Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[recluse]

The simple fact that people could, in good conscience, defend this kind of filth and, when called on it, try to derail the discussion away from the issue shows that, deep down, they know they are wrong and simply don't have the guts to admit it.
That's mob rule.
You reap what you sow.
For myself and everyone who can recognize evil and are willing to tell the morally bankrupt where to go and how to get there, all that's left is a statement that I know you will find offensive:
God help the children.
No one else will.

"A kid in an abusive home has fewer rights than a POW. There is no Geneva Convention for kids."~ Andrew Vachss

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by recluse

The existence of child molestors is a crime against nature and humanity.
The defense of the existence of the ebook or any material that promotes, aids or excites child molestors is a crime against morality and common sense

You started out well. And then you wrote this -

Originally Posted by recluse

People who fear censorship are people who are doing something wrong.

Shoulda quit while you were ahead

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Piper_

No, I was pointing out that this experience shows that most people are capable of observing the critical distinctions between types of "offense," and can thus make good value judgments without causing injustice.

Yes, people are capable of deciding what they think is acceptable and what they think is unacceptable. And if you ask 10 people, you'll get 12 different answers. The danger is when someone decides that their "being offended" is the real, true "being offended" that counts, therefore it is okay to silence the speech that offends you-- that your subjective opinion is objective fact. It is easy to defend "freedom of speech" when it is speech you agree with-- but if you don't also defend the freedom of speech that you find utterly vile and repugnant, then you aren't defending freedom of speech.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

You want to hide behind the first amendment and freeddom of speech, fine, cower behind it. But I live in a country where we are free to make our choice, and it's obvious that WE THE PEOPLE made the choice that it was offensive and it was listened to!

Was it YOUR choice?? NO, but when the hell did the world revolve around you? End of story, welcome to America enjoy your stay, and if you don't like it, we've got two borders, have a safe trip.

Welcome to America-- a free country where if you want to follow the US Constitution, you are a coward who should leave! Woo-hoo!

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some people idiotically persist in saying that they are somehow fighting against the evils of censorship, when CENSORSHIP IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. No law prevents this book from existing, no one has thrown the author in jail for his writings, no government bureaucrat or legislator has suggested new regulations or introduced a law, no one but the consumers have pressured Amazon. There is no censorship issue here.

CENSOR
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

You find the book objectionable and want it removed from Amazon. How is censorship NOT the issue here? Some people idiotically persist in saying that somehow books commit crimes and guns kill people.

[jhempel24]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Welcome to America-- a free country where if you want to follow the US Constitution, you are a coward who should leave! Woo-hoo!

LOL, love the images.

But you missed the entire point....

We exercised our freedom of speech by saying it was in-excusable, just because you don't like it in this instance doesn't make you right.

There are plenty of things people have to deal with regarding "free speech", like the protests at the funerals of the soldiers....it's not right, but it's freedom of speech.

Either way, both sides won't budge, the argument here is pointless, the thread should be locked, I won't post in it again.

[NVash]

Would I be wrong if I asked these three questions?

1) Why does such a book even exist?
2) Who in the World would write this kind of book?
3) Why would one want to read it?

I dont think this even falls under 'I want to see why its banned'. Im still trying to understand how this even got on Amazon to begin with.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by NVash

Would I be wrong if I asked these three questions?

1) Why does such a book even exist?
2) Who in the World would write this kind of book?
3) Why would one want to read it?

I dont think this even falls under 'I want to see why its banned'. Im still trying to understand how this even got on Amazon to begin with.

Because you can self publish. So a twisted asshole wrote this book and very few people want to read it. The only ones who want to read it are sick and need some serious help before they hurt someone or are pedophiles whose ass belongs in jail.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by NVash

1) Why does such a book even exist?
2) Who in the World would write this kind of book?
3) Why would one want to read it?

Seems pretty clear to me--

1.) To help pedophiles be better pedophiles.
2.) A pedophile.
3.) Pedophiles.

(I never said that it was nice speech.)

But don't worry-- instead of doing the intelligent thing and ignoring the ebook, where it would have continued to wallow in obscurity, it is now one of the most famous books on the internet for the moment, and will soon surely be available from many sources for free. Morons who don't learn from the Streisand effect are doomed to fall victim to it.

[basschick]

and someone else will have a different "one time" where they would like to see a book removed. and yet someone else, a different "one time". if each person can censor the one thing they find disgusting, there'd be no religious books, no violent books, and apparently no harry potter, just to name a few. censoring any book is a very slippery slope.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This is one time I would like to see Amazon remove a book from all Kindles that have it on it and also take it out of people's archives on Amazon.

there's books like "the anarchist cookbook" that includes info on how to make speed from inhalers and how to make explosives, and it can be bought in all the usual places. i'd suspect it's a lot more likely for one of us to be blown up by someone who read that book and was curious and angry than for a non-pedo to suddenly start molesting children based on something he read.

i find the idea of pedo books vile. on the other hand, did you know that adult bookstores carry magazines that print readers supposedly fictional fantasies of adult incest? pretty gross, totally legal and i'm betting many of the stories are not fictional and the ages were changed so they'd be printable. the world is probably quite full of books that i'd find disgusting and will definitely never read.

[Salgueiros]

i am all for free speech and i defend the right to freely talk without fearing puynishment for insulting someone. I do feel that political correctness thwarts much of the discussion and debate we should have as a free society.

But this book.... i can't stop feeling sick just by knowing there was or is someone with the perverse audacity to write and publish such a thing. It revolts me and makes me disbelieve a bit in some of my fellow citizens... you tell me it is just a book, but what a punch in my stomach.

I do feel that the limit of my tolerance has been tested with this thing.

[LDBoblo]

I keep seeing at least three consistent ideas being carried forward in this thread, and sadly I've not really participated on all sides:

1) Retailer discretion and market-based censorship is not really a legal issue. For better or worse, Amazon caved to consumer pressure, and that's perfectly legit in the American marketplace (relevance is primary).
2) Pedophilia is evil and a book that condones, endorses, or advocates pedophilia is likewise evil and should not exist. Usually attempts some kind of emotional appeal, and condemns Category 3's position as detestable as well (personal judgment is primary).
3) Legal censorship that people under category 2 directly or indirectly advocate are wrong and the suppression of even reprehensible content in such a way is also wrong (reaction is primary)

Category 1 then tries to reiterate to Category 3 that it's not a legal issue at all, while Category 3 focuses on Category 2, hoping that Category 2 will not recruit more Category 2s from the periphery.

There are also people suggesting exclusivity of the topic to those with personal experience, and then using their personal experience (genuine or fabricated) to vindicate their rejection of other opinions. Then, there are those who claim to be reasonable by saying they support freedom of speech, then append it with but..., which is essentially not supporting freedom of speech.

Hope this is helpful for those Category 1s who keep pulling their hair every time a Cat2 or Cat3 post comes up, despite your best efforts.

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

i am all for free speech and i defend the right to freely talk without fearing puynishment for insulting someone. I do feel that political correctness thwarts much of the discussion and debate we should have as a free society.

But this book.... i can't stop feeling sick just by knowing there was or is someone with the perverse audacity to write and publish such a thing. It revolts me and makes me disbelieve a bit in some of my fellow citizens... you tell me it is just a book, but what a punch in my stomach.

I do feel that the limit of my tolerance has been tested with this thing.

You, and everyone who feels a sense of outrage that this book could be published, and defended by certain sectors of the public, feel a sense of outrage.

The fact is that during all of the 'nit picking' and throwing up of different
subjects, that behind all of the smoke and mirrors, are....children.

I had my Vent and Rant in another section.

It's interesting to read where some posters priorities are.

Cheers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

I used it to keep it within the political realm, I wasn't confusing the two



So if I'm understanding you right, lets say the presidential election for instance: We vote, the government listens (because we don't really vote in, the electoral college does), so that's mob rule? LOL, either way, I gotta get Guido's opinion on this.

Ah but in the case of elections, everyone (in theory) participates based on the constitution not a gang of seven dressed in white robes with tar and feathers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

...

Either way, both sides won't budge, the argument here is pointless, the thread should be locked, I won't post in it again.

Oh and so now we have the declaration of "The FINAL WORD" - I'm taking my toys and going home.