Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by 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. .....

If I have offended, I apologize. Although, again, I am not saying that speech or writing about the Nazis (outside of a historical context) ought to banned. I simply think that, as a matter of style and as a means of keeping the intellect and imagination sharp, it is better to avoid it. But again, I apologize for any offense or annoyance that I have caused.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

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.

But is that feeling of attraction, as disgusting as it is, a crime? I come from a Muslim background and Islamic law, as bad a reputation as it has in the West, doesn't permit arresting people for thinking or feeling certain things (although expression of certain thoughts, verbal or physical, would be a sin).
Should western, secular governments really put themselves in the business of outlawing and punishing certain thoughts and desires? That sounds more like an inquisition then a system of 'ordered liberty' as envisaged by the architects of the Enlightenment.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

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.

All those words to basically describe how you feel that, A) it's on the internet, so the validity of your argument doesn't matter, and B) It's okay to argue just like the people trying to shut down this book, because this is the intarwebs, and because of that, your "requests" should just be taken at face value, not be questioned, and can't possible be thought of as, well, thought policing.

I get it now. You don't want to have any reference to Holocaust or any other such things, because you for some reason don't like that, unless it's in a thread about WWII. Other than that, your arguments can't possible be the same as the people trying to ban the author's thought, because you put them on the internet.

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

But is that feeling of attraction, as disgusting as it is, a crime? I come from a Muslim background and Islamic law, as bad a reputation as it has in the West, doesn't permit arresting people for thinking or feeling certain things (although expression of certain thoughts, verbal or physical, would be a sin).
Should western, secular governments really put themselves in the business of outlawing and punishing certain thoughts and desires? That sounds more like an inquisition then a system of 'ordered liberty' as envisaged by the architects of the Enlightenment.

No, it's not a crime (that I know of, anyway), and I wasn't meaning to imply that it is. But it does, according to everything I've read, mean that a person having those feelings is by definition a pedophile.

[Fbone]

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

First time I heard of this speech.

Who are the "they" that come for others?

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Fbone

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

First time I heard of this speech.

Who are the "they" that come for others?

Whatever you want it to be: The majority, a government, a regime, the people in power.

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

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.

Personally, while I understand the reasoning for these activities, I find it a bit distasteful and wonder how the police get away with it without being accused of entrapment when they do this.

And you are correct about the definition of a paedophile. My own opinion (which I know most people don't share, but having struggled mightily growing up as an Orthodox Jew who happened to also be gay -- I gave up being orthodox in the end--) is that I have nothing but sympathy for the paedophile who fights his or her desires every day and does what they have to do to make sure they never harm a child. I know how hard it was for me being gay and having that in conflict with everything I was brought up to believe. And I thank God every day (ironic, I know) that I was able to leave that world and find one which accepts me as I am (I now proudly consider myself a Reform Jew).

At the same time, I believe that those who act on their desires deserve to be locked away for the rest of their lives for having destroyed a child's life.

Eric

[eric11210]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

No, it's not a crime (that I know of, anyway), and I wasn't meaning to imply that it is. But it does, according to everything I've read, mean that a person having those feelings is by definition a pedophile.

Yes, but the same people who wish to ban this book also wish to make it a crime to have these thoughts. Also, of interest is the fact that in Britain (from what I understand having read about it on some photography forums where a photographer complained about being hassled for taking pictures at a ski resort -- not only were the children mixed with adults, but they were so bundled up that you couldn't make out anything at all), simply having photos of children (fully clothed children doing normal childhood things) is a crime if you also happen to profess to be a paedophile. Thought police indeed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

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.

And those arrests are made based on the ACTIONS of the person arrested. They actually make an attempt to commit a crime. Just like the guy in Seattle that was entrapped and "intended" to blow up a van at the Christmas celebration.

Not that I agree with that kind of entrapment either but it is very different to ACT on beliefs than to have them or to speak freely of them.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

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.

Wow, that's just like in that "The Minority Report" movie.
Do you have precogs in USA? Can you please share some with us?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Although, again, I am not saying that speech or writing about the Nazis (outside of a historical context) ought to banned. I simply think that, as a matter of style and as a means of keeping the intellect and imagination sharp, it is better to avoid it.

So one should not post a quote relevant to the topic of thread if it has something to do with Nazis?
You remind me of a certain South Park episode. That's where Chef demanded to ban a flag depicting a lynch, thus giving children a knowledge about the lynch. Really, nobody thought about Nazis and Hitler until you "enlightened" us. The point of quote is not in its link with Nazis or Hitler; you should really actively hate them to fight with them even there.

my opinion that talking about Nazis adds little to the discussion

Yes, talking about Nazis (that's what you do) adds little to the discussion. Posting a completely relevant quote "First they came..." adds a lot (because some people there still don't understand that if they will allow censorship in such an obvious case, the censorship (now absent) will establish and god knows what will be banned next).

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by AGB

Whatever you want it to be: The majority, a government, a regime, the people in power.

Then it refers to those who create and uphold the law.

Thank you.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JLeighs

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.

Thought police? ...how quaint.

"Up against the wall, people. The State knows what you're thinking. The State must be cleansed."

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Then it refers to those who create and uphold the law.

Of course - it refers e.g. to Bush, and Bush created the Patriot Act.
And what if i will create and uphold a law that states that all people who used "tubemonkey" as their nick anywhere should be put in jail?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by penartur

Of course - it refers e.g. to Bush, and Bush created the Patriot Act.
And what if i will create and uphold a law that states that all people who used "tubemonkey" as their nick anywhere should be put in jail?

...OMG, you said my name in the same paragraph you said Bush. I feel dirty; I must be cleansed.