Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

Ha ha! What the hell are you smacking your head for? I already explained you're using strawman arguments, and you freshly decides to do another version of it, hence my face palm.

What about you started reading what is written without you purposely misrepresenting what is said and stop trying to make reality fit into your religious moralizing outlook?

Perhaps it would be a better idea to try to actually grasp some ideas and concepts, rather than cloaking your prejudices as ill-fathomed questions that at the very core has numerous logical fallacies and very creative interpretation of words and terms - so creative that they can basically mean anything.

Hmm, yes, that might actually be an idea: Learn how to use a dictionary, read some history books, some philosophy, some hardcore science (physics, maths, biology etc.), and then, at least try be intellectually honest when you try to argue your point.

Oh, and while you're at it, why not also try to ask real questions, instead of rhetorical ones, designed to throw out your moral judgement and prejudice?

Surely you must be interested in that, considering how many "questions" you ask.

[penartur]

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.

I heard there is a gender equality in USA.

[nguirado]

OK. I'll read up. Thanks

[penartur]

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.

I'd say how one can kill another with a pencil, but i fear that some Utah sheriff will sue me for such a post.

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

Just as showing off your screwdriver.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by penartur

I heard there is a gender equality in USA.

In most places, it's not OK for women to show their breasts while it's OK for men to do so. It's based on an actual difference between the sexes.

[penartur]

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. 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.

Okay, let's ban all books and writings at all. We can just accept the law which states "writing anything is illegal, publishing anything is illegal, reading anything is illegal". Of course, nobody will check you as long as you don't rape children. Of course, even if the police will check you, there will be a justice in the court, and you will be released. How about such a law?

[penartur]

Originally Posted by nguirado

In most places, it's not OK for women to show their breasts while it's OK for men to do so. It's based on an actual difference between the sexes.

Is there any actual difference? They say that if some man will drink a lot of beer, he will have a woman's breasts?
Besides this, i heard there is some popular movement for making the gender equality complete, by allowing women to show off their naked chest just like it is allowed for men. And aren't they allowed to breastfeed their children now?

[penartur]

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.

There are sexual movies and sexual movies. In some movies, there is a woman's breast shown for a second because of a plot; and some other movies are a hardcore porn.
There is a lot of things between "you cannot show TTT to kids" and "you only show TTT to kids". Some people are selecting movies for their children not only by amount of naked breasts there.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by nguirado

In most places, it's not OK for women to show their breasts while it's OK for men to do so. It's based on an actual difference between the sexes.

The same nonsense can be said on basically anything where men and women are treated differently to men (i.e discriminatorily):

Equal pay: No, it's based on actual differences between the sexes (i.e. the women usually get pregnant etc.)

Clothing: Women has to wear a burka, show no ankle, no bare skin etc.

Behaviour: Women should stay at home and take care of the kids, while the men go to work.

Looks: Men should grow a beard, women should have long hair.

In essence, what you're arguing is that men and kids aren't able to handle looking at a pair of breasts, not even when feeding a child.
Poor men and kids having such sinful thoughts.

Seriously, it seems to me that it is pure projection from people who fear their own sexuality.

[nguirado]

Maybe you guys are too smart for me.

For example, I used to think that a "straw man" argument is when one argues against a position he himself constructs. It turns out that a straw man is when one states his position, somebody picks up on its logical implication and asks him to clarify, the first person doesn't like the logical implication, and the first person gets mad. Rather than clarify, you insult me, IRONICALLY using stereotypes of Sarah Palin and religious people you heard from who knows where, almost as if you were arguing against a straw man.

It's like you wanted to insult people who think that children, generally, should be protected from graphic sexual images, while agreeing with the very common-sensical notion that children shouldn't be shown graphic sexual images so that you wouldn't be thought immoral. Which is it? Do you think it's OK for children to see graphic sexual images or not? If not, why not? If you think it's OK, then fine. They're your kids. Is it somewhere inbetween? Maybe some sex in movies is good, some bad. Whatever. Just say so. I did. You let your hatred or disdain of religion overwhelm your sense.

Now, do you have indecency laws in your countries? If so, what purpose do they serve? (Am I constructing another straw man by asking?).

In the United States, we have them because it's distracting in some way to have naked people in the street. It's OK to have naked dogs because people don't generally find them sexually attractive. It's OK here to have men with bare chests because it's not distracting in the same way. It's not OK in our society to have men's penises exposed. American men find women's breasts sexually distracting. In other words, the law serves a purpose and if in fulfilling that purpose, things aren't exactly the same between men and women, then that's the way it goes. Your desire for a complete equality, even in the superficial, actually overwhelms the purpose of the law.

Now, in some parts of the world, women do expose their breasts in public and it's not a big deal, I guess. Maybe one day, American men won't be fazed by the distaff breast. Until then, most places have this law. One thing is certain: if women wanted this law repealed, it would happen the next day.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by penartur

Okay, let's ban all books and writings at all. We can just accept the law which states "writing anything is illegal, publishing anything is illegal, reading anything is illegal". Of course, nobody will check you as long as you don't rape children. Of course, even if the police will check you, there will be a justice in the court, and you will be released. How about such a law?

Hmm, where did that segue come from.

[AGB]

And there you go again

I suggest you reread my very first posts and your replies to them. Maybe, just maybe you will see why you're actually misrepresenting what I say, all in order to suit your latest assumption and argument. Maybe then you will see where the strawman is buried.

I think I'm done with you for tonight, as you continue with your line of (rhetorical) questioning, without having the very basis in place.

Again, go reread my posts and your responses. And try to do it intellectually honest.

[AGB]

Come to think of it, it seems like your strategy is that if someone can't answer as fulfilling as you want them to (even with your redefinition of terms and misrepresentation) then your beliefs hidden behind the rhetoric is therefore proven in your mind.

I'd like to hear some real arguments from you, instead of all the rhetoric. And a good starting point would be if you reread the entire discussion you and I have had.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

.....
Now, in some parts of the world, women do expose their breasts in public and it's not a big deal, I guess. Maybe one day, American men won't be fazed by the distaff breast. Until then, most places have this law. One thing is certain: if women wanted this law repealed, it would happen the next day.

While this whole subthread has taken a decidedly weird turn. What in the world does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

So the reason we have "cover your breasts" laws is because men can't control themselves? You really believe that? And you also believe that the women could change the law by themselves.

This is getting way too weird for even me I think...

Do you also believe in Burkas?

[AGB]

Oh, screw it, here you go:

Originally Posted by nguirado

Maybe you guys are too smart for me.

For example, I used to think that a "straw man" argument is when one argues against a position he himself constructs. It turns out that a straw man is when one states his position, somebody picks up on its logical implication and asks him to clarify, the first person doesn't like the logical implication, and the first person gets mad.

What you just did there is a strawman in itself. For further information see my posts above.

Rather than clarify, you insult me, IRONICALLY using stereotypes of Sarah Palin and religious people you heard from who knows where, almost as if you were arguing against a straw man.

LOL, using irony is in itself not a strawman, and likening discussing with you to having a discussion with Sarah Palin was because she too will define words as she well damn please, thinking she's an intellectual.

Further, I wasn't ironic at all when I used religious "stereotypes" as you put it: Your religious beliefs was so evident that it had to be mentioned, even if you at first hadn't mentioned it. That it turned out to be true, doesn't make it a strawman.

It's quite telling that first you come with a definition of a strawman argument, then you make one yourself, and then emphasize it with likening useage of irony to a strawman. It's as if you had actually done a bit of research on Wikipedia, but hadn't quite grasped the idea.

It's like you wanted to insult people who think that children, generally, should be protected from graphic sexual images, while agreeing with the very common-sensical notion that children shouldn't be shown graphic sexual images so that you wouldn't be thought immoral. Which is it? Do you think it's OK for children to see graphic sexual images or not? If not, why not? If you think it's OK, then fine. They're your kids. Is it somewhere inbetween? Maybe some sex in movies is good, some bad. Whatever. Just say so. I did. You let your hatred or disdain of religion overwhelm your sense.

And there we go: All the things I have accused you of doing, all rolled up in a single paragraph. Every single one of them. It's amazing to behold to be honest.

Now, do you have indecency laws in your countries? If so, what purpose do they serve? (Am I constructing another straw man by asking?).

Before answering that question that is based on the conclusions you have thought up in the previous paragraphs, we have to look at the premises that lay the groundwork for that conclusion and thus your question. If not, you will conclude something on my answer, based on your invalid premises, and because of that, it's not worth answering untill you understand why your premises are utterly invalid.

In the United States, we have them because it's distracting in some way to have naked people in the street. It's OK to have naked dogs because people don't generally find them sexually attractive. It's OK here to have men with bare chests because it's not distracting in the same way. It's not OK in our society to have men's penises exposed. American men find women's breasts sexually distracting. In other words, the law serves a purpose and if in fulfilling that purpose, things aren't exactly the same between men and women, then that's the way it goes. Your desire for a complete equality, even in the superficial, actually overwhelms the purpose of the law.

See above, and try to focus instead of jumping from one assumption to the next ad nauseum.

Now, in some parts of the world, women do expose their breasts in public and it's not a big deal, I guess. Maybe one day, American men won't be fazed by the distaff breast. Until then, most places have this law. One thing is certain: if women wanted this law repealed, it would happen the next day.

Sure it would. But in the real world, lobbyists have quite a lot to say when it comes to law making. Not least in the US. And not least religious prudes who thinks sexuality is filthy and that kids should be kept in the dark about everything and anything that is natural.