Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by AGB

It's not even about being "totally naked".

A BJ where you actually see the thing in the mouth going back and forth would be explicit, a girl on a girl, with her skirt lifted where you see her tongue doing the other girl (and you see the parts) would be explicit, even if they were otherwise dressed.

Well, I think that is as explicit as I'm going to go in this general forum.

But, anyway, use the dictionary. I have copy/pasted some for you, but you can use any other dictionary if you so wish.

Thank you. I always learn something here.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Thank you. I always learn something here.

Well done, for being so gracious about it.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Thank you. I always learn something here.

No problem, Nguirado

Sorry for coming across as telling you off

[nguirado]

No problem.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

9 1/2 Weeks

If the following wiki entry is accurate then no, I would not permit young children to view this movie. I prefer to teach them to treat women with honor, respect, and tender compassion.

The film is now well known for its erotic sadomasochistic content.

The film details a sexual downward spiral as John pushes Elizabeth's boundaries toward her eventual emotional breakdown. He often manipulates her into getting what he wants during sex and sometimes abuses her.

[nguirado]

Movies and books can be very powerful, especially with children. I think exposure to such material during their formative years may lead them to think or consider things they otherwise wouldn't. It might make immoral behavior seem more attractive or give the impression that it's acceptable or normal.

Now, if you have a different sense of morality, then you might think that the movies are good for the very same reason. You might find that it aids in vanishing any sense of traditional morality.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Fbone

If the following wiki entry is accurate then no, I would not permit young children to view this movie. I prefer to teach them to treat women with honor, respect, and tender compassion.

Fine, but it wasn't a question about whether, or not, young children should be allowed to watch 9 1/2 Weeks. Rather, the choice for children was Gladiator or 9 1/2 Weeks. I have seen both films.

In my moral code, of what's right and wrong, killing is more wrong than erotic sadomasochism, mental manipulation or abuse.

Adults may be able to distinguish between what is right and wrong, between what is make believe and what is real, but I think that children need guidance.

I believe that children learn from films, and showing them a film about killing would be more damaging than a film about sex (which young children probably wouldn't understand anyway). Whereas, a film that contains graphic violence, including killing, such as Gladiator would be frightening for small children to see, and send confusing signals about what is right and wrong, to older children.

There was a case in the UK, in 1993, in which some children killed another child. I would not want my children to think that killing was right, whether it's make believe, or real. Wikipedia: Bulger killers

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by tompe

We Have a similar law in Sweden and pocket knifes (or small knifes) are usually accepted but it depends a bit on circumstance and how you behave.



No, that is not the reason. The reason is a statistical argument and the fact that it is extremey hard to predict how people will behave and especiall with alcohol involved. And other people can get access to you knife also.



In Sweden a screwdriver fall under the same law. It all depend on circumstances if it will be confiscated or not.

Exactly.

Kindly back off the nanny talk about Australia. We are in line with many countries..

[LaurieGator]

Does reading 833 posts in this thread count as one of my 100 books for 2011? LOL!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by LaurieGator

Does reading 833 posts in this thread count as one of my 100 books for 2011? LOL!

No because there is no consistent storyline and chapters are repeated.

[nguirado]

Boxcorner:

I'm going to agree with you that kids shown violence cn be very bad. I would never show things like Rob Zombie, Kill Bill, or other nihilistic violence. Horror and gory things can upset children as well. Things that glorify criminal violence like the act you mentioned are abhorrent.

I don't mind violence when it's presented in a moral context like some war movies or even Star Wars. I think total aversion to violence, even properly applied, can be bad as well.

I will present this as just my opinion so as to avoid rancor.

[boxcorner]

[QUOTE=Worldwalker;1307587]
Post #807
... And, given their treatment of the aborigines, the place with no grounds to tell the rest of the world what is right and what is wrong .../QUOTE]

The idiom, "The pot calling the kettle black", springs to mind.

Originally Posted by nguirado

Post #836
... I don't mind violence when it's presented in a moral context like some war movies ...

But whose morals? Besides which, our perception of what is moral, changes with time.

I used to enjoy watching Cowboy and Indian films when I was a kid, but as I grew up I began to question established moral codes and values. Some Native Americans might not agree with the "moral context" of some some Cowboy and Indian films.

Similarly, some Germans or Japanese might not agree with the "moral context" as portrayed in of some films about WWII. For example, in the film Letters from Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood reminded us that both sides had a set of moral codes, albeit quite different.

During WWII, the blanket bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, in Germany, which killed approximately 72,700 people, was considered justifiable, but some people have questioned the morality of this wartime policy. So, moral values change with time and context.

Many people in the West have expressed moral outrage concerning amputations carried out under Sharia Islamic law, and the US is always quick to criticise Iran in that respect, however some people have questioned the morality of Saudi Arabia remaining a little criticised ally of the US (a key US ally during the Gulf War). Amnesty International estimates that ninety official amputations were carried out in Saudi Arabia between 1981 and 1999.

Some people consider capital punishment for any crime, including the worse cases of paedophilia, to be immoral. "The death penalty has now been abolished in over half the countries of the world, but is still retained in seventy or so. According to Amnesty International, during 2003 at least 2,148 people were executed in twenty-two countries, including fifty-three children, and at least 5,186 people were sentenced to death in fifty-three countries. Most executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US. The last British hangings were in 1964." The A-Z of Punishment and Torture. So, moral standards also vary from country-to-country.

Originally Posted by nguirado

I think total aversion to violence, even properly applied, can be bad as well.

I consider myself fortunate to have, thus far, lived in parts of the world where I have been able to live peacefully with my family, avoiding violence and war. That's how I would prefer it to continue, so in that sense, I am averse to violence.

Originally Posted by nguirado

... to avoid rancor.

There's absolutely none on my side, I can assure you.

[nguirado]

Many people think many things. I can defend the morality I think is correct. Other people can defend theirs. I'm glad my ancestors fought for theirs at various times in history.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Many people think many things. I can defend the morality I think is correct. Other people can defend theirs. I'm glad my ancestors fought for theirs at various times in history.

Claiming that something is bad for a child is not a moral but a statement of how the world works. On the other hand you said that it was just your opinion so it can be seen as something you just made up so it is not a trong statement about how the reality works. It is a kind of meaningless statement.

[nguirado]

Tompe, I was addressing the complication that comes about from people having different point of view. It's not a problem for me that people have different points of view. Fortunately, I live in a democracy where we can settle these things without violence.

I will pursue those strategies that increase the chances that my children have what I think are correct values. I don't condemn the strategies that you use with your children because I don't really feel like putting people down. I don't think it would be effective anyways: There are things that are bad in themselves, most of which we wouldn't agree upon, I suspect. Some of these things and others may also lead to bad things in themselves, like the effect movies have on violence and the rate of STDs. We would probably agree on the bad effects.

I think a sophisticated person sees that sex and violence can be good or bad depending on the context, with the difference that violence is, according to my values, never the preferred method of pursuasion or recreation (that is, harming people for fun. I guess we can exclude some sports). There are times when it's immoral for the average person to choose pacifism, like failing to protect an old lady or fight evil.

So, while you may (I don't know) think violence bad in itself, I'm mostly concerned about its effects (criminal versus crime-fighting, etc.).

While I might see unmarried teens having sex as a bad thing in itself, you might be concerned about STDs or pregnancy.

I'm just explaining my point of view. I think it's correct, but if you don't have the same starting assumptions as me, then we can never agree on some things.

Thanks for engaging.