Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Couldn't that be countered by watching a few good religious films?

Like what, "Passion of Christ"?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I gave an opinion that children shouldn't watch sexual movies

What does a "sexual movie" mean?
Do you agree that children shouldn't watch "violence movies" (in the same sense as "sexual movies")?

you became upset

He became upset because you've attacked his country.
It's like saying a color person in USA "hey, i don't know how the black ones are teaching kids, but you're wrong".

[Andrew H.]

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.

A sex scene in which all you see are the woman's naked breasts (or the man naked from behind) are also "explicit" according to the dictionary definition:

5.
having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

Merriam-Webster.com has the same definition:

a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions>
b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>

Explicit films do not have to be "hard core" pornography. Clearly depicting sex (even without showing the parts), *or* having nudity is enough to make a film "explicit." All porn films are explicit; not all explicit films are porn films.

[nguirado]

I was not insulting the great country of Copenhagen . How would you have asked about the typical attitudes towards sex in Denmark? I also did not condemn anybody for showing their children sexual movies.

"Sexual" is an adjective. "Violence" is a noun. The counterpart to "sexual" is "violent." The counterpart to "violence" is "sexuality" or just "sex." So, your attempt to insult was inneffective.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Quite simply you would not be arrested in most contexts for simply having a knife on you. But if you were in the midst of a fight, and you were arrested as a result and found to have a knife on you, then you would be charged with having an offensive weapon. Just as you would be charged if you carried a screwdriver.

In the situation for most people, they might carry a knife and be no worse off for it. Get yourself arrested for anything, then you would be searched and that is when the charges will occur.

So is that feature explicitly documented, like "Carrying a knife is considered to be a crime only in case knife owner was arrested because of a fight"?
Or is it something like "good judge will judge not by the letter but by the spirit of law, and hence won't sentence lawful citizen for carrying a knife... probably"?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by tompe

In Sweden a screwdriver fall under the same law.

And what about a pencil? It is not that different from a screwdriver, you know.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

A sex scene in which all you see are the woman's naked breasts (or the man naked from behind) are also "explicit" according to the dictionary definition:

And what about man's naked breasts?

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by penartur

And what about man's naked breasts?

I don't think men's breasts are seen as sexual objects as much as women's breasts so covering them up wouldn't really serve the same purpose. If we can either desexualize women's breasts or sexualize men's breasts so that they're seen identically, then I think we can treat their bareness equally.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

A sex scene in which all you see are the woman's naked breasts (or the man naked from behind) are also "explicit" according to the dictionary definition:

Yes, full nudity is indeed "explicit". But it is "explicit nudity", not "explicit sex".

Just like me saying that George W. Bush is an moron is an explicit statement

Merriam-Webster.com has the same definition:

See above.

Explicit films do not have to be "hard core" pornography. Clearly depicting sex (even without showing the parts), *or* having nudity is enough to make a film "explicit." All porn films are explicit; not all explicit films are porn films.

No, because the word "explicit" has to be viewed in context with the word it adheres to. A film with explicit nudity doesn't make it a hardcore porn, because it doesn't have explicit sex in it.

Sheesh, I can't believe I have to explain the differences, considering I live in Denmark and Danish is my first language.

Originally Posted by nguirado

I don't think men's breasts are seen as sexual objects as much as women's breasts so covering them up wouldn't really serve the same purpose. If we can either desexualize women's breasts or sexualize men's breasts so that they're seen identically, then I think we can treat their bareness equally.

Sounds a bit too Victorian for my taste.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by AGB

...
Sheesh, I can't believe I have to explain the differences, considering I live in Denmark and Danish is my first language ...

I admire people who have the courage to try to express themselves in a language that is not their mother tongue. English is a complex language, full of many subtleties. For example, I find your references to vomit, at best, inappropriate. Perhaps what you are trying to allude to is the pouring, or spewing forth, of ideas. In the context of promulgating religious views, I think that pouring would be the least offensive choice. Perhaps you were trying to be purposefully insulting.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I was not insulting the great country of Copenhagen . How would you have asked about the typical attitudes towards sex in Denmark? I also did not condemn anybody for showing their children sexual movies.

It was your thinly veiled judgment based on nothing but guesswork and seemingly religiously founded moral vomit.

"Sexual" is an adjective. "Violence" is a noun. The counterpart to "sexual" is "violent." The counterpart to "violence" is "sexuality" or just "sex." So, your attempt to insult was inneffective.

Who gives a flying f[rog]?

You're thinking that by putting things as a question somehow makes it free of judgment and prejudice:

Have you hit your wife or girlfriend in the last couple of months, nguirado?

You know, it's just a question. And since I was only "interested" in the last couple of months, I just thought I'd narrow the period down.

-------


Hopefully the above will examplify to you just how prejudiced and judgemental a question can be.

Obviously, it's just an example.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by penartur

And what about a pencil? It is not that different from a screwdriver, you know.

It is different since it is normal to carry a pencil and I have not yet heard any example of cases were a pencil was uses as a weapon in a fight but using a screwdriver or a sharpened tool is common.

Also showing off your pencil to impress your friends sound a bit silly.

[nguirado]

It was your thinly veiled judgment based on nothing but guesswork and seemingly religiously founded moral vomit.

That's not very nice. You may not be religious, but you're sure judgmental.

I don't know why you claim not to be stained by the moral vomit of religion and then get offended when I ask whether that means Danish children are more knowledgable about sex, one of the benefits of living in a vomit-free environment and thus being able to see more sexual movies.

Who gives a flying f[rog]?

I was correcting the writer of the previous post. It didn't have anything to do with you.

Have you hit your wife or girlfriend in the last couple of months, nguirado?

No. Why would you think so? I didn't say that I liked movies with wife-beatings or thought wife-beating was better than sexual movies.

[elcreative]

Actually, I know of at least one case where someone was seriously injured by a sharpened pencil, requiring reconstructive surgery as a result... if it is sharp/pointed, it can cause an injury but life would sure be difficult if we banned all sharp/pointed things...

Originally Posted by tompe

It is different since it is normal to carry a pencil and I have not yet heard any example of cases were a pencil was uses as a weapon in a fight but using a screwdriver or a sharpened tool is common.

Also showing off your pencil to impress your friends sound a bit silly.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is different since it is normal to carry a pencil and I have not yet heard any example of cases were a pencil was uses as a weapon in a fight but using a screwdriver or a sharpened tool is common.

Also showing off your pencil to impress your friends sound a bit silly.

Isn't it normal for people with glasses to carry a screwdriver in their fix-it kit? Or construction workers, or civil/structural engineers? Sounds like a sizable chunk of folks, just off the top of my head. Besides, a nice pen would do very nicely as a slender, pointy, weapon in a bar fight. More so than a broken bottle or glass would, at least. Those take time to break and wield, and never survive first impact, whether you score a fight ending injury or not.

But how about keys? You can do some major damage with those stuck between your digits, as a kind of poor man's brass knuckles (with points!). Should we outlaw keys and go fully biometric because they can be used for nefarious purposes? ANYTHING can be used as a weapon! We should ban everything except for water wings... Except a baby might suffocate under one if they can't lift it off of themselves after they knocked it over crawling. I guess we better ban those as well!