a better quote.

Secondly, Godwin's "law" is more of a rule, that states that whenever Hitler is mentioned in the debate, the debate is lost. However, that is a truth with quite a lot of moderation, but it seems like some people are using it to prove something in itself, because it's much easier to default to the knee-jerk reaction that "you can't talk of Hitler or mention him in any context!! If you do, you run foul of Godwin's law," as if it was a logical fallacy in it's own right or something.

Again, if we don't protect the rights of people we disagree with, who's there to protect my rights when MY opinion is disagreed upon?

Yeah, that's right. Noone. Because first they came for ...

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This statement is irrelevant and distracting of the topic at hand. My point stands and my post is absolutely appropriate to the discussion under way.

Do you have anything relevant to add? Or are you just sniping?

Wow, way to shoot your own troops. I'm pretty much on your side. I just don't think dragging out those wacky Nazis yet again adds to the conversation. I think that those who want to ban the book are hard put to generate a valid, universal legal principle which will ban this book and not ban other books/media that are currently not considered bannable.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by AGB

First of all, the quote he used is dead on: if we don't protect the fringe things when an attempt is made to erode the freedom of citizens, then why should any other be protected.

I can't think of a better quote.
[SNIP]

Again, if we don't protect the rights of people we disagree with, who's there to protect my rights when MY opinion is disagreed upon?

Yeah, that's right. Noone. Because first they came for ...

Yes, let's complete that: "First they came for the paedophiles." Is that how the quote should begin? I don't think the government should be in the business of banning books. Period. Full stop. But that quote is over the top and presents strictly formal problems when applying it to this case. Unless we are talking about WWII, I just don't think we should be mentioning Nazis on the Internet. It's old. It contributes little to the debate. It displays an impoverishment of the imagination and of the historical consciousness. Why not Revolutionary Way analogies? Why not Wilhelm Reich analogies?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Yes, let's complete that: "First they came for the paedophiles." Is that how the quote should begin? I don't think the government should be in the business of banning books. Period. Full stop. But that quote is over the top and presents strictly formal problems when applying it to this case. Unless we are talking about WWII, I just don't think we should be mentioning Nazis on the Internet. It's old. It contributes little to the debate. It displays an impoverishment of the imagination and of the historical consciousness. Why not Revolutionary Way analogies? Why not Wilhelm Reich analogies?

Yes, why not. If you can find analogies from Revolutionary Way, find analogies from Wilhelm Reich, be my guest.

I'm amazed that this time, you want talk of the Nazi regime to only be historical. Speaking of thought police

If anything, that analogy is even better now, after your last post. Thank you so much. So here is my version:

First they came for the people that had "immora"l thoughts, but I applauded that, because I agreed.

Then they came for people talking about Nazis, and I applauded that, because I don't like Hitler's name.

Then they came for ...

Edit:

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Yes, let's complete that: "First they came for the paedophiles." Is that how the quote should begin?

No. This is yet another strawman in this thread: I am not, and neither is anyone else, standing up for the right to be paedophile, we're standing up for the right to have those thoughts. And there's a huge difference between that, and when you pretend it should begin "First they came for paedophiles". You seriously need to stop stuffing an opinion like that down the throats of others.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Yes, let's complete that: "First they came for the paedophiles." Is that how the quote should begin? I don't think the government should be in the business of banning books. Period. Full stop. But that quote is over the top and presents strictly formal problems when applying it to this case. Unless we are talking about WWII, I just don't think we should be mentioning Nazis on the Internet. It's old. It contributes little to the debate. It displays an impoverishment of the imagination and of the historical consciousness. Why not Revolutionary Way analogies? Why not Wilhelm Reich analogies?

You are wrong. The quote perfectly applies and you are reacting to it in the same manner as some are reacting to the book under discussion. Not only does the quote not even mention Hitler or the Nazi's (you did) but it applies exactly as an analogy to this "banning" free speech talk.

As I said if you have something to add rather than just sniping, please do.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yes, why not. If you can find analogies from Revolutionary Way, find analogies from Wilhelm Reich, be my guest.

I'm amazed that this time, you want talk of the Nazi regime to only be historical. Speaking of thought police

If anything, that analogy is even better now, after your last post. Thank you so much. So here is my version:

First they came for the people that had "immora"l thoughts, but I applauded that, because I agreed.

Then they came for people talking about Nazis, and I applauded that, because I don't like Hitler's name.

Then they came for ...

Edit:


No. This is yet another strawman in this thread: I am not, and neither is anyone else, standing up for the right to be paedophile, we're standing up for the right to have those thoughts. And there's a huge difference between that, and when you pretend it should begin "First they came for paedophiles". You seriously need to stop stuffing an opinion like that down the throats of others.

Umm... This is a discussion on an internet forum. Stating my opinion about what I find boring, distasteful, or tiresome is not a "thought police" tactic nor is it cramming my opinions down the throat of others. I see two problems here: a.) an over identification of real life with the internet, so that stating that one ought not to mention something for aesthetic or intellectual reasons becomes tantamount with advocating censorship and b.) a transference (which you correctly noted that the other side was making) between the word and the deed. Stating my opinion that talking about Nazis adds little to the discussion (which, frankly, has not advanced since Worldwalker's excellent contribution) is not advocating censorship in any meaningful sense of the phrase. It is a critical and aesthetic judgement. People are free to disagree with me, ignore me, whatever. I think the gross intolerance you and Kenny C are showing towards someone who is in fundamental agreement with your political stance on this issue, and over a mere tactical criticism at that, is more fitting to our opponents than to the defenders of free speech.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are wrong. The quote perfectly applies and you are reacting to it in the same manner as some are reacting to the book under discussion. Not only does the quote not even mention Hitler or the Nazi's (you did) but it applies exactly as an analogy to this "banning" free speech talk.

As I said if you have something to add rather than just sniping, please do.

The quote is a criticism of inaction during the Nazi persecutions of various groups. To argue that it does not count as mentioning the Nazis is not honest. I have contributed to the thread; check my earlier posts.

[kennyc]

Well all I can say is that your behavior in this instance is no different than those who are objecting to the topic at hand. .....

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by AGB

I am not, and neither is anyone else, standing up for the right to be paedophile, we're standing up for the right to have those thoughts.

But a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. The definition is not limited solely to acting out on those attractions. If an adult has a sexual attraction to children and/or has sexual thoughts about children, then that person is, by definition, a pedophile.

In addition, there are plenty of adults arrested on a daily basis even though they have not actually touched a child. There are numerous undercover law enforcement personnel out there to trap and arrest child predators before they've gotten even close to a child. I realize that this isn't quite the same thing as we are discussing here, but I do think it shows that this discussion of pedophilia and free speech is not as cut-and-dried as some would like to think.