Amazon Defends Pedophile Book

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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

Its not morality. The author is sick.

I find it astounding that anyone would defend the right to publish such a book.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by NVash

I think the point is that Lolita could be considered the very same, except its supposedly a story about a man and a girl. I have to agree, I think its a red herring.

BTW, I know Im late but excellent post Worldwalker.

Pedophilia victims are generally children under the age of 12, although not always.

Lolits was about a teen age girl and an old guy who had similar problems to a pedophile.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Joebill

...

I find it astounding that anyone would defend the right to publish such a book.

I find it astounding that anyone could oppose the principles on which our great republic was built.

[Joebill]

I am for the First Amendment.

But books about pedophilia, and how to do it; how to enslave someone; how to setup a cremation oven so thousands a week can be murdered in them; etc. are NOT acceptible.

Those actions should disappear forever. Documenting on how to accomplish such actions is wrong.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by AGB

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.

I don't like the Nazis nor the Communists, but we should document the death camps and pogroms they engaged in.

But I see no reason to produce a how to book on how to conduct a pogrom or death camp.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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

Well, we could revert to the morality of my Comanche ancestors.. raid white settlements, scalp people. Or be like the Ancient Romans or Ancient Greeks, they engaged in such pedophlia. Or bring back the Nazis, they claimed to be moral and created death camps. Or the Communists, and pogrom villages out of existance.

But most of humanity has learned that slavery, pedophilia, death camps, pogroms, etc. are wrong and shouldn't be done.

So it isn't my morality, but the morality of those who refuse to repeat, nor tolerate, such evil acts.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I don't like the Nazis nor the Communists, but we should document the death camps and pogroms they engaged in.

But I see no reason to produce a how to book on how to conduct a pogrom or death camp.

There may well be no reason someone we think of as a good person would write such a book. But when we give our government the power to say "Someone doesn't think you should write a book about this" then we're giving away a very important right. We're letting someone else decide for us what kinds of books should be written. And when we let someone make that decision, history and the present day show us that they will decide that books which defame the state and its leaders, which disagree with its official philosophies, and which contradict its social theories, are very, very high on the list of books that should not be written. That is why it is the people and ideas on the margins, not in the mainstream, which need to be defended. When we let rights be eroded at the margins, all of a sudden we discover that those margins have moved inward and now include us.

For a case in point, look at Venezuela.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Joebill

I am for the First Amendment.

But books about pedophilia, and how to do it; how to enslave someone; how to setup a cremation oven so thousands a week can be murdered in them; etc. are NOT acceptible.

Those actions should disappear forever. Documenting on how to accomplish such actions is wrong.

Then you are against free speech despite what you say.

You can't have it both ways.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Its not morality. The author is sick.

I find it astounding that anyone would defend the right to publish such a book.

What do you have against the first amendment? Why does it bother you so?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Well, we could revert to the morality of my Comanche ancestors.. raid white settlements, scalp people.

We recently did that when Bush started an unwarranted war against the Iraqis and slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. Disgusting, wasn't it?

Looks like we haven't learned wrong from right yet. Some guy's how to guide pales in comparison to the atrocities we committed over there.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Pedophilia victims are generally children under the age of 12, although not always.

Lolits was about a teen age girl and an old guy who had similar problems to a pedophile.

Teenager, child, same difference in the eyes of the law IIRC. Maybe Im beating a dead horse here but Im not getting whats being said. Lolita could be the same thing. Add a few years to the main characters love interest and tell it from the pedophiles point of view, look at that, a story that doubles as a how to guide.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Joebill

Pedophilia victims are generally children under the age of 12, although not always.

Lolits was about a teen age girl and an old guy who had similar problems to a pedophile.

Lolita was 12. You should read the book.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Lolita was 12. You should read the book.

You beat me to it.

Lolita is quite disturbing, IIRC, because the narrator thinks of her as a child, she is a child, yet he lusts after her sexually.

Not saying it should be banned, at all. I'm a big supporter of the US Constitution's First Amendment.

. Lolita could be the same thing. Add a few years to the main characters love interest and tell it from the pedophiles point of view, look at that, a story that doubles as a how to guide

I believe Lolita IS told from the pedophile's POV. But it's been 20 years since I read it so I'm not sure.

Humbert Humbert is overcome by guilt due to his relationship with Lolita, so the book is not supportive of pedophelia if one takes the trouble to read it. It's a tragedy.

[HansTWN]

Then what about those forensic shows, they are like a how-to manual. Always clean up your blood residues with bleach, etc. Where does it stop? Most importantly, who plays god and draws the line for the rest of us?

According to the law, the author did nothing wrong. He may be a sick SOB but you cannot punish someone for thinking about a crime. We don't have a thought police, yet. But I believe free speech is in danger in American society today. Vocal minorities try to control what is shown on TV, make books disappear. No politician can be elected without at least pretending to hold strong religious views.

You cannot accuse people of supporting evil acts when they stand up for free speech. And the argument fiction vs non-fiction makes no sense either. That would mean that you would have to accept the very same book slightly rewritten into a story. Nothing would be easier.

[JLeighs]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What do you have against the first amendment? Why does it bother you so?

Now THIS is a classic straw man argument. Someone objects to someone else being able to legally publish a how-to guide for pedophiles, including condom alternatives to fit little boys who are too small for over-the-counter condoms, and your response is to ask what he has against the 1st amendment? Really?