Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Breastfeeding and changing nappies in public is not a problem in Europe. My wife used to breastfeed our children that way. While waiting at Limoges airport for a plane that had been delayed by snow recently, a woman who was unknown to me and sat on the bench next to me, changed her baby's nappy twice. I remember changing our kids' nappies and was happy that I could carry on reading an e-book on my Sony reader, instead.

I wouldn't have thought changing a baby's nappy would be a moral issue, but rather a health and hygiene one. I don't particuafly need to see a pooey nappy in public view but would suggest they go to the change tables designed for that purpose. But breastfeeding is entirely different and should be acceptable everywhere.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Pushka

I wouldn't have thought changing a baby's nappy would be a moral issue, but rather a health and hygiene one. I don't particuafly need to see a pooey nappy in public view but would suggest they go to the change tables designed for that purpose. But breastfeeding is entirely different and should be acceptable everywhere.

I don't know what facilities were available to her, but the airport was extremely crowded at the time. In France, during holiday peak times, women frequently use the men's toilets (not for changing nappies), for example, at autoroute stops, because they don't want to queue. I have lived in both the US and EU, so I am familiar with the different attitudes to nudity and some of the paradoxes, and hypocrisies. For example, we can freely discuss aspects of paedophilia, or child pornography, and so on (but not religion or politics) yet some people get upset when a woman's breast is exposed. As you said, go figure.

[Pushka]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

I don't know what facilities were available to her, but the airport was extremely crowded at the time. I have lived in both the US and EU, so I am familiar with the different attitudes and some of the paradoxes. For example, in France, during holiday peak times, women frequently use the men's toilets, for example, at autoroute stops, because they don't want to queue.

Yup, I have done that myself!
For me, changing a nappy in public is not about concerns of seeing a child undressed etc etc, but everything to do with public hygeine. I used to carry a small plastic mat that I could put on a washable floor in the toilets if a table wasn't available. I would do that in the hand washing area. I really hate it when I see a nappy changed in public areas. And that includes babies I have seen being changed on an airline seat instead of the toilet. Just not on.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by frquixote

From law.com: "While pedophilia is not in of itself a federal crime in the United States, if this psychiatric disorder causes a person to commit such crimes as child abuse or the acquisition of child pornography, then a pedophile may be subject to arrest and punishment by U.S. federal authorities. As such, the legal language concerning pedophilia related crimes can be located in Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), the comprehensive and officially accepted collection of U.S. federal statutes. 18 U.S.C. 2251-2260 involve the creation and possession of child pornography, and related sexual abuse of minors, as represents a frequent manifestation of pedophilia. In this section Sections 2253 and 2254 allow forfeiture, respectively under criminal and civil law, of pedophile related pornography. 2259 requires compensation to the subjects of pedophile pornography. 18 U.S.C. §§2241-2248 pertain to the punishment of pedophile offenders, according to whether they use violent force and their victim’s age."

If the book describes the behaviors that are considered child abuse with the intent of titillating the reader, it meets the federal definition of child pornography and both the author and Amazon should be prosecuted.

The last is your opinion, those words are not part of what you quoted which clearly does not apply to the book in question - neither the law interpretation quoted or your opinion of what the books is.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

..
Accusations of religious bigotry are a reference to religion. So, are you saying that someone can reference a religion, but not discuss it? If so, then kindly define the rules for referencing religion.
....

It needs to be relevant to the subject at hand, not generic preaching of morals --- such as this whole breastfeeding thing.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It needs to be relevant to the subject at hand, not generic preaching of morals --- such as this whole breastfeeding thing.

So, in this context, religion needs to be relevant to paedophilia. I think paedophilia is relevant to morality, and I think morality is relevant to religion, for the reasons that I have already mentioned. Therefore, I think religion is relevant to paedophilia. Nevertheless, I understand the forum rules about religion and that you don't agree with them, as you indicated in your PM.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

So, in this context, religion needs to be relevant to paedophilia. I think paedophilia is relevant to morality, and I think morality is relevant to religion, for the reasons that I have already mentioned. Therefore, I think religion is relevant to paedophilia. Nevertheless, I understand the forum rules about religion and that you don't agree with them, as you indicated in your PM.

What? The point is to stick to the topic. Not twelve degrees of separation. Not general proselytizing.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

That's started me wondering where the word "pussy" actually came from. Etymology Online isn't much help, at least with the cat sense of the word. But it seems like too much of a coincidence that the Russian word for one of the major attributes of cats is so close to one of the terms used for cats. Hmm ... what other languages have cognates to "pussy"? "Puss" has references to both Romance and Germanic languages.

I've already said that hypothetical "Pushka" meaning is derived from "fluff" (like birds have), not "fur" (like cats have)

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Pushka

now that very issue gets back to what I said pages ago that the USA appears to have such a paradox when it comes to breasts (I referred to Janet Jackson's costume accident and the furore that caused) and the fact that people defend the publication of a book that instructs people to commit the crime of pedophillia, on the basis of the first amendment. It is illegal to breastfeed a baby in public in a large number of States, yet such a book is legal. Go figure.

It is illegal to rape children, yet the book describing raping children is legal. And the book describing breastfeeding is perfectly legal; i doubt such a book can cause controversy.

PS: I don't get the point of restricting breastfeeding in public by law.

[penartur]

Originally Posted by Pushka

Yup, I have done that myself!
For me, changing a nappy in public is not about concerns of seeing a child undressed etc etc, but everything to do with public hygeine. I used to carry a small plastic mat that I could put on a washable floor in the toilets if a table wasn't available. I would do that in the hand washing area. I really hate it when I see a nappy changed in public areas. And that includes babies I have seen being changed on an airline seat instead of the toilet. Just not on.

Yes, just as with pooing on the public.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What? The point is to stick to the topic. Not twelve degrees of separation. Not general proselytizing.

Proselytizing means: to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

Now, assuming that it's me who you are accusing of "general proselytizing":

Firstly, I am not religious, so I have most certainly not been trying to convert anyone from atheism (or secularism), to any religion (or from one religion to another), nor vice-versa, which is more than can be said for some contributors here.

Secondly, as regards converting someone from one non-religious belief, or opinion, to another non-religious belief, then the same applies. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, however obviously I have opinions about things and where I feel that they differ from others, I feel entitled to point them out - in compliance with forum rules. Or, would that be breaking the rules, as well?

I assume that others feel free to disagree with my opinions, as I am doing here now with yours. Surely that is the purpose of this discussion. Also, I presume that if a Moderator feels that I have breached forum rules, then they will tell me. However, if you prefer, I will gladly send you anything that I propose to post in this thread beforehand, in case you consider it to be "general proselytizing" and want to censor it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Proselytizing means: to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

Now, assuming that it's me who you are accusing of "general proselytizing":
..

I assume that others feel free to disagree with my opinions, as I am doing here now with yours. Surely that is the purpose of this discussion....[/INDENT]

No this it not a general let's chat and discuss thread. Each thread has a specific topic under discussion and YOU SIR are off topic, as is general proselytizing.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No this it not a general let's chat and discuss thread. Each thread has a specific topic under discussion and YOU SIR are off topic, as is general proselytizing.

Oh, so you think all your posts have been on topic? The idiom, "the pot calling the kettle black", springs to mind.

For example, your Post #679 in this thread.

BTW - Why haven't you similarly accused AGB, who after all posted two videos (ie Posts #916 & 921) preaching atheism (or secularism), of "general proselytizing", or is he an exception to your no proselytizing rule, because his "proselytizing" isn't general enough?

[AGB]

Perhaps it has to do with context. I don't go posting videos such as that without having run into a stonewall of ridiculous religious pseudo-argumentation.

Oh, and neither of them is really about "preaching atheism". One of them was a song that examplified how tv preachers and the like are in it for the money, and the other was commenting on the demand for respect so often demanded by religious people.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Oh good, I didn't miss tonight's edition of Smiley Theater.

Looks like I was having some smiley fun last night. Not even sure what I was doing on this thread. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I may have remembered that it had gotten way off topic. Ambien keeps mornings interesting.