Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Make what true? I'm asking your opinion. You keep avoiding that by talking about truths and my incorrect opinion.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE FOLLOWING: (I figure is if I make if larger and bold you will see that I what I am asking for is YOUR opinion.

Very simply put, do you believe that people have the right, under the umbrella of 'Free Speech' to publish;

Child Pornography
National Defense secretes
Truck routes for disposal of Nuclear Waste
Secret Service Plans for protecting the President
Everyone's medical records

I'm not stating any of my opinions. I am not making any 'statements' that can be evaluated for truth or fiction. I am not accusing anyone. I am not condemning anyone.

I am asking you to show us YOUR position on these five issues as they relate to Free Speech. Nothing more. Nothing less. And I'll bet dollars to donuts you avoid the answers once again...


Stitchawl

You're trying to misrepresent what Kenny says in attempt to "prove" that Kenny is not speaking for free speach, but rather that he is speaking for publishing of very specific things.

It's intellectual dishonesty to pretend Kenny must be pro those things you mention because he speaks of the principles of free speech, and how - if we took your arguments to heart - it would be policing people's thoughts, and since we don't want to do that, we have to tolerate some thoughts we don't like. That's the price to pay.

One can defend someone's rights even if not practicing them, or even without condoning the actual usage of such rights.

That is, I'm all for gay rights, but that doesn't mean I'm gay.
I'm all for abortion, but that doesn't mean any and all abortions sit right with me.
I'm against a society of snitches, but that doesn't mean I don't think you should report your neighbor if you think he's selling drugs or worse.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm not playing your game.

Understandably. Quoting theory works for you, but when pressed for specifics it fails you.

I've stated exactly and precisely what my opinion is about the topic under discussion.

You've given us the noble statement that nothing must be censored. "Free Speech!" And it sounds very pretty until you get down to specifics, and that seems to be where the trouble is.

You continue to try and spin and twist and avoid admitting that you do not understand what free speech really is.

My last three posts to you had absolutely no statements about my own feelings regarding Free Speech. None. So there really couldn't have been any 'spin.' There couldn't have been any 'twist.' They were asking YOU if you believed that it applied to five different areas. The only twisting being done is by you squirming to get out of answering difficult questions.

And I admit they are difficult questions to deal with regarding Free Speech. That's why I asked them. It's easy to quote theory. It's not so easy to put that theory into practice. That's what I was asking you to do. And you failed to do so. I probably would too. As I said, they are difficult situations when put against Free Speech.

You say I'm spinning. You say I'm twisting the truth. You say I don't understand. I say simply answer the question; do you believe we have the right to publish your medical records, violating your privacy, and say that we can do so because of Free Speech? Is your belief in Free Speech so great that you will give up your privacy?

Do you say that you can publicly publish the placement of our nuclear defense missiles and our Homeland defense strategies, and do so because of Free Speech? Is your belief in Free Speech so great that you will give up your country's security and safety?

I'm sorry, but not everything is covered by Theories, and frankly, I'd like to think you realize this.


Stitchawl

[AGB]

Yes, misrepresenting the other party in relation to context or other spin can very well be done when merely asking questions. I think the term in English is "a loaded question".

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

You're trying to misrepresent what Kenny says in attempt to "prove" that Kenny is not speaking for free speach, but rather that he is speaking for publishing of very specific things.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.

It's intellectual dishonesty to pretend Kenny must be pro those things you mention because he speaks of the principles of free speech,

I'm not asking him to be pro or con. I'm just asking a question.


[quote[ and how - if we took your arguments to heart - it would be policing people's thoughts, [/quote]

I'm not advancing any arguments. I'm just asking a question.

Would you like to answer those questions?


Stitchawl

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yes, misrepresenting the other party in relation to context or other spin can very well be done when merely asking questions. I think the term in English is "a loaded question".

In this case, the questions actually get to the heart of the matter. They remove the theoretical side of the issue, which is very easy to deal with, and bring up the practical application side which is NOT so easy to deal with.

It's easy for people to spout rhetoric. It's not so easy to defend it in real time and space.


Stitchawl

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm asking a question.

As I have already said, asking a question can very well be a loaded question:
"Minister, have you beaten your wife recently?".

That's an example which should show you that even if the Minister has never ever beaten anyone, the "recently" more than implies that he has done it in the past.

I'm not asking him to be pro or con. I'm just asking a question.

Yes a very loaded question that is inherently an attempt to misrepresent what he says. No matter what he will say, you will conclude on it, and then we have a full-on strawman. And that is a logical fallacy.

I'm not advancing any arguments. I'm just asking a question.

See above.

Would you like to answer those questions?

See above.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yes, misrepresenting the other party in relation to context or other spin can very well be done when merely asking questions. I think the term in English is "a loaded question".

No one is asking if he did or did not do something. It's asking his stance on the matter. He is free to say yes or no depending ONLY on his opinion of how they relate to Free Speech.
In this case, the questions actually get to the heart of the matter, rather than being directed 'loaded' questions. They remove the theoretical side of the issue, which is very easy to deal with, and bring up the practical application side which is NOT so easy to deal with.

It's easy for people to spout rhetoric. It's not so easy to defend it in real time and space.


Stitchawl

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

In this case, the questions actually get to the heart of the matter.

And here you were, pretending it was "just" a question, when in fact, it was the groundwork for your strawman.

They remove the theoretical side of the issue, which is very easy to deal with, and bring up the practical application side which is NOT so easy to deal with.

Actually, he has explained at length to you why something falls under other laws. You're not only advocating thought police, you're so entrenched that you still haven't figured out, that he's being arrested for some "obscenity" law in another state. So your very question that continues to revolve around "child molestation" and "sex offender" is way out of proportion. Neither of those are protected under free speech, as it is an act.

It's easy for people to spout rhetoric. It's not so easy to defend it in real time and space.

Yup, you were very quick to dismiss something as "Theories", arguing that it is opposed to reality, and more than inferring that we should let feelings and mob mentality rule our respective societies.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yes a very loaded question that is inherently an attempt to misrepresent what he says.

How can I misrepresent an opinion? He either believes the situations are covered by Free Speech or he does NOT believe they are covered by Free Speech.

As I said, it's easy to be theoretical. Reality offers other challenges.


Stitchawl

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

Yup, you were very quick to dismiss something as "Theories", arguing that it is opposed to reality, and more than inferring that we should let feelings and mob mentality rule our respective societies.

So give us your reality. Is EVERYTHING covered by Free Speech?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


Stitchawl

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Writing a how to book on committing such a crime is not free speech. Its Evil. Its Wrong. It should be stopped.

Then don't read it. Just don't force your morality upon the rest of society.

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

How can I misrepresent an opinion? He either believes the situations are covered by Free Speech or he does NOT believe they are covered by Free Speech.

You still don't understand that your question is so off, because they fall under other laws. For instance, child pornography would be proof of child molestation, and "everyone's medical records" would fall for privacy laws.

So, if one says, no, not all of that is okay to publish, you will go "Aha! So there are limits to freedom of speech!" and thereby have concluded your strawman.

As I said, it's easy to be theoretical. Reality offers other challenges.

Again you continue to make-believe that theory opposes reality, and if that wasn't enough, apparently "theory" is what you use when someone argues principles from an intellectual standpoint instead of an emotional one.
I'd also make the claim, that it's far easier to let one's emotions rule and join that lynch mob than it is to take a step back, and go against one's emotions.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

Actually, he has explained at length to you why something falls under other laws.

So this suggests that other laws can negate Free Speech? Is this really what you mean to say? That it's Free Speech for some things but not others if other laws prevent it? Hey, that's what I've been after all along.

I guess we need to call it 'Almost Free Speech.'


Stitchawl

[AGB]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

So this suggests that other laws can negate Free Speech? Is this really what you mean to say? That it's Free Speech for some things but not others if other laws prevent it? Hey, that's what I've been after all along.

I guess we need to call it 'Almost Free Speech.'

And there came the conclusion of the strawman

But, anyway, you're trying to argue that because free speech is limited in some quite different circumstances, then it should be limited here too. The dangerous reasoning behind that is, just what this is about: You don't want anyone to talk about something you/we don't like.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by AGB

You don't want anyone to talk about something you/we don't like.

Looking back at my posts on this subject, the only personal statements I made came at the very beginning when I said;
"It is up to the courts now to decide if he's guilty or innocent."
Yet so many people have said that I'm espousing this or that, out to lynch the man, pushing my own agenda, and now you telling me that I don't want anyone to talk about something you/we don't like.

I think this is called 'projection.'

Gotta catch a plane now. Enjoy the rest of this thread, and Merry Christmas to all!

Stitchawl