Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[eric11210]

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.

I still have a scar on my right hand where I was stabbed with a pencil by another kid when I was in third grade. He was aiming for my chest but I managed to side step and block him. Otherwise I might not be here now. What's really sad was that I went to a religious school and the rabbis did nothing about it.

Not that this has much to do with the discussion, but I thought I'd point out -- a pencil can definitely be used as a weapon.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

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

I deal them as I receive them. In other words, I react to your religious moralizing judgmental prejudice you have decided to try to disguise as open minded questions.

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.

Sheesh! Just because we're mostly religion free doesn't mean we don't have morals and ethics as you seem to imply. This is the third or fourth time you're more than implying that because we don't use old scripture as a moral guide, we must be showing porn to children.

It's one thing if you were just religious, it's a whole other ball game when you spew your venomous fantasies.

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

I know, I still don't think anyone gives a flying frock.

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.

Wow, and here I thought you would recognise a prejudiced, judgemental and completely unreasonable question that insinuates something that isn't real, thinly veiled as a question.

I even explained it to you in that post, yet you think it was a real question

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Isn't it normal for people with glasses to carry a screwdriver in their fix-it kit?

Never heard of it. The screws in our glasses stays in place normally.

Or construction workers, or civil/structural engineers?

So what. The law take that into consideration. Working tool is OK.

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!

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the law. The purpose is not to forbid everything that can be used as a weapon. The purpose was to forbid something that was actually use a lot as a weapon in fights. And from what I can see nothing else have replaced it so it seems like the law is working.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Isn't it normal for people with glasses to carry a screwdriver in their fix-it kit?

Yep. But you still can't bring them into the cabin of a commercial plane.

Or construction workers, or civil/structural engineers? Sounds like a sizable chunk of folks, just off the top of my head.

If one of these folks were carrying a screwdriver or wrench to and from work, there isn't a cop anywhere who would question it. If they were carrying them while attending a dinner party or while walking the dog at 11pm the cops might take a different stance. Time and place count.

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.

Which is why there are so many companies now selling 'Tactical Pens.'
'Benchmade,' 'Columbia River Knife and Tool,' 'Smith&Wesson,' 'Shrade,' 'Mil-Tac,' 'Tuff-Write,' etc, to name just a few. There are quite a few other companies making them as well. You can even get them in pink for the misses.

The TSA will stop them at security checks, call police who will then issue criminal summons to appear in court – under the state statute if they so apply – for carrying a concealed weapon.

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!).

Keys are good, as long as they are in your hand at the time when you need them.

The best weapon is forethought. And nobody is going to be able to ban that.


Stitchawl

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

... But you still can't bring them into the cabin of a commercial plane ...

Umbrellas are allowed though ... Wikipedia: Georgi Markov -> Murder

[nguirado]

This is the third or fourth time you're more than implying that because we don't use old scripture as a moral guide, we must be showing porn to children.

I think we agree that morality and ethics have something to do with human sexuality. I think we also agree that there's something wrong with children being exposed to implicit or explicit sexuality. The only difference I perceive is that the moral system you assume I use is vomit.

Oh, I don't think you have to be Victorian to know the difference between the way men perceive female breasts and women do men's breasts.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by penartur

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"?

Quite simply, you won't be searched for a knife UNLESS you are in a situation where a knife could be used to cause injury. Like the brawl, etc etc. And even then it will be a courtbof law that determines your intention. The only place you will find metal detectors in Australia is at the airports and police cannot search you randomly.

We were carrying knives yesterday. We didn't give it a thought. We were going fishing and walking through a crowded public area with police. Just as someone carrying a screwdriver for their glasses, a utility pocket knife etc. Unless you were drunk and threatening violence to someone. It is all about context and while some think it is nannyish, the law works fine. As it does in most countries.

Man boobs should be banned. Muscley chests are lovely.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Quite simply, you won't be searched for a knife UNLESS you are in a situation where a knife could be used to cause injury. Like the brawl, etc etc. The only place you will find metal detectors in Australia is at the airports and police cannot search you randomly.

You guys are one up on the USA. These days police in American CAN search randomly. No longer is there need for 'probable cause.'

We were carrying knives yesterday. We didn't give it a thought. We were going fishing and walking through a crowded public area with police.

I'm sure that even with the UK's ultra stringent knife carry laws, no police would stop someone with a fly rod and creel over their shoulder, looking for concealed knives, knowing full well that they might have them.

Stitchawl

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

I think we agree that morality and ethics have something to do with human sexuality. I think we also agree that there's something wrong with children being exposed to implicit or explicit sexuality.

Yes, but not your unsubstantiated insinuations you derive from something "hinted" at, nor that people living in a pretty thoroughly secular society must be showing porn to kids as you imply.

We don't agree on your insistance that anything that doesn't fit prudish religious viewpoints are bad for kids and/or adults, nor do we agree that sex education is about showing them how to put on a condom, and then the rest of the job consist of moralizing.

In fact, we don't even agree on what words mean. I had to explain and explain what "explicit" meant, and it is even impossible for me to make you understand how a question can be judgemental and prejudiced and have no basis in reality. Even with a very good example (in my mind), explained in detail why it was so, you failed to understand.

So, although, we might agree to some point, it's becoming evident that your religious morality code, basically boils down to "ooh, it's sexuality, we can't have our kids exposed to such filth. Oh, the horror! Let's try keep them from learning anything about their own sexuality and that of others. Sexuality is such a filthy thing!".

That is a Victorian mindset, that frankly should have died with her.

The only difference I perceive is that the moral system you assume I use is vomit.

Yes, I consider it venomous religious vomit when your "moral system" dictates you to accuse a whole people of showing porn to kids, and otherwise make unsubstantiated ignorant attacks based on religious drivel.

Oh, I don't think you have to be Victorian to know the difference between the way men perceive female breasts and women do men's breasts.

Er, here you go (please read it):

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

Originally Posted by Excerpt from Wikipedia

Victorian morality can describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, [ ... ] and a strict social code of conduct.

[nguirado]

You guys are one up on the USA. These days police in American CAN search randomly. No longer is there need for 'probable cause.'

I don't think this is true.

[nguirado]

So, although, we might agree to some point, it's becoming evident that your religious morality code, basically boils down to "ooh, it's sexuality, we can't have our kids exposed to such filt. Oh, the horror! Let's try keep them from learning anything about their own sexuality and that of others. Sexuality is such a filthy thing!".

...

Yes, I consider it venomous religious vomit when your "moral system" dictates you to accuse a whole people of showing porn to kids, and otherwise make unsubstantiated ignorant attacks based on religious drivel.

This is the complicated part. I assume when people say that it's OK to show sexual images to children, and criticize those who say that it's not the best idea, that you actually do show it to them. Even then, I didn't judge, but was just asking.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

This is the complicated part. I assume when people say that it's OK to show sexual images to children, and criticize those who say that it's not the best idea, that you actually do show it to them. Even then, I didn't judge, but was just asking.

I think I'll let this prejudiced, unsubstantiated judgemental assumptions based on a narrow-minded religious Victorian moral set stand as it is, because it is obvious you can't comprehend even the most basic of things, even when they're explained to you, and you continue along the intellectual dishonest path you began with.

No amount of explaining is apparently enough. You'd much rather make things up, as per my first paragraph in this post, and continue the drivel,

Oh, and just to be clear, you're making a full-on strawman argument, which is logical fallacy, apart from pure intellectual dishonesty. I'd ask you to look it up, but I know that's a lost cause.

[nguirado]

OK. Thanks. It was very interesting. I'll conclude that you think showing sexual movies to kids is bad and can't stand people who agree with you.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

OK. Thanks. It was very interesting. I'll conclude that you think showing sexual movies to kids is bad and can't stand people who agree with you.

[nguirado]