DescentBB

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:Sometimes I wonder, and this is not an attempt to excuse any wrong doing or anything but I do wonder if some of these horrendous experiences are only horrendous due to being told it is in fact, a horrendous thing.

So if someone says it is not horrendous then it is O.K.? Let me see what the proper response is...oh yeah! Facepalm!!

And then it's also okay to grossly misinterpret forum posts in order to smear someone? Let me see what the proper response is...oh yeah! Facepalm!!

OK, I'll bite. Just how did I misinterpret? Please parse his post so I can understand the error of my question.

null0010 wrote:And Foil, you are making that connection for yourself.

I stand corrected, as Mjolnir responded and clarified his statement.

woodchip wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:Sometimes I wonder, and this is not an attempt to excuse any wrong doing or anything but I do wonder if some of these horrendous experiences are only horrendous due to being told it is in fact, a horrendous thing.

So if someone says it is not horrendous then it is O.K.? Let me see what the proper response is...oh yeah! Facepalm!!

Nice try, trying to jab back at me like that but once again you show how tightly shoved into your little box you are, thus once again causing me to facepalm.

woodchip wrote:Just how did I misinterpret? Please parse his post so I can understand the error of my question.

Well, I suppose you could start by reading his subsequent replies.

I don't see any explanation of why he is unsure as to whether or not it becomes a bad thing when it is forced.

I'm not accusing him of being a predator or excusing them but the inability to determine when forced sex is a bad thing is what he said.

null you can create all the red herrings you want but the question remains because his statement hasn't been clarified...and I do hope it was simply a miscommunication and that he actually is aware that forced sex is bad...period.

Why would anyone ever say \"sometimes rape is okay\"? You are finding an issue where there is none, and you are also not reading his replies.

null0010 wrote:Why would anyone ever say "sometimes rape is okay"?

I don't know why anyone would say that. While you are trying to find an answer find out why anyone would say: "but I guess it does become a bad experience when it's forced to a point or lead in a direction they wouldn't naturally go."
Why would they have an uncertainty as to whether sex forced on someone is bad?

null0010 wrote:You are finding an issue where there is none, and you are also not reading his replies.

No, I'm finding an issue with the very thing I quoted. It is odd to me that he would say that and I haven't seen a reply from him that clears it up.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, you have proven to turn a blind eye to a number of things.

You are quibbling over a word. One word.

null0010 wrote:You are quibbling over a word. One word.

I am facepalming over a word. One word. Facepalm.

People, learn to make criticisms more incisive and clear than "facepalm". Please, won't you think of the faces being palmed?

I cant believe we are even discussing the merits of a book about Pedophilia

I suggest Null, You let Mjolnir defend himself. While Mjolnir has clarified his statement, I accept it to a point. Perhaps both you Null and Mjolnir understand that this board is not like the liberal forums you are used to posting on.

woodchip wrote:I suggest Null, You let Mjolnir defend himself. While Mjolnir has clarified his statement, I accept it to a point. Perhaps both you Null and Mjolnir understand that this board is not like the liberal forums you are used to posting on.

I still think it's hilarious that you think I'm a liberal.

woodchip wrote:I suggest Null, You let Mjolnir defend himself. While Mjolnir has clarified his statement, I accept it to a point. Perhaps both you Null and Mjolnir understand that this board is not like the liberal forums you are used to posting on.

Right, I forgot Conservatives have no basis in abstract thinking. You're still mad at Galileo aren't you?

Here’s a clue for ya…some conservatives are not Christians.

Spidey wrote:Here’s a clue for ya…some conservatives are not Christians.

Correct, they're crazy right wing Christians

Mjolnir wrote:

Spidey wrote:Here’s a clue for ya…some conservatives are not Christians.

Correct, they're crazy right wing Christians

Not really the best way to further your point.

Yes I necroposted But it pertains to the book I first posted about. Seems the Author of the book mailed a copy of it to Florida police and now has been arrested for distribution of obscene material. The Sheriff of Polk county goes on and describes how the book outlines how to pick out the most vulnerable and how to teach them to lie to their parents and preparing the child for sex also how to avoid injury to the child. I guess that's the better nature for a sick individual known as a Pedophile.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/22/flo ... tml?hpt=T2

Well if the author was arrested for distribution, shouldn't who ever at Amazon that put the book up for sale on amazons website be arrested also?

Yea, and nail UPS & USPS for shipping it!

No, I don’t believe it’s the sellers job to determine the legality of a book. Should a seller have to read every book, and have a staff of lawyers on hand?

Normally no Spidey, but when the title of the book is \"Pedophiles Guide To\" then some alarm bells ought to go off.

Sure, but you would also have to go after the publisher and printer.

And the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker.

Considering books on making bombs and guides to computer hacking are sold without a problem (as they should be, thank you First Amendment), I see absolutely zero legal issue with the mere existence of this book, regardless of how many pages allegedly detail the best way to molest children, infants, the family pet, or industrial tractors.

That this man was arrested for distributing the printed word is a ludicrous offense against the First Amendment, no matter what flimsy justification a backwards state might cook up. There is no crime in writing a book, no matter how offensive or disgusting it might be.

and you can own pictures of Bombs and computers as you should. thank you first Amendment.

but owning a picture of a minor in a sexualy explicit position is a felony as it should be.
But I digress. your completely missing the point. ANY exploitation of a juvenile is and should be a felony and any book that is a How to on the sexual exploitation of a juvenile should be banned.

CUDA wrote:But I digress. your completely missing the point. ANY exploitation of a juvenile is and should be a felony and any book that is a How to on the sexual exploitation of a juvenile should be banned.

But I digress. your completely missing the point. ANY detonation of an incendiary device is and should be a felony and any book that is a How to on the design and mechanics of an incendiary device should be banned.

Incendiary devices are illegal? Since when?

Spidey wrote:Incendiary devices are illegal? Since when?

Someone should tell the People that put on the fireworks display at Fort Vancouver every year about that

Hello!

Your analogy is off, null. Based on the summary posted earlier of the book's content, it would be akin to publishing a book instructing the reader on not only the means of building the explosive device, but also on how to carry out an attack with it. Your innocent analogy would better fit a book on the topic of pediatrics.

I believe that anyone involved in the publishing of this book could very well be held accountable. The title should be enough to give anyone pause, so ignorance of its content, if ignorance might be the excuse, is willful.

The whole thing is very evil, and it makes me very angry to hear about it. First amendment my ass. I would join a posse to round up the bastard that would teach someone how to take advantage of a child. And I'd have more than half a mind to shoot the man just for the part about hiding it from the parents. Terribly, terribly evil.

null0010 wrote:

CUDA wrote:But I digress. your completely missing the point. ANY exploitation of a juvenile is and should be a felony and any book that is a How to on the sexual exploitation of a juvenile should be banned.

But I digress. your completely missing the point. ANY detonation of an incendiary device is and should be a felony and any book that is a How to on the design and mechanics of an incendiary device should be banned.

So this forum should be banned?

http://reloaders.gunloads.com/

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Hello!

Your analogy is off, null. Based on the summary posted earlier of the book's content, it would be akin to publishing a book instructing the reader on not only the means of building the explosive device, but also on how to carry out an attack with it. Your innocent analogy would better fit a book on the topic of pediatrics.

EXCELLENT job Thorne. you are exactly correct

CUDA wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Hello!

Your analogy is off, null. Based on the summary posted earlier of the book's content, it would be akin to publishing a book instructing the reader on not only the means of building the explosive device, but also on how to carry out an attack with it. Your innocent analogy would better fit a book on the topic of pediatrics.

EXCELLENT job Thorne. you are exactly correct

And what about the books on computer hacking I mentioned? Did that suddenly become legal and/or not harmful to society?

you seem to constantly want to defend this Pedophile and his book. one wonders why?

CUDA wrote:you seem to constantly want to defend this Pedophile and his book. one wonders why?

Isnt it possible hes defending free speech instead of the pedophile? One can defend an idea even if the person behind is is revolting.

Avder wrote:

CUDA wrote:you seem to constantly want to defend this Pedophile and his book. one wonders why?

Isnt it possible hes defending free speech instead of the pedophile? One can defend an idea even if the person behind is is revolting.

Oh hey, look, we have a winner. You know,

Voltaire wrote:I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

.

Avder wrote:

CUDA wrote:you seem to constantly want to defend this Pedophile and his book. one wonders why?

Isnt it possible hes defending free speech instead of the pedophile? One can defend an idea even if the person behind is is revolting.

yelling Fire in a crowded room is not constitutional free speech. writing a how to book on pedophelia is the same

try using racial slurs in a public place and see what happens

CUDA wrote:

Avder wrote:

CUDA wrote:you seem to constantly want to defend this Pedophile and his book. one wonders why?

Isnt it possible hes defending free speech instead of the pedophile? One can defend an idea even if the person behind is is revolting.

yelling Fire in a crowded room is not constitutional free speech. writing a how to book on pedophelia is the same

I'm not defending the book or its publisher. I'm merely saying that there is a free speech aspect to this problem and Null is likely defending free speech instead of the pedophile and the book.

One could also make the point that Law Enforcement and concerned parents may want to read this book to see what warning signs they may need to look for. In the fight against pedophilia, one of the best weapons would seem to be knowing ones enemy, and here is the enemies playbook for all to read.

No one should ever be arrested for writing and publishing a book, no matter how offensive or disgusting or morally reprehensible. This is why we in the United States protect the free speech of neo-nazis and anarchists and Charles Manson and congressmen.

Bet51987 wrote:...it's disgusting that some here would defend that book and it's publisher.

My understanding (from earlier posts in this thread) was that the book teaches pedophiles not to act on their urges.

Is that not the case?

null0010 wrote:...and congressmen.

null0010 wrote:No one should ever be arrested for writing and publishing a book, no matter how offensive or disgusting or morally reprehensible. This is why we in the United States protect the free speech of neo-nazis and anarchists and Charles Manson and congressmen.

I like how you grouped congress in with neo-nazis and Manson.

Personally I dont know where I stand on the book itself. On the one hand I want to defend it as free speech and can imagine several cases where it could potentially provide benefit of some kind like the one I thought of above.

On the other hand, pedophilia is more revolting and disgusting to me than murder-one and that this book got published is extremely disgusting. The supreme court has held that certain things like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater are not protected forms of speech, and I could certainly envision the current court finding against this book, but I personally just cant decide if this book should be protected or not.

With that, I probably have to default towards free speech since it is better to let a criminal go free than to jail an innocent in my mind.